Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
I've never really used both, but then again I've never been impressed by their build quality either. I know that when all boils down image quality is the deciding factor between a good lens and a bad lens, but after experiencing the solidity of the semi-pro 85, I think I'd be a little hesitant to "settle" for anything less. I mean, assuming price is taken out of the equation, is the Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina standard zoom really better than Nikon's 17-55?
Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY
Hey guys - should I bother with a 17-55 f/2.8 upgrade? I've been taking a photo class recently, wherein I've been able to reevaluate the performance of both my 85 f/1.8 and 18-135 walk-around lenses - and the results are pretty obvious. To put it simply, the former lens is tack sharp and shows no distortions, whereas the 18-135 performs average at best, and mediocre at worst.
The only problem is, sometimes it's simply much more convenient to zoom out a little bit than take a few steps back - regardless of the differences in overall quality. So I'm pretty set now on replacing the kit lens with an upper end standard zoom; but don't know where to look. My dad, of course, likes to take the "don't fool around approach" to any dilemma and is keen on saving up for Nikon's pro-grade 17-55; yet I've read only mixed reviews for this lens, and would rather consider other options than plunk down over a grand for "so-so" quality.
What do you think?
If you can afford it, stick with Nikon lenses for the Nikon camera. Nikon know's what they are doing.
I really like your dad's views. Save up and ploop down for the good one.
Fixed Focal length lenses are great for times when you KNOW what focal length you want to use, and don't need much flexibility. For times when you need flexibility, a zoom is very helpful.
You mention the need for a walk around lens.... but what range do you use when you 'walk around'? If you only ever use 17-55, then sure...... get it.
If you use a wider range..... well you'll have to look at something else.
I use the 18-200VR for a walk around lens, and then use primes or pro zooms for the other times when I can be more specific.
The 18-200VR won't have as good clarity as the primes at certain focal lengths, but it's not far behind.
If you need pro and can afford it, then:
17-55mm,
14-24mm
24-70mm
70-200mm
If you can sacrifice a little image quality for more versatility, then:
18-200VR
For me the 18-200VR was a no brainer for a somewhat light and versatile walk around lens. I compliment it with pro zooms and Fixed focal lengths. Suites me.
Headphoneus Supremus: Videographus Supremus: Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and I think it's great. I'm a fan of that lens along with the 28-75 2.8 as walk around lenses as they are light. I havn't used the Nikon but read it's a little bit better but only at the wider end.
I don't feel like the 17-55 is worth it since it's a DX lens. I would rather have the 24-70 on FX camera eventually.
__________________
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2008 "CanJam" High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi Meet 2007.Nov.10 High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2006 High Definition Videos! are here
My advice to you:
- Use your own ears as everybody's hearing and preferences are different.
- Try to audition as much equipment as possible to find your sound.
- Buy used to save money.
I, as well as many others, want this thread to be related to Nikon equipment, not a website owner. Create a new thread to discuss this.
Dam I hate it when people bicker. whiny kids!
Seeing as you are neither a moderator nor the thread creator, your desires are no more important than the other posters in this thread, many of whom want to discuss Ken. Like it or not, Ken Rockwell is an integral part of any discussion of Nikon components online.
__________________ Home: Chaintech AV-710, Sony SCD-CE595 -> Yamaha RX-V559 Receiver ->Grado RS-1 #863, B&W 685 Grado Pad Inventory:Bowls (90%), Flats (10%) Headphile C-Pads Ported Flat (0%) Portable: 160GB iPod Classic -> Koss KSC-75, Etymotic ER-6i Loaned off to others: Sennheiser HD-280 Team "Sennheiser Users Who Have Seen The Light" Head-Fi Feedback
I have an Olympus C-3030, which is the 3 megapixel verson of the camera he uses. It is an astounding little point and shoot, capable of taking great pictures. A friend of mine who is a musician wanted to print up publicity posters, and he used a shot I made with that camera. Blown up to 18 x 24 it was sharp as a tack and beautiful color saturation and skin tones.
That isn't necessarily good advice. I've got an old 43 to 86 Nikkor zoom that I've never liked much. Brand names aren't as important as performance.
See ya
Steve
There are exceptions to everything in life.
In general though, Nikon knows what they are doing for their bodies better than the rest. Same goes for Canon with their bodies. It can sometimes be as subtle as the brand name lens seeking less.
And in general there are excellent third party lenses that work just as good on Nikon bodies... sometimes better as in the case of the Tokina I have on order. It's never a good idea to shop based on brand names alone. Anyone looking for lenses should consider the third party brands... unless they are putting together a collection of status symbols, in which case they should just go out and buy a Hasselblad that sits in a drawer and never gets used, like half the Hasselblad owners I know!
And in general there are excellent third party lenses that work just as good on Nikon bodies... sometimes better as in the case of the Tokina I have on order. It's never a good idea to shop based on brand names alone. Anyone looking for lenses should consider the third party brands... unless they are putting together a collection of status symbols, in which case they should just go out and buy a Hasselblad that sits in a drawer and never gets used, like half the Hasselblad owners I know!
See ya
Steve
I haven't really heard of any 3rd party lenses that work better on nikon than the current nikkor equivalents.....
You mention the one you just got..... but nikon doesn't have a F/2.8 equivalent... (best they have is the F/4 which is not comparable).
Have any specifics that you would recommend?
The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is wider, faster, sharper and has identical build quality and autofocusing speed to the Nikkor 12-24 f4. The only difference is the shorter zoom distance (which may not be an issue for most people like me, because 16mm comes close enough to the popular 18-200 VR) and the fact that it doesn't automatically snap to DX on a D3 (totally insignificant).
The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is wider, faster, sharper and has identical build quality and autofocusing speed to the Nikkor 12-24 f4. The only difference is the shorter zoom distance (which may not be an issue for most people like me, because 16mm comes close enough to the popular 18-200 VR) and the fact that it doesn't automatically snap to DX on a D3 (totally insignificant).
See ya
Steve
What did I just say in my last post?
I said there is no nikon equivalent to the tokina. The Nikon is F/4, not F/2.8. Big difference.
Well, if you happen across any other 3'rd party lenses that best the equivalent Nikkor's on the nikon body, let me know. I'm all ears. As of yet, I know of none.
Linear Mode
