Is a 17-55mm f2.8 really worth it?

Been having a look through sites with the results from this lens and am wondering 1 thing....

:thinking: Of all these amazing pictures that have been taken have they been edited thru these various software programs that people have or are they "as taken with no touch ups what so ever.."

:suspect: If it is with the software editing programs - wouldn't I just benefit from keeping the Nikon 18-70mm and with the massive savings I make just buy & use editing software...??

Tis just another thought that just popped into my head (as it does) & dont you just adore questions like this.. :woot:
 
You can't 'increase' IQ per se - it's always better to start with a good image than try and rescue a bad one through Photoshop.
Besides there's a lot of misconception about what you can and can't do in Photoshop... It's an amazing tool, but do you seriously think I and practically every other professional photographer in the World would waste thousands of pounds on lenses if there was a 'make it better' action we could perform in CS4?
 
if there was a 'make it better' action we could perform in CS4
Click to expand...

It would make Photoshop an essential piece of software if they could develop that!

I still 'only' use Lightroom, and it has rescued many a under/overexposed pic
but if it ain't in focus there isnt much you can do!

I would argue that in the main (there are probably lots of exceptions) lenses like the 17-55, 24-70 etc... are used by your pro / serious amateur who have better skills than joe bloggs with his 18-55 kit lens, which will be why the images look 'better'.

My images with my old d40/d90 an kit lenses are not a patch on my d300 and 17-55 or 70-200 (or 50mm 1.4) - now is that because of my skill level increasing or better kit - probably both!
 
Arkady said:
You can't 'increase' IQ per se - it's always better to start with a good image than try and rescue a bad one through Photoshop.
Besides there's a lot of misconception about what you can and can't do in Photoshop... It's an amazing tool, but do you seriously think I and practically every other professional photographer in the World would waste thousands of pounds on lenses if there was a 'make it better' action we could perform in CS4?
Click to expand...

:eek: My sincere apologies & I hope that you didn't think that I was accusing you or any other pro of using a "editing software" to get the results that you do with your photographs..

I only asked as I said above "that after looking thru sites with results from this lens " this was NO way aimed at YOU nor at any PRO on TP or any other forum or photography site.

It was just in general - as some of the shots that were taken had been "touched" up as some of the people who took them have mentioned that they had edited it with certain editing software thats all..

It was NO WAY aimed at any pro nor to you - Again I apologise.
 
Sorry if my response came out sounding harsh - no need for any apologies here - i was just pointing out that the lens is probably the most important peice of kit in the equation...
Cameras are all pretty much of a sameness across the various price points and ages (i.e. a 2010 camera will be 'better than a 2005 camer at a smilar price-point as the electronics have evolved).

But a good lens from ten years ago is still a good lens today.
 
No need Arkady...

I wouldn't quite know exactley what CS4 or PS, Coral or any of those softwares do as I dont have any... Just that they all get mentioned a few times regarding pictures that have been taken...

:thinking: I have noticed in a few photography books that I have been reading or have read in the past, have mentioned these type of programs to help out with photo's, hence the asked question earlier..
 
Photoshop is widely regarded as the industry standard, so for many of us it's a 'must-have' editing tool, whether we actually need something that sophisticated or not. You're just not taken seriously by your peers if you use freeware these days, even though they could easily cope with the limited editing most of us actually perform in the field.

CS4 is an amazing tool though; quite frankly you'd be a fool if at some point you didn't make the jump and start exploring the possibilities it offers...
 
I take it that the likes of something like CS4 is a lot better & more professional than the likes of say... Photoshop elements 7?
 
I agree with Chris, its a personal decision, i really wanted the Nikon and i borrowed one for the day, it was heavy i did not think it to be tack sharp. I am using the D300 i have used a 24-70 i found much sharper image from that. My friend is selling a nikon as he is full frame. mail me if you want more info.
 
Trig's said:
I take it that the likes of something like CS4 is a lot better & more professional than the likes of say... Photoshop elements 7?
Click to expand...

It can do more, that's certain - whether you need it for your own photography is a question only you can answer.
With Elements you can do most of the basic everyday edits and work with layers, type and some other fairly advanced stuff. Don't think you can edit in 16-bit, but how many of us do that for day-to-day stuff?
 
Arkady said:
It can do more, that's certain - whether you need it for your own photography is a question only you can answer.
With Elements you can do most of the basic everyday edits and work with layers, type and some other fairly advanced stuff. Don't think you can edit in 16-bit, but how many of us do that for day-to-day stuff?
Click to expand...


Yes for my own photography, did have the full version Capture NX but some how managed to wipe that from my PC ( :thinking: prob due to reformatting it) althou the other half still has it installed on her's.. I did get PSE7 but couldn't workout how to crop pictures so sent it back - then got told how too :bang:

It can be annoying at times when you read half these books aimed at the less experienced and they mention all the top editing software that you should have... Mmmmmm I can poss see that they are getting freebies from them for recommending it ;) well in my eyes
 
As there's been Nikon's 24-70 & 28-70mm glasses mentioned in this thread - would they be a better investment & work ok on a D300s than the 17-55mm or should I just stay with the want of the 17-55

:thinking:24/28-70 could be for a future (FF) upgrade but not for a wee while yet
 
itsdavedotnet said:
ignore uncle ken, he will always love the kit lens, and cares deeply about how much his camera weighs for some reason :/
Click to expand...

I do too...

Not everyone uses their camera in a studio, or drives to location and takes only their camera kit with them... ;)

If you are walking for days on end and have a load of other "survival" kit in the bag too then weight of the camera and lens is VERY important... It also helps if you're a woman (or more specifically some petite woman), or even for someone who likes to throw their camera and attached lens in a handbag (or manbag) to take somewhere just in case.
 
The point about lenses is they are the only thing thing between your subject and your recoding medium. This is what Arkady was trying to point out.

A camera is nothing more than a light tight box with a hole through the middle - once you have tripped the shutter. That is all ANY camera is....they have some peripherals added on around them, but they only come into play BEFORE the shutter is tripped.

Don't believe me? :thinking:

Do the mirror-up thing for cleaning and look inside.......all you will see is the piece of silicon film at the back of a fuzzy lined black box. In a film camera, open the back as well and lock the shutter open with the bulb or T and you will look right through to the floor behind it! Just a big hole with a black lined box around it.:thumbs:

Now, put your lens in front of the big hole and point it at something.....the same thing happens as when you did the trick above. There is a lump of glass which directs the light through th ehole onto your film (whether gelatine/silver or silicon dioxide)......it is only the electronics doing the bit of mental arithmatic that has changed, and the size of the silicon crystals if you are not using film. The rest of the taking process is exactly as it was when Fox Talbot first painted some goo on a piece of glass about 150 years ago. :clap:

So, your lenses are the most important pieces of the photographic puzzle.

Now you'll get the boffins telling you that is all rubbish, and that it is technique and lighting and all the other fuzzy stuff that makes photography....no it isn't, wihtout that piece of bottle bottom you can't use your lighting or techniques!

As for photoshop.....that is for designers to use. REAL photographers don't even own a copy! (ME...I just use the Capture NX that came with the D3 - it does everything I need editing and RAW production wise.) My computer isn't calibrated to the offices around th eworld computers, so if I muck about with th epictures...they only have to muck about with them again putting them right fro their screens....so I just shoot digital transparencies, get it right in camera and give it to them as is, exactly as I did when I used E6 (which you couldn't fiddle with at all).

I think being able to get it right in the camera is a fundamental.

Now, where were we before I sidetracked the whole issue.:bonk:
 
Lensflare said:
Now, where were we before I sidetracked the whole issue.:bonk:
Click to expand...

:thinking:

Without quoting the whole speech ;) Could it have been a history lesson on camera's, including how they work - which was quite an intresting read, as didn't quite think of a camera that way...

:thumbs:
 
Personally I'd get a 24-70 or a 28-70 now - both will work equally well on your camera and if you decide to upgrade the body at a later date, then the lenses will still work with whatever choice you go with, be it DX or FX...
 
Arkady said:
Personally I'd get a 24-70 or a 28-70 now - both will work equally well on your camera and if you decide to upgrade the body at a later date, then the lenses will still work with whatever choice you go with, be it DX or FX...
Click to expand...

:thinking:

That wouldn't be the case that you have one for sale now would it ;) :thumbs: :lol: :exit:
 
If you think you're going to stick with DX cameras then get the 17-55 - it's designed with that format in mind...
If you think you 'may' at some future point 'upgrade' (and that's not strictly correct - it depends on what you need from the camera), then other options become available to you...
 
As already said if you dont want to spend that much the tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a great sharp lens, i feel the build quality is very good, it makes my only remaining nikon lens the 55-200 vr feel like something i got out of a cracker (yeah i know its a bottom of the nikon world but thats not the point)

Oh its its not tooo heavy either :thumbs:
 
Arkady said:
Along with about three others, I think...lol
Click to expand...


I will have a look in a mo.. could only find the one :thinking:

Joe T said:
If you go 24 or 28 to 70, you'll need a wide angle too...

I love my 17-55 and wouldnt be without it!
Click to expand...

Did have the Tokina f4 but sold that as didn't use it - was my 2nd wide angle as well...


Mr Mike said:
As already said if you dont want to spend that much the tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a great sharp lens, i feel the build quality is very good, it makes my only remaining nikon lens the 55-200 vr feel like something i got out of a cracker (yeah i know its a bottom of the nikon world but thats not the point)

Oh its its not tooo heavy either :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Dont mind the paying the price as it seems that I could get near on the same purchase price when it comes to selling it with the D300s if I want or have the need to upgrade to FF.. (used version that is)

I've had the 55-200mm VR & the 18-200mm VR but wasn't all that keen on the 18-200 thou...


It seems that it could be 1 of these 3.. 17-55mm 24-70mm or the 28-70mm

:shrug: Will just have to get my butt out to microglobe and have a try out with them all, then buy 1 off here.... As I trust the chappies on here than the bay :thumbs:
 
Trig's said:
I will have a look in a mo.. could only find the one :thinking:
Click to expand...

There was a 17-55 and at least one 28-70 as of this morning - another 28-70 and a 24-70 were there only yesterday...see?
You gotta be quick...
 
Arkady said:
There was a 17-55 and at least one 28-70 as of this morning - another 28-70 and a 24-70 were there only yesterday...see?
You gotta be quick...
Click to expand...

:thinking:

Ermmmm ...... No lol

When I found some, I usually subscribe in order to keep my beedie eye on them.. Still have your one in my sights thou :thumbs: but not the funds right now :'(

Then again looking at previous posts in the sale's it looks like it will be some what longer than I would have hoped for to get a sale for my 2 lenses (when I finally can get them up there there is) :bang:
 
Blimey...gone already...must have been either taken down or archived...
 
Arkady said:
Sell a kidney, Pimp-out the missus?
Pay in installments?
Click to expand...


:thinking: You'll take installments :naughty: Now there's a thought....:whistling:

:thinking: Hold on i'll just ask her as she sitting right next to me....

:boxer: OUCH!! mmmmmm maybe not lol
 
Arkady said:
Personally I'd get a 24-70 or a 28-70 now - both will work equally well on your camera and if you decide to upgrade the body at a later date, then the lenses will still work with whatever choice you go with, be it DX or FX...
Click to expand...

Agree as long as that focal length suits. If I had £1k I would snap one up!
 
Arkady said:
Personally I'd get a 24-70 or a 28-70 now - both will work equally well on your camera and if you decide to upgrade the body at a later date, then the lenses will still work with whatever choice you go with, be it DX or FX...
Click to expand...

cambsno said:
Agree as long as that focal length suits.
Click to expand...

prob going to seem a stupid question but i'm going to go out on a limb an ask this...

As I already have the Nikon 18-70 - would having either of them be much of a difference to the 18-70 ie range wise.. or would they be they be a 38/44-112mm on a D300s... or have I got it all totally "butt about face"?
 
Correct - there's a slight increase in effective focal length when using FX lenses on a DX camera... there's a 1.5x magnification if it helps to think of it that way.
 
Arkady said:
Correct - there's a slight increase in effective focal length when using FX lenses on a DX camera... there's a 1.5x magnification if it helps to think of it that way.
Click to expand...

:woot: Seems that I actually know something then... an all those books have done something apart from clotting up draws around the house....
 
The shots on the flickr group for this lens have persuaded me to get this soon. I think a lot is made of lab tests of sharpness etc. but to me there is something 'about' the images captured with this over the Tamron that makes the difference worth it. It is entirely subjective I know but works for me ;).
 
jojo90 said:
The shots on the flickr group for this lens have persuaded me to get this soon.
Click to expand...


Which 1 as there's 3 being mentioned :thinking: I'm bein swayed more to the 28-70mm 2.8 now...
 
Arkady said:
:D
Click to expand...

Yes you can :D I've yet to get paid :'(

:thinking:When you going to post some images of yours the Rob? As KR's lens looks rather immac :bonk:
 
Trig's said:
Yes you can :D I've yet to get paid :'(

:thinking:When you going to post some images of yours the Rob? As KR's lens looks rather immac :bonk:
Click to expand...
i wondered when someone would ask...OK then...give me ten minutes to get it set-up...
 
Arkady said:
i wondered when someone would ask...OK then...give me ten minutes to get it set-up...
Click to expand...


Thought as a descent fella that you would have done so at tinme of sale ;)

:thinking: Hope that you dont charge by the minute :exit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top