Best all around indoor lens, 17-55 f/2.8 or primes?

Paisley · Jun 22, 2006

I'm looking for a good indoor low-light lens for family events and the like to use on my D50.

Trying to decide if I want the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 or a couple of primes.

Primes I'm considering are Nikon 50 f/1.8, and a Nikon 35 f/2 or Sigma 30 f/1.4

I know may of you have been faced with this ame zoom vs prime decision so what did you do and are you happy with your decision?

I have 17-55 on hold at B&H and have to make a decision today.

Thanks

tao.design · Jun 22, 2006

Paisley said:
I know may of you have been faced with this ame zoom vs prime
decision so what did you do and are you happy with your decision?

I see this as a question with facets. First, there's a matter of shooting preferences -- whether you prefer shooting with primes over zooms, vice versa. Among other things, some people like the self-imposed, singular clarity of a prime lens, while others prefer the flexibility of zooms.

Second, there's the consideration of light. Primes will be faster. Period. If you're shooting during the daytime, this is somewhat less of a consideration. If you're shooting after the sun has gone down and you don't want to use flash, f/2.8 might not be fast enough.

Todd

Jim101232 · Jun 22, 2006

An additional 1 to 2 stops may not be enough to make a differance either. Also factor in the advantage of the VR.

Windancer · Jun 22, 2006

Todd said:
Among other things, some people like the self-imposed, singular clarity of
a prime lens, while others prefer the flexibility of zooms.

This is very true, I am fortunate enough to have both the Nikkor17-55/2.8 as well as the Nikkor 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 and the 50/1.8 primes. The zoom is a great lens no doubt about it. If you are looking for a general walk around lens, IMO, this is it. But you are right, I do like the primes for their speed, size and weight and not to mention I still have a Nikon F100 and F3 that these primes work on.

Regards
Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

Windancer · Jun 22, 2006

Unfortunately....

Regards
Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

edwardneal · Jun 22, 2006

For indoor / low light the primes are the better choice. the difference between f/2.8 and f/1.4 can mean shooting at 1/120th instead of 1/30th. Also if I were you I would get the 50mm f/1.4 not the f/1.8, the 1.4 is better at f/4 and wider

JMO

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

Paisley · Jun 22, 2006

I already own the 50 1.8 and a Nikon 18-70 zoom.

If I go with primes only I would just add the Nikon 35 f/2 or the Sigma 30 f1.4.

I will be taking photos indoors both day and night with no flash.

For now I will be using a D50 body so hopefully 800/1600 ISO results will be good.

I really like the flexibility of the 17-55 focal range but what makes it difficult for me is that it's about $800. more than just going with the 35 f/2.

Also wondering if the 17-55 will add that much over the 18-70 for daylight outdoor photography?

Uncle Frank · Jun 22, 2006

Paisley said:
Also wondering if the 17-55 will add that much over the 18-70 for
daylight outdoor photography?

I believe the forum's consensus is that the modern affordable zooms are as good as the pro zooms for f/8 photography.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

James H. · Jun 22, 2006

If you like to and plan to shoot indoors without flash then the 1.8/1.4 primes would be the way to go but you are limited in focal range.

If you plan to use flash most of the time, then the 17-55mm would be a great choice. It is the ideal walkaround lens indoors and out. So far I found the range to be very useful for all occasions.

--
James H.
http://jhphoto.smugmug.com

RaidenCraig · Jun 22, 2006

You cannot go wrong with the 35/2... it is becoming the darling "petite treat." You mention concern about the price of the 17-55, whether it will blow away your 18-70 in outdoor bright light (it will not), and whether primes can excel in lower light-- they can. The 17-55 is very good wide open (a plus), but 2.8 is surely slower than 2.0, much less 1.4.
gotta run... just my quick 2 cents worth. ;-)

--craig

Paisley said:
I'm looking for a good indoor low-light lens for family events and
the like to use on my D50.

Trying to decide if I want the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 or a couple of
primes.

Primes I'm considering are Nikon 50 f/1.8, and a Nikon 35 f/2 or
Sigma 30 f/1.4

I know may of you have been faced with this ame zoom vs prime
decision so what did you do and are you happy with your decision?

I have 17-55 on hold at B&H and have to make a decision today.

Thanks

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

Paisley · Jun 22, 2006

I can't get past wanting the flexability of a wide/mid zoom so I'll see how it goes.

RaidenCraig · Jun 22, 2006

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

RBFresno · Jun 22, 2006

Hi!

I was faced with buying a camera/lens for my wife earlier this year. Her primary use are indoor events with variable mixed/low lighting. The D50 has good low-light/high-ISO performance, and the 17-55 is very sharp even @ f/2.8.

Yes, a prime would be better in terms of exposure (I have a 28 1.4 which is incredible in low light), but she truely needed the flexibility of a zoom.

I've been extremely impressed by the 17-55, but be aware that there are some suboptimal 17-55 copies floating around (not to be confused with the more common focusing issues, particularly with some D70's--mine focuses fine on the D50)

RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

Paisley · Jun 22, 2006

Hi RB,

Thanks for the good advise.

During my reserch I became aware of the infinity focusing issue but no others.

Can you give me a heads-up on what to check for when my new 17-55 arrives?

Thanks,
Dale

Pablo Cocito · Jun 22, 2006

Good choice. Great lens.

The first good thing you find out when you get fast zooms or faster primes is that you can get beautiful effects playing with bokeh and shallow DOF.

But, also the first bad thing you find out when you shoot a group of people indoors wide open is that everyone but the aimed-at individual is out of focus ;/ So your next purchase has to be a bad a$$ flash like the SB-800 that you can bounce on the ceiling and get great light with natural look using your fast lens errr stopped down

Cheers.

Brooks Lester · Jun 22, 2006

I've found in my brief time with fast primes (Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8) that shallow depth of field is addictive.

I find myself stuck in a quandary as to using available light at f/1.x with only part of the subject in focus , the important parts like eyes, or using my SB-600 into the ceiling or otherwise diffused and dialing in f stop to get all of the subject in sharp focus with background elements OOF. It's a good problem to have and reallly just a question of how subjective you want the image to look.

jlf · Jun 22, 2006

Amazing lens - you really won't miss the primes.

The zoom makes it a breeze to take a broad assortment of family pictures, etc. The vesatility combined with the utmost quality is a joy.

For certain special shots, I might pull out one of my primes. But, I've been mostly disappointed in my primes after the 17-55.

j.

lchase · Jun 22, 2006

Paisley said:
Hi RB,

Thanks for the good advise.

During my reserch I became aware of the infinity focusing issue but
no others.

Can you give me a heads-up on what to check for when my new 17-55
arrives?

Thanks,
Dale

I also have a 17 - 55 arriving Monday from B&H, and I really don't know what I should do to check it out. I don't want to be stuck with someone elses return.
ladd

RBFresno · Jun 22, 2006

RBFresno said:
Can you give me a heads-up on what to check for when my new 17-55 arrives?

Hi Dale,

There are many participants to this forum who know more about checking a lens than I do.

However, at a minimum, I'd find a nice brick wall in bright light, CAREFULLY FOCUS, keeping the plane of the camera parallell to the wall, and shoot a series of pictures at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 at different focal lengths (say 17, 24, 35, and 55). Check the images on your computer screen, cropped to 100%, and look carefully, particularly for softness in the corners.
(Others will probably have more refined suggestions).

RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

Rene Delbar · Jun 23, 2006

For those looking to know more about the 17-55DX focus issue (occuring mostly on D70), and how to test for it, see this excellent thread where Phil Youngblood comments and educates us as only he can do:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=17918395

As to the original question: the 35/2.0 has been and still is my favorite low-light walk-around lens: it's light, inobtrusive, lets you work quickly and gives excellent quality.

Having just acquired a previously loved 17-55DX to complete my glass line-up, I wonder to what extent that one will take over at least where weight and discretion are not a factor (I do a lot of people shots at events). But I seriously doubt that my 35/2 will be left home for all occasions where it shines today!

If you rather used a 28mm as your default "crowd" lens in the film SLR days, the 20/2.8 is worth a very good look. Even now that I have the 17-55DX, I might still be looking to acquire one of those because of its compact size and low weight.

René

http://www.pbase.com/rdelbar

Best all around indoor lens, 17-55 f/2.8 or primes?

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts