17-55 good enough? Or FX

K

kartracer

Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
I'm shooting a lot of indoor events, with a D90 and 18-200. Martial arts, ballet, plays, etc. This is amateur only. Flash is a no-no, and image quality is not a major issue - at the moment. But I'm thinking I need the low-light performance of the 17-55. Don't like the weight or bulk of the 18-200, and the 17-55 is similar - actually a little heavier. I'd settle for a prime if I could, but I need the range, and 17-55 sounds ideal.

The other thing is which Nikon camera has a shutter / motor drive less noisy than the D90? I guess I'm looking at a step up in cost/performance, to one of the more professional bodies?

The main issue at the moment is low-light performance for moving subjects.

Any suggestions?
 
if you're not a fan of the weight or size, the tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great lens, in terms of the images out the back of it, almost identical to the nikon 17-55, and the AF isn't much slower either. It is my main lens, and I earn a living with it. Can't find any reason to upgrade to the nikon, I haven't managed to break the tamron yet!

And nope, not really... some of the newer bodies (D300s has iirc) have 'quiet mode', but not sure how that works.
 
kartracer said:
Don't like the weight or bulk of the 18-200, and the 17-55 is similar - actually a little heavier.
Click to expand...

These two lenses have nothing in common - apart from the Nikon badge. The 17-55 is in a different class - is f/2.8 and one of the best. The 18-200 gives you more reach but is not a fast lens. They are for very different jobs.
 
Yes, I realize that. Purchased the 18-200 as an all-rounder, and now find I use a shorter range and low-light performance - most of the time. The Tokina 11-16 and the Nikon 70-300 are next on my list...
 
Tamron 28-75 is very good too - light and better range for me than the Tamron 17-50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top