User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 17-55mm 2.8 or ??

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Jul 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile 17-55mm 2.8 or ??

    Hi

    I've got a d90 and want to get a fast zoom. Need it mainly coz I'm planning to get into wedding photography among other things so I was thinkin about the nikon 17-55mm 2.8. Price is the main issue at the moment but am I right in saying theres no upgrade coming with VR in the near future?

    I was also eyeing the tamron 17-50 2.8 which is much cheaper but I'm afraid of a bad sample...

    The faster more reliable focus and minimal chance of a dudd lens makes me want the nikon.

    What do you guys think?
    - Tim

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    8,372
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Timmay.....I got the tamron and it was alright but decided to get a s/h 17-55 of ebay and it is better IMHO. I think the new tammy with VC could be a good economical option though.
    Graeme
    "May the good Lord look down and smile upon your face"......Norman Gunston___________________________________________________
    Nikon: D7000, D80, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8, 18-135, 70-300VR, 35f2, SB 400, SB 600, TC-201 2x converter. Tamron: 90 macro 2.8 Kenko ext. tubes. Photoshop CS2.


  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    timmary, since youve only just started photography, I'll respectfully suggest buying a pro zoom such as a 17-55, or even better a 24-70 2.8 for weddings is a bit ambitious. I think learning for a year or two before rushing about spending $2K on a lens is a good choice

    In saying this, great lenses live forever

    But I wouldnt bet on Nikon ever putting VR on the 17-55 or 24-70
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  4. #4
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If price is an issue for what can be had used and mint for <$1K, then the Tamron may be your best bet. Shooting weddings will be very costly capital wise to obtain the required gear if that is what you intend to do, and I wouldn't really be relying on Tamron to deliver with that lens.

    2nd body, lighting, lens for 2nd body etc etc all adds up.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post
    timmary, since youve only just started photography, I'll respectfully suggest buying a pro zoom such as a 17-55, or even better a 24-70 2.8 for weddings is a bit ambitious. I think learning for a year or two before rushing about spending $2K on a lens is a good choice

    In saying this, great lenses live forever

    But I wouldnt bet on Nikon ever putting VR on the 17-55 or 24-70
    I second this, wedding photography is not easy, in fact it's probably one of the hard disciplines as, you need to be quick, know your gear backwards, know how to manage people, know how to shoot in constantly changing lighting conditions and realise when it all boils down (and you remove your expenses from what you might be charging), there's not half as much money in it as most people believe!

    getting back to lenses, I shoot weddings with a d300 and a 17-55. It's a great combo and very versatile. I would only buy the 24-70 if I had a full frame body, because 24 on a cropped sensor body is not wide enough for the way i like to cover weddings.

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    20 Jul 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've had my d90 for a yr now. I'll just be shooting for friends weddings as a 2nd shooter - nothing paid or pro. was considering it more seriosly but doesn't seem to be worth it for me. But I've got a the kit 18-105 and a 50mm and just wanted a faster lens.

    Hows the quality of tamrons? I've heard a lot that they vary in quality?? I'd rather get nikon if it gauranteed a good product. I don't mind the cost.

  7. #7
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You will certainly have greater chance of obtaining a good copy of the 17-55 Nikkor first time round as quality issues seem less prevalent. Tamron make a few great lenses, but some people either have to get adjustment made to them after purchase, or they return one copy for another.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Aug 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if you want the lens to last, get the nikkor one, nikkor lenses are investment

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    15 Jul 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    457
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I personally would go teh nikkor, especially if cost is not an issue - I have the 17-55mm nikkor and bought is secondhand for a good price, from what I have heard IQ wise there is not a huge difference between the two, however there are a couple of other factors in it. The nikkor is big and heavy and teh build quality is much better imo. I actually find this lens a bit too short for portrait stuff, especially when compared to the 24-70, which imo is a dream lens for portraiture on DX.

    This lens for me, has seen more landscape shots then anything else, if you are not bothered by the size and weight I think its a great landscape option too.
    Some Nikon stuff... gerrys photo journey
    https://plus.google.com/+GerardBlacklock
    No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well, not really, they depreciate slower than 3rd party lenses, but, Id still prefer shares as an investment

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    20 Jul 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the help guys! I finally got the 17-55mm. and it IS heavy.. my arm got tired after an hr.. cant really go around holding it with one hand anymore...LOL! but its very very sharp all round! I can definately see the improvement to my kit lens.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by n00g33 View Post
    Thanks for the help guys! I finally got the 17-55mm. and it IS heavy.. my arm got tired after an hr.. cant really go around holding it with one hand anymore...LOL! but its very very sharp all round! I can definately see the improvement to my kit lens.
    i thought that of the 17-55, but after a heap of weddings and shoots with it, i got used to it and besides, it's light compared to the 70-200 and i have taken shots with the 70-200 with one hand

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •