Dilemma: 17-55 OR 35,85,16-85 for the same price

Hi,

Just bought a D300 and I'm now looking for a (few) good lens(es) to go with it (I'm selling the D70+18-70).

A natural choice would be the 17-55 f/2.8, but for the same price (in EU) I could get the 35 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 and 16-85 DX VR.

I shoot mostly portraits in available light, but I also need something for those family trips, travels, kids, etc. I'm not interested in an 18-200, since I plan to get an 80-200 f/2.8 later (or a 2nd hand 70-200).

When I read the forums, the only reasons to buy the 17-55 are the 2.8 and the build quality.

If I get the 3 lenses, I'm covered for the portraits with the 50 and 85, and I'm covered for walking around with the 16-85 and the 35, if I want to go light.
The only thing I would miss by not getting the 17-55 is wide angle at 2.8.

What do you think? Will I regret not getting the 17-55?

Johan

--
D300,D70,F70 + 50 f/1.8 + 18-70 DX

17-55 mm is the way to go!

http://www.poze-studio.ro

I have three of the four lenses you mention: 35 / 16-85 / 17-55

The 35 is a lovely little lens: it's very useable and pretty sharp straight from 1.8 which is a huge plus for available light photography, has nice bokeh, and it's super sharp from F2.5 onwards - AF speed is good, but not great - my only gripe about it is that it has no distance scale, so I can't manually set it to infinite focus for night shots of falling stars, or fireworks, etc. - All in all really GREAT value for money though. If you are comfortable with the focal lenght I think this is a lens to get. Makes a great compact & lightweight low-light capable kit

The 16-85 VR is a very versatile lens. My copy is incredibly sharp corner to corner at all focal lenghts even wide open, except at 16mm where it needs to be stopped down 1 stop for corner to corner sharpness (the center @ 16mm is anyhow very sharp even wide open) Color rendition and contrast are good, AF speed is fast with no hunting - build quality is decent and the VR is very effective, I have been able to shoot handeld with very slow shutter speed with great results. It's a perfect travel/walkaround lens, sharp, compact and with a great useful range from quite wide angle to quite some telephoto. Very good for landscapes, street photography, and not bad at all for portraits when used at 85mm F5.6 - Bokeh is good only at 85mm F5.6 at least for my taste, I don't like it at other focal lenghts.

Be sure to try it out though because there seems to be sample variation between each lense

The 17-55 2.8 is a professional grade lens. I bought it used in mint condition at half its retail price, (I think it costs a little too much for being a DX lens) and it has incredibly good build quality (the cliche "built like a tank" fits well here) with dust and moisture sealings and a metal alloy body. It's big and heavy and not something you'll want to lug around during a trip.

Compared at the same aperture it's as sharp as my 16-85VR, and it's sharp even wide open, but with better bokeh, better contrast/microcontrast and more vibrant colours. It also handles shadows in a different way, giving more texture and sense of depht to the pictures in respect to the 16-85.
AF is blazingly fast and hunt-free. A great lens.

Be sure to try this too because there seem to be sample variation on this one too.

Can't comment on the 85 because I've never handled one but I have read many positive things about that one.

Hope this helps, have a nice day.

I've used the lenses you mentioned and they are all good ones. One thing you must bear in mind is whether you will stick to DX format for long -- if you have the intention to move to FX at a later stage, then the 35/2 (not 35/1.8), 85 and 16-85 makes more sense.

If you are happy with DX and you take portraits a lot, then I think the 17-55 is the one to get (and it will complement the 80-200 nicely). Apart from the convenience factor, the 17-55 is almost built with portraits/wedding photography in mind. The IQ is really nice! Altho the 16-85 is as sharp, it is in a way a "kit" lens -- the bokeh is not particularly pleasing. I've tested the 17-55 and 16-85 at the same fl and same aperture (say f5) and it is immeidately obvious that the depth of field is narrower for the 17-55, ie, it is hard to isolate the subject with the 16-85 -- it is designed more for landscapes and travel snapshots, if I may say so. I've shot weddings with the 17-55 and 16-85 on D300, and I will pick the 17-55 anytime.

Rgds

Johan_M said:

What do you think? Will I regret not getting the 17-55?

Click to expand...

If you read these forums a lot and do not get the 17-55 you will regret not buying it. If you buy it and then do your own tests, you will regret having bought it.

I am not suggesting that the 17-55mm is a bad lens. Its designed for pro photographers with certain types of shooting in mind. I have owned several alongside the 16-85mm. Unless you intend shooting at f4 and wider, then you will not tell the difference between the 17-55 and the 16-85mm. The 17-55mm is nicely sharp at f4, but wider than this and I find the 17-55mm rather soft, and at f2.8, its edges are unacceptably soft. I daresay I could improve on its performance by sending it to Nikon to have it calibrated to my bodies.

If you want great bokeh, then primes are the way to go, though there are no good Nikon primes wider than 35mm. I find that the 17-55mm does not throw backgrounds into the soft particularly well. Its the foregrounds that it makes very soft - quite why it is designed like this I haven't a clue.

