I have the 17-55mm Nikon lens - better than the 28-70?

Question

I recently bought a Nikon D80 and a 17-55mm 2.8 lens. I used it a bit today and it was pretty nice. I also borrowed an older 80-200 2.8 to test it out. I'm suffering a little post buying jitters trying to decide if the 17-55 is the right range for me or if I should have bought the 28-70mm and then the 70-200, or stick with the 17-55 and get the 70-200. I realized pretty quickly I tend not to use a tripod but love action people shots. I'm hoping the 70-200 with VR will make this work. So, should I return the 17-55 or will I not miss the range of 55-70 and just get the other zoom? I found swapping lenses today was a bit of a pain to take shots. Any advice would be great.

Answer 1

If you can return the 17-55 for credit, consider getting the Nikon 18-200 VR lens. I own both lenses, so I can comment intelligently. (I hope.) I love the 17-55 lens. I'd say it is clearly the better of the two lenses, but the 18-200 is the one that "lives" on my camera. I use the 17-55 for critical applications and I use it when I know I will be indoors. You can get pretty much all of what you need with that zoom range if you will not be more than 20 feet away from your subject. The 18-200 covers the range of the other zoom and adds 55-200. It is not as good optically, but I think you'd have to be pretty picky to criticize the 18-200. It's even cheaper than the 17-55 - if you can find one! It's a phenomenally popular lens with good reason.

Ken Rockwell doesn't seem to revere the 17-55 as much as I think he should, but here's his review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

He really loves the convenience of the 18-200, which is also the reason I say that it lives on my camera. If I find too much distortion in an image - which is often my fault due to shooting angle anyway - I can use Photoshop Elements "Correct Camera Distortion" function to fix it fairly well.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

OMG, my answer is based on the assumption that she's going to be choosing ONE lens for now. She "tends not to use a tripod, but loves action people shots," so I'm thinking "VR" is a good idea. You know I prefer the 17-55 for critical work, but I feel the 18-200 is going to work better for her current needs. Note my comment that Rockwell "doesn't seem to revere the 17-55 as much as I think he should" and you'll know where I stand personally.

Answer 2

That's two votes for the 18-200, which I don't get. You seem to want the best and you're willing to pay for it (and lug it around).
The 70-200 is better than the 80-200 in every respect: AF speed, bokeh, image quality wide open, and VR.
Between the 17-55 and the 28-70, get the zoom range you'll use more - they are both great. I use the 17-55 myself (on a D200) because I'd miss the 18 to 28mm range much more than the small gap between 55 and 70mm. The 28-70 doesn't provide wide angle coverage after the 1.5 focal length multiplier, and the 17-55 is intended as the replacement lens for the 28-70 for digital bodies.
As for Ken Rockwell's luke warm review of the 17-55, I guess he never needs to shoot at f/2.8... and I guess he doesn't mind stopping down to f/5.6 for good image quality with his consumer grade lenses. For proper reviews of Nikon zooms, use this site: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html

Answer 3

If your budget allows it, get an 18-200mm lens, and you've pretty well got the whole range covered, without having to change lenses. VR is nice, but if your budget doesn't allow it, you can get non-VR lenses (by Sigma, Tamron and Tokina) for about half the price of the Nikkor VR lens. With practice, you can learn to hold the camera steady enough (arms against the side of your chest, left hand cradling the lens) to compensate for the VR without using a tripod.
I don't think you'd be happy with the 17-55/70-200 gap: that's right in the middle of the medium-zoom range. The benefit of the 17-55mm lens is it's aperture: the 18-200 lenses have an aperture that starts at f/3.5

Answer 4

i could propose getting the 18-55mm. this is a large universal all-around budget lens, this is greater effectual at landscapes and macro than any of the different lenses you indexed... i does no longer choose for to shoot a macro shot with a 70-300mm! For graphics a quickly top lens could be perfect, yet that's no longer indexed. The 70-3 hundred is the main suitable lens for graphics on your record. The 28-80mm is Nikon's lowest-end lens, and that i've got herd from a pair of sources distortion can get grotesque. The 18-55mm has ED glass, yet i don't be attentive to if that makes a difference for huge-perspective pictures. The 70-300mm is a large lens for the fee, yet with the aid of fact it is so slow, it incredibly is in basic terms extremely sensible in the sunlight hours hand-held. If I had that lens, i could use it for activities, portrait, or candid pictures, which 2 out of three you haven't any longer indexed. by employing the way, you won't be able to mount a Nikkor lens on a Canon digicam... yet you in all possibility already be attentive to that.

Answer 5

You seem to forget that DSLRs increase the nominal focal length of lens, usually by about 1.5 or 1.6, as the sensor is smaller than a frame of 35mm film. Your 17 -55mm lens is therefore about 27-88mm in 35mm terms, or more or less the same as the 28-70mm to which you refer. Therefore, there is little point in changing, particular as the 17-55 is a 2.8 lens (presumably fixed throughout the range). You should therefore be thinking of the 70-200mm as your next lens - which in 35mm terms equates to about 105-300mm. Alternatively, as you dislike changing lenses, you could consider a 'super zoom' - a 28-300 (35mm equivalent) although these will tend to have a variable aperture throught they range, say 3.5 - 5.6, although there are some with a fixed aperture, but they tend to be much more expensive. Such lens are made by the independents - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and are as good as, and cheaper than, marque lenses.

Answer 6

I FEEL 28-70 IS BETTER.