- This topic is empty.
Just how good is the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 DX
-
Very quick advice needed.
I am considering trading a nikon 18-70 DX, a nikon 80-200 AFD f2.8 and a little bit of money for a used 17-55 f2.8 in Bermingham’s sale.
In reality, the 80-200 has only been used for a few candid portraits (which it does pretty well) and one rugby match (the guy next to me is hoping I won’t do that again, I am quite sure).
Obviously the 18-70 won’t be needed so I’m happy to get the better lens, but is the picture quality from the 17-55 impressive enough to lose the range of the 80-200 for?Any thoughts?
Most of my recent work has been product photography (home studio), and event work for the local press. I want to improve my portrait work, and a few nice shots of the West Cork coast would be nice.
I’ve had one for about a year and it is my every day lens on my D300
Couldn’t be happier – studio/gigs/scenery
Alansigma 18-125, sigma 50mm f1.8 and nikon 70-200 f2.8
Kept the sigma 50mm prime ( because its just dinky and sharp too) and the 70-200
Thanks for that Alan – I was planning on picking up a 50mm like that in NY next month.
I must admit that I was suffering a little buyer’s remorse after trading in my beautiful, pristine 80-200 2.8 for the used 17-55.
But after a quick burst of test shots today, I am pretty astounded at the jump in quality – sharpness in particular.
If anyone has any more advice for getting the most out of this lens I would appreciate it.Thanks
I use the 17 – 55mm as my normal everyday walk about lens on both my now relagated D200 and my new shiney D300. I bought it just over 2 years ago and it is rarely off the camera.
Some reviews do mark it down as less value for money, NOT POOR, just LESS value for money due to its high price tag, but if truth be told it is one of the reasons I went for a D300 and not a D700, I would have had to part with this very dear friend. ( funny how one can get emotional about a piece of glass and metal)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