For f2.8 photography, I much prefer my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro, not least because its much smaller and lighter and makes a great travel lens. My sample is sharper in the centre than the 17-55mm, and I have tested it against three samples. The bokeh on the 18-50mm is not particularly wonderful, but it will do for most purposes.

The lens I really do rate for sharpness, micro-contrast and bokeh is the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8. If you cannot afford it, then the 35-70mm f2.8D makes a good substiute. Its not as sharp as the 28-70mm and the range is not as useful. Even so, its a great portrait lens and has good bokeh. Its also small enough to be used as a travel lens.

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !

Johan_M said:

Hi,

Just bought a D300 and I'm now looking for a (few) good lens(es) to go with it (I'm selling the D70+18-70).

A natural choice would be the 17-55 f/2.8, but for the same price (in EU) I could get the 35 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 and 16-85 DX VR.

I shoot mostly portraits in available light, but I also need something for those family trips, travels, kids, etc. I'm not interested in an 18-200, since I plan to get an 80-200 f/2.8 later (or a 2nd hand 70-200).

When I read the forums, the only reasons to buy the 17-55 are the 2.8 and the build quality.

If I get the 3 lenses, I'm covered for the portraits with the 50 and 85, and I'm covered for walking around with the 16-85 and the 35, if I want to go light.
The only thing I would miss by not getting the 17-55 is wide angle at 2.8.

What do you think? Will I regret not getting the 17-55?

Johan

Click to expand...

The 17-55 has a wonderful build quality, but personally I felt it was to heavy with the already heavy D300 to be a comfortable walk around lens. My sample gave very sharp images at close and medium distance, but not so good corners at infinity, it was more suited for events and reportage than for landscapes.

I would choose your second option. The 16-85 has wider angle, is excellent as a walk around lens. Gets very good reviews all around.

The 35 1.8 is a great lens, despite the modest build, excellent in low light amd for subject isolation, very sharp, small and light.

The 85 1.8 feels a little old fashioned with the screw drive focus, but it is sharp and fast. A lot of IQ for the money.

You can read further opinions in my personal reviews of the 17-55, the 35 1.8 and the 85 1.8 on my blog, address below.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

I second what PerL said, and I would like to add that for available light portraits the 1.8 aperture of the 35 and 85 will make a BIG difference in respect to the 2.8 aperture of the 17-55 - you will be able to shoot with less light and/or with lower ISO with the two primes. And the 16-85 VR will serve you as a wonderful travel lens.

PS: for PerL: to obtain sharper corners in infinity focus landscapes with the 17-55 just use this trick: focus manually PAST the infinity mark (just turn the focus ring as far as it will go) and then shoot: voilà, sharper corners (it's due to the curved filed of focus at 17mm, by focusing past infinity you bring the corners better into the depht of field, just try it)

Rick_Hunter said:

I second what PerL said, and I would like to add that for available light portraits the 1.8 aperture of the 35 and 85 will make a BIG difference in respect to the 2.8 aperture of the 17-55 - you will be able to shoot with less light and/or with lower ISO with the two primes. And the 16-85 VR will serve you as a wonderful travel lens.

PS: for PerL: to obtain sharper corners in infinity focus landscapes with the 17-55 just use this trick: focus manually PAST the infinity mark (just turn the focus ring as far as it will go) and then shoot: voilà, sharper corners (it's due to the curved filed of focus at 17mm, by focusing past infinity you bring the corners better into the depht of field, just try it)

Click to expand...

Thanks Rick. I have tried it, but it did not work on my copy. I think there may be some sample variation besides the curvature of field.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

Johan_M said:

Hi,

Just bought a D300 and I'm now looking for a (few) good lens(es) to go with it (I'm selling the D70+18-70).

A natural choice would be the 17-55 f/2.8, but for the same price (in EU) I could get the 35 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 and 16-85 DX VR.

I shoot mostly portraits in available light, but I also need something for those family trips, travels, kids, etc. I'm not interested in an 18-200, since I plan to get an 80-200 f/2.8 later (or a 2nd hand 70-200).

When I read the forums, the only reasons to buy the 17-55 are the 2.8 and the build quality.

If I get the 3 lenses, I'm covered for the portraits with the 50 and 85, and I'm covered for walking around with the 16-85 and the 35, if I want to go light.
The only thing I would miss by not getting the 17-55 is wide angle at 2.8.

What do you think? Will I regret not getting the 17-55?

Johan

--
D300,D70,F70 + 50 f/1.8 + 18-70 DX

Click to expand...

.

My suggestion: Get the 35 1.8, 85 1.8, and Tamron 17-50 2.8 . IMO, the 17-50 2.8 is a better choice than the 16-85 kit-"plus".

link to thoughts/images on the Tamron ---> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=32659857

.

I have the 1755, 35 and 85 for my d300 and my choice would be the 1755.

I find the general use lens generally gets more use.

The 1755 has good boke for a lens in its range and the rendering is just very nice. It can get decent portraits in the absence of the 85.

Of course you, like me, will probably still want the 35 and 85.

I'll go so far as to say don't waste money on the 1685 with its poor boke (or the tamron with the unreliable builtin lottofocus).