Low Cost Prime Versus Mid-Pro Zoom Lens i.e. Nikon 35mm f1.8 vs. 17-55 F2.8

p1tse · 29 Dec 2011

Having asked and read around around the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 are both great lenses with the latter being newer with some improvements etc.

I was wandering how does the cheaper primes like Nikon 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 compares against the likes of a 17-55 f2.8?

This is a pic from 35mm f1.8

Would like some zoom flexibility for moving kids

Martyn... · 29 Dec 2011

Primes are smaller, lighter and less intrusive, the 17-55 is big, hefty and obvious.

The primes are infinitely superior below f2.8.

The 17-55 is optically superb, and will cover a multitude of focal lengths (I have not used the 24-70).

The zoom is good if you want flexibility, and do not mind the size of it, I doubt that you would see any difference in image quality between it and the primes, in real world situations ... you may if you shoot test charts and stare at the corners of images.

p1tse · 30 Dec 2011

thank.

i already have the 35mm and 50mm f1.8 primes, but find myself not using it as much as i should due to lack of zoom, which is a shame.

got to say it's nice with these primes on, as light and small. i'm used to the 18-200 living on the camera and if i had the 17-55 would be more home use so not too much of an issue.

amazing to think that a new 17-55mm f2.8 IQ isn't much different to these cheaper primes where compared to the 50mm 1.8mm the mid-pro lens is almost 10 times as much.

just seen one sell one sell on the bay for £500.
need to decide if i really want to sell my primes (and lowepro 200AW bag) to help fund it which should get me around half way.

Martyn... · 30 Dec 2011

p1tse said:
thank.

amazing to think that a new 17-55mm f2.8 IQ isn't much different to these cheaper primes where compared to the 50mm 1.8mm the mid-pro lens is almost 10 times as much.

It is a lot easier to design and build a prime lens as you are only dealing with a fixed focal length, much more complex to get a zoom spot on.

The 17-55 is a very good lens, quick to focus, produces some cracking results.

I keep considering thinning out my kit, whenever I do I always decide to keep the 17-55 to go on my D300.

ausemmao · 30 Dec 2011

p1tse said:
thank.

i already have the 35mm and 50mm f1.8 primes, but find myself not using it as much as i should due to lack of zoom, which is a shame.

got to say it's nice with these primes on, as light and small. i'm used to the 18-200 living on the camera and if i had the 17-55 would be more home use so not too much of an issue.

amazing to think that a new 17-55mm f2.8 IQ isn't much different to these cheaper primes where compared to the 50mm 1.8mm the mid-pro lens is almost 10 times as much.

just seen one sell one sell on the bay for £500.
need to decide if i really want to sell my primes (and lowepro 200AW bag) to help fund it which should get me around half way.

It's funny, I've gone the other way. I rarely have the zoom on my camera anymore and if Nikon ever make a 24mm 1.8 and 17mm 2.8 (I won't say no to faster though

), I'll be able to permanently retire the zoom. I like the small size of the lenses (a 35 and 50 and theoretical 24 together are smaller than the 17-55 alone) and I rarely change focal length once the camera is up to my eye.

The zoom having the IQ of the primes points to how good zoom lens design is now. The 17-55 is faster focusing than all of the 50s and the 35 1.8, probably faster than the 35 1.4 too (haven't used one). If you want the FL flexibility on camera, I don't think either of those lenses can be beaten, and choosing between them should come down to whether you want 17-24 more than 55-70.

specialman · 30 Dec 2011

I use the 35mm and the 17-55 and have to say that the 17-55 continues to be a surprising lens in that the IQ is stunning. Obviously, the 35mm has the aperture advantage and is sharper (not by much though), but the zoom focusses faster and is better built. I'm really liking my 35mm at the moment because it's miles better than my 50mm AF-D in all aspects, plus it has a more pleasing field-of-view on DX in my opinion. But as said, the 35mm, although quite big compared to the 50mm AF-D, is a lot more compact than the 17-55, even with the hood fitted.

If I had a choice of one the zoom would have it every day because for what it cost, it's as close to prime IQ as I need and covering that focal range in primes of a similar build quality would be no cheaper and would mean more lenses to carry (and change).

p1tse · 1 Jan 2012

interesting to hear the 17 55 focuses quicker than the 35mm, which would be great for the likes of moving toddler

Quanosaur · 2 Jan 2012

ausemmao said:
It's funny, I've gone the other way. I rarely have the zoom on my camera anymore and if Nikon ever make a 24mm 1.8 and 17mm 2.8 (I won't say no to faster though ), I'll be able to permanently retire the zoom. I like the small size of the lenses (a 35 and 50 and theoretical 24 together are smaller than the 17-55 alone) and I rarely change focal length once the camera is up to my eye.

There is a superb 24 f/1.4. It's 1.7k though, and on the large side.

DoctorBob · 2 Jan 2012

Not sure about Nikon but on the Canon side, I can confirm the 24 f/1.4 is very nearly the size of the 17-55 f/2.8.

ausemmao · 2 Jan 2012

Quanosaur said:
There is a superb 24 f/1.4. It's 1.7k though, and on the large side.

That's the problem with it :lol:

It's almost the same size as (and more expensive than) my PC-E, and if I have to choose between the PC-E and the 1.4, the PC-E wins every time. It is a great lens to use though - there's a guy at my uni photosoc who has one and on almost every trip we've been on we swap 24s and say "I wish I had yours as well". We both go home with our own lenses though, which says a lot about both lenses (and maybe about us!)

A 24 f/1.8 DX would be only marginally bigger than the 35 1.8, and only a little more expensive. That I could definitely find space for

Quanosaur · 2 Jan 2012

ausemmao said:
That's the problem with it It's almost the same size as (and more expensive than) my PC-E, and if I have to choose between the PC-E and the 1.4, the PC-E wins every time. It is a great lens to use though - there's a guy at my uni photosoc who has one and on almost every trip we've been on we swap 24s and say "I wish I had yours as well". We both go home with our own lenses though, which says a lot about both lenses (and maybe about us!)

A 24 f/1.8 DX would be only marginally bigger than the 35 1.8, and only a little more expensive. That I could definitely find space for

I'd get over the size, but currently can't quite get over the price.

ausemmao · 2 Jan 2012

Quanosaur said:
I'd get over the size, but currently can't quite get over the price.

If I didn't already have a 24, the size wouldn't matter. The price...is why I want a 1.8 version :lol:

That said, as expensive as it is, it does let you do things that other lenses don't. I'd certainly get it over an 85 1.4, and probably over a 35 once the funds are there. I just stop drinking when I go out for a few months and that solves the funding issue! It is cheaper than a D700 at the moment...