From primes to one zoom?

[eloki]

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?

[andylo]

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!

[Tannin]

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.

[fillum]

Would you call me an idiot?OK, if you insist... "You're an idiot". :lol:

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 :D).


Cheers.

[Lance B]

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.

[ving]

the question is not weather we consider you and idiot but weather you consider you an idiot for your actions... :cool:

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

[Cage]

[QUOTE=ving;892651]the question is not weather we consider you and idiot but weather you consider you an idiot for your actions... :cool:

Or whether or not to leave the wether out in the weather. :confused013

[ving]

[QUOTE=ving;892651]the question is not weather we consider you and idiot but weather you consider you an idiot for your actions... :cool:

Or whether or not to leave the wether out in the weather. :confused013indeed! like what you said! :p

[eloki]

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 :).

[Cage]

It's a no brainer really, going from 2 average primes to a high end zoom with better range. Go for it.

[Tannin]

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.

[RRRoger]

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

[Tannin]

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!

[RRRoger]

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.

[Tannin]

Image stabilisation has worked on tripods for more than a decade now.

[RRRoger]

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.

[Tannin]

^ 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.

[RRRoger]

^ 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.

[Tannin]

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.

[RRRoger]

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!

[gqtuazon]

I started with prime lenses before but when I started getting more dust inside my camera which have been caused by changing lenses outdoor, it prompted me to use zoom lenses instead. Primes are cheaper, usually has faster aperture, lighter but the zoom lenses suits my shooting style and provides more convenience. Sometimes when you are watching a concert or a parade, the prime lens won't allow you to step back or forward to get the composition that you want.

Re: VR / IS. I also find this very useful. Not everyone here is a sports photographer. If you use shutter speeds above 1/320 or so, it's best to leave VR off or if you use a tripod as previously pointed out. For indoor when taking family pictures or whatever interest me, using lower shutter speed i.e. 1/15, VR does works. For DX, you can probably get a Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR or if you prefer a constant aperture, the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VRII is another good option. The Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 is a good lens for DX but If I was going to spend that much money, then I'd rather get the 24-70mm f2.8 instead since it has better flare control and is much sharper wide open. Just my two cents.

[eloki]

So i decided get the sigma 17-50 2.8. Can't seem to get my head around spending so much for the nikon... Will update on its performance if anyone cares to read about it.

[N*A*M]

i'm mostly a zoom guy and the 17-55 was a big factor in me staying with DX for a long time. i was very sad to let it go. the only alternative in my mind is the screwdriven tammy 17-50. primes are great, but i would happily live with just a 17-55.

[Pine]

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.


Hi Tannin
I still think VR or IS is just a nice to have but not essential.

You simply pay more for the same lens its just gadyets.

Two of my lenses 24-70 and 70-200 dont have IS and I dont miss it.

As you know the trick is to keep the camera still.

Regards