Anybody tested Nikon 17-55 vs 50 prime ?

DJW

DJW

Messages
2,040
Edit My Images
Yes
Have a plan hatched that if I sell my Nikon 18-70, Sigma 10-20 plus 50 f/1.8 I might be able to scrape together enough for Nikkor 17-55 AF-S 2.8 DX (waiting for onestop quote ;) )

Now I know the 17-55 is far better than 18-70, so 1 tick..... I can sacrifice the extra wide angle for the 17-55, so 2 ticks.....but how will this lens perfrom vs the 50mm f/1.8 , putting speed difference aside ? Anybody had chance to play side by side ?
 
I have the the 17-55 2.8 & the 50mm 1.4 (not the 1.8).
 
DJW said:
Have a plan hatched that if I sell my Nikon 18-70, Sigma 10-20 plus 50 f/1.8 I might be able to scrape together enough for Nikkor 17-55 AF-S 2.8 DX (waiting for onestop quote ;) )
Click to expand...

Giving up on the 18-200 ?

Unfortunately I don't got a primary (now !) but is the 17-55 really superior to the 18-70 ?
 
P-E said:
I have the the 17-55 2.8 & the 50mm 1.4 (not the 1.8).
Click to expand...

Even better....how do they compare PQ wise at f/2.8 with the 17-55 at 50mm please ?
 
DJW said:
Even better....how do they compare PQ wise at f/2.8 with the 17-55 at 50mm please ?
Click to expand...

The 50mm is sharper than the 17-55.

Having said that the 50mm rarely comes out of the bag and the 17-55 rarely comes off my D2Hs.

For me the 17-55 2.8 was a good buy......expensive but worth it imo.
 
Venomator said:
... but is the 17-55 really superior to the 18-70 ?
Click to expand...

At 3 times the cost I hope so ;) Seriously though from reviews at FM here & other sites, plus the pro's like Arkady using the 17-55, it's a mighty impressive lens. Now if only I could afford the 70-200 VR to go with it :whistle2:
 
Get the non-VR lens instead - £100 cheaper and better quality. You just have to steady your heart-rate a little more.
 
P-E said:
The 50mm is sharper than the 17-55.

Having said that the 50mm rarely comes out of the bag and the 17-55 rarely comes off my D2Hs.

For me the 17-55 2.8 was a good buy......expensive but worth it imo.
Click to expand...

Was half expecting this, as you have both lenses . Thanks for reply....money permitting this has to be the lens to get then :)
 
I also was looking at adding the 70-200 VR but at the time they seemed to be in short supply so after much thought purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

I must say I am most impressed with the Sigma 70-200 2.8........sharp & fast.

I doubt you will be dissapointed with the 17-55 2.8 DJW:thumb:
 
P-E said:
I also was looking at adding the 70-200 VR but at the time they seemed to be in short supply so after much thought purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

I must say I am most impressed with the Sigma 70-200 2.8........sharp & fast.
Click to expand...

& saved a fair wedge in the process :)
 
Arkady said:
Get the non-VR lens instead - £100 cheaper and better quality. You just have to steady your heart-rate a little more.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob....always good to see unbiased review. Will look into it if/when I have the cash to invest.
 
The VR chip does wierd things to the images sometimes. If you're doing Sports for a newspaper it's a good piece of kit, but for the best quality images, the non-VR is a better bet.
That's why they still make both of them.
 
Is it not possible to turn VR off, in which case you would have best of both worlds ?
 
It is, but the optics on the non-VR lens are better from the off.
 
DJW said:
..... I might be able to scrape together enough for Nikkor 17-55 AF-S 2.8 DX (waiting for onestop quote ;) )
Click to expand...

They have quoted £799 incl VAT & delivery, which is £170 cheaper than warehouseexpress :thumb:
 
P-E, noticed the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D ED from HK EBay suppliers is similar money to the Sigma (within 20% anyway). Any reason you didn't consider this lens instead ?
 
Just been told by the Nikon guys that the non-VR 70-200 is being discontinued soon.

Also the VR function is an 'active' system rather than the 'passive' system in the 80-400, which they now accept is a 'bit soft' across the range and hunts like a foxhound in lower light levels.

I had a quick play at dusk yesterday and it's very good indeed - I'm sold on it, put it that way.
 
DJW said:
P-E, noticed the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D ED from HK EBay suppliers is similar money to the Sigma (within 20% anyway). Any reason you didn't consider this lens instead ?
Click to expand...

Sorry for late reply Dave.

I did a lot of searching when I decided to purchase a lens with a longer reach and the 80-200 2.8 was very much in my thoughts.

The reviews I read were always very good.

The deciding factor in favour of the Sigma was price....approx £470.00 from Hk.

If I could have purchased a Nikon 80-200 2.8 around the same price as the Sigma then it would have been the Nikon I would have purchased no question.

Having said that the Sigma is a sharp fast lens...........only problem is its sat in it's box I never seem to shoot with it:embarasse .........I often question wether I really needed it in the first place:innocent:

Let us know what you finnish up purchasing Dave;)
 
Arkady said:
Just been told by the Nikon guys that the non-VR 70-200 is being discontinued soon.

Also the VR function is an 'active' system rather than the 'passive' system in the 80-400, which they now accept is a 'bit soft' across the range and hunts like a foxhound in lower light levels.

I had a quick play at dusk yesterday and it's very good indeed - I'm sold on it, put it that way.
Click to expand...

Sorry, which lens did you have a play with the other day?

And I wasnt aware of a non-VR 70-200?

Thanks :)
 
I have to say my 70-200 VR is THE business! I can't imagine the non VR being any sharper. If they did any more to the optics it'll end being like a Canon with horrible halos at hard contrast edges! Perhaps I was just lucky... ;)

There are two VR settings on the 70-200 VR "Active" and "Normal". The manual describes "Active" as being useful when you're shooting from a moving vehicle! I've the 80-400 VR and have found any softness being due to not allowing enough time for the 'electronics' to settle, for want of a better term!

Can't say I find this soft either 80-400VR hand held thru a wire fence....!

marwll_leopard.jpg
 
Now that is impressive...how come you have the 70-200 & 80-400 ?.. Noticed FM reviews of 80-400 appear to have common theme of very slow AF ?

Thanks also to PE for update :)
 
DJW said:
Now that is impressive...how come you have the 70-200 & 80-400 ?.. Noticed FM reviews of 80-400 appear to have common theme of very slow AF ?
Click to expand...

Thanks DJW. I only posted this as the 80-400 VR gets a bad press. I've had some fantastic results with mine. The AF is slow, which is why I guess Nikon dropped it and replaced with an IF 200-400 VR (but 4x the price!)

Why the two? I couldn't live wthout the reach of the 80-400mm but I borrowed my colleague's 70-200mm and was smitten with it's quality in all respects. Fast AF, rock steady VR and gorgeous fast f2.8. Now I find I can't live without either of them....! Fortunately, they are quite heavy and Marianne gets worn out using them .... ;) But at least she can't use both at once - nor can I, but at least it leaves me with a fighting chance!
This shot, Her Smile was using the 70-200VR at f3.5 (I think)
 
chuckles said:
But at least she can't use both at once - nor can I,
Click to expand...

Be like Arkady....have 2 Nikon bodies ;) I think I should keep away from that 70-200VR ...too tempting ;)
 
Well I did bid on a s/h 17-55, but in the end it went for £820 on fleabay :shock: .....£20 more than from onestop new :nut: . Ah well the madness of fleabay is good for selling on lenses :whistle2:
 
Good piece of glass though. Marianne got the 18-70 DX lens with her D70 last summer. Now THAT is an amazing lens for the price....

Incidentally, I found the original of the leopard last night. The EXIF says 1/125th @ f5.6 400mm and I know I didn't have my monopod with me at the time.

What is it with fleabay that makes people go financially gaga?
 
chuckles said:
Marianne got the 18-70 DX lens with her D70 last summer. Now THAT is an amazing lens for the price....
Click to expand...

I just sold my 18-70 a few weeks back....trying to force myself to buy better ;), plus also get best price before people start going mad for the 18-200 & selling their kit lenses off.

BTW that is impressive at 400, handheld !!
 
DJW said:
BTW that is impressive at 400, handheld !!
Click to expand...

Now, not usually one for blowing my own trumpet but, if you found that impressive try this.......

dans_shoe.jpg


It was taken at my nephew's wedding. I saw him sat like this and spotted he still had the price tag on the bottom of his shoe. Not being one to miss an opportunity I quickly snapped on the 80-400 VR and looked at the display and saw a shutter-speed of 1/60th sec. I've always been of the opinion of "if you don't try, you don't get" mentallity I gave it a go... (no tripod, handheld). When I got home and sorted through my shots, I saw the EXIF of this shot. 1/6th sec ! :shock: I know I've been lucky but I was gob-smacked. You can just make out the price if you study hard the detail of the full-size frame. D100 with a 400mm optic - that's 600mm 35mm equivalent. I still enthuse over this somewhat maligned lens.....

Way off topic I know, but I thought it was worth sharing.
 
You've got one steady hand....or two ;) Seems a cracking lens...must admit it looks very tempting.....& redcued to £894 at 7dayshop....oh my god not more options :dizzy: ....I'm off to get a compact ;)

Quick query, with the 70-200 being so fast, could you not adopt a 2x convertor when you want the 400 range ?
 
DJW said:
Quick query, with the 70-200 being so fast, could you not adopt a 2x convertor when you want the 400 range ?
Click to expand...

At the time I got the 80-400 the 70-200 was not available. My colleague has got the 70-200 plus teleconverter. I'm not quite sure is as hot as the single unit option. It is good though, and well worth consideration.

Steady hands..? No, I think I got lucky!:innocent:
 
Choices choices Rog.....I change my mind on a daily basis ;). I think I made the mistake of reading too many reviews, then I start to doubt if I will ever be good enough to justify spending that much on one piece of glass etc. As 98% of my shots stay on the PC to be viewed, if I was sensible I would just get the 18-200 & keep the 50 f/1.8 for portrait shots.

I'll see what side of the bed I get out of tomorrow & which way the wind is blowing ;)
 
chuckles said:
At the time I got the 80-400 the 70-200 was not available. My colleague has got the 70-200 plus teleconverter. I'm not quite sure is as hot as the single unit option. It is good though, and well worth consideration.

Steady hands..? No, I think I got lucky!:innocent:
Click to expand...

See another option :hissyfit: :doh: So in theory getting the 18-55, plus 70-200 plus 2x convertor would cover everything & mean I wouldn't have to upgrade again :whistle2: :ponders: £2k :confused: :suspect1:
 
DJW said:
Choices choices Rog.....I change my mind on a daily basis
Click to expand...

Don't I know that feeling ??? ;) Benefits to others ... if you know what I mean ! :whistle2:
 
You think that's a problem. Try having lenses disappearing in the house with the words, "Ooh, I like this one"! :suspect1:

My only protection is to make sure the optics are very heavy!:snowball:
 
Just hide them in the toolbox....they'll never get found :stir: :getmecoat
 
Cheers Rob....good to have you back. I'll have a scan of those later :)
 
Only one niggle with my test lens. Twice it has failed to auto-focus after switching on the camera - the lens 'hunts' through it's entire range and then defaults to minimum focus.
The only way to cure it was to switch off, remove the lens, blow on the contacts, replace it and try again.
I'm thinking the very high humidity, coupled with the sudden change from very cold (UK) to very hot (Malawi) was the cause.
I'll keep an eye on that one, because it could mean losing a shot while you curse the AF and frantically switch to M/F...

Optically it's very good and the range is absolutely ideal for me - I'll be gutted to hand it back if the replacements aren't due for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top