Thoughts on Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8.......

Started Dec 28, 2010 | Discussions thread
arachnophilia Veteran Member • Posts: 3,352
Re: Thoughts on Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8.......

I will be shooting with a D300s and a D200 as backup body. No full frame yet (I am about three years from that)

The 17-55 seems like a no brainer for me with the 70-200 maybe a ways down road.

the great thing about pro lenses is that it's never money wasted. if you do go FF down the road, you can easily turn around and sell the 17-55 (and 70-200 if you want the new one) for almost exactly what you're going to pay for them. in the meantime, both are fantastic lenses.

The size is a bit daunting but not so bad.

if you need it, you get used to the size/weight fast. the 17-55 seems big and heavy compared to standard kit zooms, but once you get the 70-200, it's like nothing. the 70-200 is not a lens i normally "walkaround" with. normally.

I shoot mainly kids and pets along with landscape. Want something for decent indoor low light at times.

i'd suggest looking more at primes, then. not to knock either lens.

The 18-200 is not a bad lens but not a good one either, does that make sense? I got to shoot with a D300s recently and it had a 17-55 2.8 attached. I enjoyed the advancements in the body but was much more intrigued by the quality of shots with the 17-55......blows away the IQ of the 18-200 VR..considering the 70-200 for range.

for DX midrange zooms, you really can't beat the 17-55. 16-85 is supposed to be a little sharper, but if you need that 2.8...

 arachnophilia's gear list:arachnophilia's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D300S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow