User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  5
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: From primes to one zoom?

  1. #1
    Member eloki's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    From primes to one zoom?

    If i sold my 2 primes (nikon 35mm 1.8 af-s & nikon 50mm 1.8 af-s), and bought the nikon 17-55 2.8...

    Would you call me an idiot?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    923
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can I ask why did you do that in the first place?

    If it was just for the lust of getting new gears? Maybe...

    If it is something you feel you need to do to suit your photography style, I say why not!! You only lost 1 1/3 stops but you got a more versatile lens! It covers all your current range plus the wide end!

  3. #3
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,895
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No. Your headline somehow implies that you have gone from a full set of top-class primes (something like 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, and 135/2) to a single zoom (something like a 24-120/4). Now that would be a wrench! But going from two cheapish primes to one top-quality fast zoom .... where is the fuss? Nope, seems perfectly sensible to me.
    Tony

    People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

  4. #4
    Perpetually Bewildered
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,169
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by eloki View Post
    Would you call me an idiot?
    OK, if you insist... "You're an idiot".

    Seriously though, the 17-55/2.8 has a great reputation and I'd certainly buy one if I could justify the price difference over the Tammy 17-50. I would find having 35mm as my widest lens to be very restrictive. Good move imo...(unless of course you have a full-frame camera, in which case ignore the smiley in my first line ).


    Cheers.
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


  5. #5
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with Tannin when he stated: "going from two cheapish primes to one top-quality fast zoom .... where is the fuss?" Seems like a perfectly logical idea to me as well.

  6. #6
    Amor fati!
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the question is not weather we consider you and idiot but weather you consider you an idiot for your actions...

    being that you have posted this thread you are either gloating about your new lens or you are in some doubt about your decision...

  7. #7
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,351
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=ving;892651]the question is not weather we consider you and idiot but weather you consider you an idiot for your actions...

    Or whether or not to leave the wether out in the weather.
    Cheers
    Kev

    D600 : D7200 and too much stuff to list

  8. #8
    Amor fati!
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=trublubiker;892668]
    Quote Originally Posted by ving View Post
    the question is not weather we consider you and idiot but weather you consider you an idiot for your actions...

    Or whether or not to leave the wether out in the weather.
    indeed! like what you said!

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter
    eloki's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I haven't done it yet. I suppose I was just looking for some affirmation from the hive mind, before spending some big bucks .

  10. #10
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,351
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a no brainer really, going from 2 average primes to a high end zoom with better range. Go for it.

  11. #11
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,895
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Eloki, the one thing missing from your plan is VR. VR is enormously useful in all sorts of circumstances. Trouble is, I don't know if there is a suitable VR-equipped lens available. You've probably never had it and don't miss it, but once you learn how to use it, it makes all sorts of stuff possible that was not possible before.

    Nevertheless, if you can afford the upgrade, it strikes me as an excellent plan.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would buy the AF-S Nikkor 28-300 VR and sell only the 50mm
    The 35mm is very useful for low light and Video.

    I very rarely use VR (it takes to long to settle down) but this lens is very sharp, has wide range and can also be used for FullFrame.
    Unless you need something really wide or f/2.8, the 17-55 is only DX

  13. #13
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,895
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RRRoger View Post
    I very rarely use VR (it takes to long to settle down)
    Err ... you mean 1/3rd to 1/2 of a second is too long for you? I'm astonished!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    Err ... you mean 1/3rd to 1/2 of a second is too long for you? I'm astonished!
    Yes, I am an action photographer and have to refocus on the next subject in a millisecond.

    Except for a few long lens (Nikkor 200-400 etc) VR does not work on a TriPod.

    The only time I might turn on VR is in low light and hand held for single shots or Video.
    Last edited by RRRoger; 04-08-2011 at 12:13am.

  15. #15
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,895
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Image stabilisation has worked on tripods for more than a decade now.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    Image stabilisation has worked on tripods for more than a decade now.
    You might get away with it with a very loose head,
    otherwise, most of the time, it will actually cause blurring.
    Read the manufactures information and you will find it is not recommended on most lens.

    An image stabilized TriPod could be useful though.
    Last edited by RRRoger; 04-08-2011 at 12:48am.

  17. #17
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,895
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ^ Up until 1999, that was so, but that was 12 years ago. There are only about 2 Canon lenses left in production that don't work perfectly happily with tripods, out of maybe 40 or 50 with IS. (I'd have to check the exact number - it might even be just one by now.) Is Nikon a decade behind? I'd be very surprised if they were.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    ^ Up until 1999, that was so, but that was 12 years ago. There are only about 2 Canon lenses left in production that don't work perfectly happily with tripods, out of maybe 40 or 50 with IS. (I'd have to check the exact number - it might even be just one by now.) Is Nikon a decade behind? I'd be very surprised if they were.
    Perhaps, but I think this special VR in a Nikkor is bigger and requires a larger lens body to fit into.
    Or, perhaps it is more expensive to make?
    I would like to know as usually advancements trickle down to all products and cost are made up for in greater production numbers.

  19. #19
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,895
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmm ... a little Googling reveals that Nikon were a bit late to the tripod-sensing party but by 2008 they had six products with partial tripod compatibility:
    • 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR
    • 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR
    • 70-200/2.8 VR (that will be the old model, now replaced by a Mark II)
    • 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR
    • 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR
    • 105/2.8 VR macro


    With these lenses, they recommend switching VR OFF if the head is locked down tight (e.g., for a landscape shot), and switching VR ON if the head is fluid (e.g., for wildlife or sport). With a monopod, VR should always be ON with any lens.

    Back in 2008 Nikon also had three VR lenses with full tripod compatibility.
    • 200-400/ 4 VR (that is apparently the old model - there is a new Mark II now)
    • 200/2 VR
    • 300/2.8G VR

    Presumably, all Nikon VR lenses released since that time (1998) have full tripod compatibility.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    Hmmm ... a little Googling reveals that Nikon were a bit late to the tripod-sensing party but by 2008 they had six products with partial tripod compatibility:
    [list
    Presumably, all Nikon VR lenses released since that time (1998) have full tripod compatibility.
    Don't we all wish it to be true!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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