Just got 17-55. Should ditch 35 f/1.8 & 18-55?

So I just purchased an immaculate used 17-55 f/2.8. I am trying to envision a situation in which I would want to screw on either the 18-55 or the 35 f/1.8. For the 35, I almost always stop down to 2.8 anyway because an eyeball or something else ends up out of focus. I actually blew a lot of otherwise great shots when I first got this lens because I was shooting everything wide open. I imagine that's a common rookie move. And for the 18-55 only reason I could imagine screwing that on...well I can't imagine wanting to!!!

I would like to sell these to recoup just a bit of my expenditure for the 17-55. But I am somewhat hesitant to get rid of them, possibly without a real reason (pack rat syndrome??). Anyway, any convincing reasons/arguments to keep either or both??

Thanks!

I would keep the 35, and sell the 15-55. I can foresee a need for the 1.8 lens.
--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill

Hi, I sold both 16-85 and 35 1.8 after having bought the 17-55.
--
My photos: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/danm_cool/

Camera : Nikon D7000 with lenses : Nik 85mm f/1.8D - Nik 17-55mm f/2.8G ED AF-S DX - Fisheye AF DX 10,5 f/2.8 D - Nik 300mm f/4.0 AF-S IF ED

I carry my 35mm (or 50, 85) on D300 way more often than 17-55 these days. Yes the 17-55 produce better IQ, but it's too bulky to walk around with. (No I am not weak I do carry 70-200 and 300/2.8 when shooting sports) so I'd recommend you keeping the 35.

tallahassegreys said:

So I just purchased an immaculate used 17-55 f/2.8. I am trying to envision a situation in which I would want to screw on either the 18-55 or the 35 f/1.8. For the 35, I almost always stop down to 2.8 anyway because an eyeball or something else ends up out of focus. I actually blew a lot of otherwise great shots when I first got this lens because I was shooting everything wide open. I imagine that's a common rookie move. And for the 18-55 only reason I could imagine screwing that on...well I can't imagine wanting to!!!

I would like to sell these to recoup just a bit of my expenditure for the 17-55. But I am somewhat hesitant to get rid of them, possibly without a real reason (pack rat syndrome??). Anyway, any convincing reasons/arguments to keep either or both??

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Keep them both! The 18-55VR makes a sweet second camera backup lens. The 35 F1.8 is much faster than your 17-55 when light conditions are such that you need F 2.2 I would tell you to sell them both if the 17-55 had VR but it does not! If you really must sell one then sell the 18-55VR.

I would ditch the 18-55mm in a heartbeat although you won't get very much for it. I would definitely keep the 35mm. It's much lighter than the 17-55mm so you can carry it with you on every shoot even if it's not the lens that's on the camera. You never know when you might need a faster lens and you will at some point.

tallahassegreys said:

So I just purchased an immaculate used 17-55 f/2.8. I am trying to envision a situation in which I would want to screw on either the 18-55 or the 35 f/1.8. For the 35, I almost always stop down to 2.8 anyway because an eyeball or something else ends up out of focus. I actually blew a lot of otherwise great shots when I first got this lens because I was shooting everything wide open. I imagine that's a common rookie move. And for the 18-55 only reason I could imagine screwing that on...well I can't imagine wanting to!!!

I would like to sell these to recoup just a bit of my expenditure for the 17-55. But I am somewhat hesitant to get rid of them, possibly without a real reason (pack rat syndrome??). Anyway, any convincing reasons/arguments to keep either or both??

Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury

Sell the 18-55, keep the 35, with practice you'll get stuff in focus, even at 1.8!

Best,

Don

I find the 35 1,8 to be one of the easiest lenses to focus, manual or automatic. What a great lens. A bit big, but much much better to carry around than the 17-55 2,8. I have a similarly sized lens and use my 28 2,8 AiS much much more often.

Simply put, big zooms are nice to have when going to camera meets where everyone is a gearhead, but if you don't use that lens because it is heavy, it is dead weight. Till I got my 50 1,2, I used the 24-70 all the time. Then, I quickly moved away from it to small, light, easy to use AiS primes.

Enjoy it while you can! Eventually, you may decide to go back to lighter stuff.

nikons52 said:

Sell the 18-55, keep the 35, with practice you'll get stuff in focus, even at 1.8!

Best,

Don

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/
Advice/criticism/appreciation appreciated!

Agree with the others, keep the 35/1.8. Small primes are much better when you want to travel light, or want to be less conspicuous.
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

certainly sell the 18-55 (although its probably not worth a lot used, a bit too common?)

as for the 35 ... most peole would keep it, but if you are not enjoying using the lens or have no desire to use f/1.8-2.8 range then sell it on. as people mention it's a very small alternative to your 17-55, but it's all about you. if you don't like it, dump it.
--
shooting primes from 1987-2011, just bought a zoom (see plan in profile)
my olde flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcapfoto
my new twitter: http://twitter.com/LensLineup

Put the 17-55 on your camera and use it for a month, and see how it suits you. I put mine on my D300 a year and a half ago, and never took it off. I use it for everything except when I need the reach of my 300mm. Don't keep what you won't use, might use someday, could possibly use or might think about using-you won't!
--
truview

Since you'd only get $50 to $80 for it anyway...sometimes it's good to have cheap gear that you don't mind if something happens to it.

For example, one time I was shooting a paintball event. Someone else w/ their D3, 24-70, 70-200, etc., wisely didn't want to risk getting right in the middle of the action. But w/ my D200 & 55-200mmVR, I didn't have nearly as much to lose, so I was able to jump right in to get "front-line" images.

I would hang onto both. The 35 is fast. The 18-55 is a good backup and knock around lens when your in less than ideal conditions. For example. I had a 18-70 that came with my D70. I took it on small motor boat and was shooting shots I would not subject the 17-55 to.
I loved that lens, it is still with my D70 at my brother and sis-n-law's home.
John

.
About 6 years ago I purchased a one owner low mileage 17-55 2.8.
It has stayed on my camera 90% of the time and that means in Laos,
Cambodia and rural Thailand where i live and work.Money well spent ....;-)
.
--
Jon in Thailand

http://www.flickr.com/photos/af2899/
.

i say DEFINITELY keep the 18-55. as for the 35mm i would probably keep it but that is just my preference.

personally i hate carrying big heavy lenses. i would keep the 35mm around for times when you want to travel light. but then again, i also would never buy a 17-55 f/2.8. i'm sure it's an amazing lens, but i would rather carry light.

the 18-55 is a no brainer though in my opinion. BUT there is also more of a subjective side to it as well. do you partake in activities such as:

boating/swimming
camping
parades/street festivals
parades/street festivals with lots of alcohol
bar hopping
biking
etc.?

then the 18-55 will be a handy lens to hold on to. my neighborhood throws a massive mardi gras street festival every year (geographically largest in the US!) and a modest oktoberfest street festival (not as big but still fun!), and i would not feel comfortable taking my $700 nikkor 10-24 out with me, much less the $1,000+ 17-55 f/2.8.

on the other hand, i'll gladly take my $100 used 18-55 VR and take pictures with that. likewise for camping and bike rides. if the unthinkable happens i would rather lose my camera + $100 than my camera + $1,000.

i haven't had my nikon very long, but when i had my old canon i can't tell you how much beer, sticky alcoholic drink, dirt, lake water, and god knows what spilled on my camera and lens... but the pictures came out great!

also i dropped it quite a few times. but never with my 70-200 f/4L attached!

after I got my 35mm f/1.8 I ditched my 17-55. the 17-55 is a great lens for events where a zoom is a must, but at f/2.8 the 35mm f/1.8 is much sharper than the 17-55 and I dont normally do events.

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

tallahassegreys said:

So I just purchased an immaculate used 17-55 f/2.8. I am trying to envision a situation in which I would want to screw on either the 18-55 or the 35 f/1.8. For the 35, I almost always stop down to 2.8 anyway because an eyeball or something else ends up out of focus. I actually blew a lot of otherwise great shots when I first got this lens because I was shooting everything wide open. I imagine that's a common rookie move. And for the 18-55 only reason I could imagine screwing that on...well I can't imagine wanting to!!!

I would like to sell these to recoup just a bit of my expenditure for the 17-55. But I am somewhat hesitant to get rid of them, possibly without a real reason (pack rat syndrome??). Anyway, any convincing reasons/arguments to keep either or both??

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The 17-55 is built like a tank and weighs like one. When you want to travel light it is nice to have the other lenses.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

it is worthy to have both lenses instead of some bucks

Vladi

Bought the 35mm/1.8 after owning the 17-55/2.8. The 35mm offers a compact size and better light gathering for low light shots. It's a purpose lens, but I like it. The 17-55/2.8 is a rock star for everything though. No reason to own the non-pro/high-f variants in the same general range.

tallahassegreys said:

So I just purchased an immaculate used 17-55 f/2.8. I am trying to envision a situation in which I would want to screw on either the 18-55 or the 35 f/1.8. For the 35, I almost always stop down to 2.8 anyway because an eyeball or something else ends up out of focus. I actually blew a lot of otherwise great shots when I first got this lens because I was shooting everything wide open. I imagine that's a common rookie move. And for the 18-55 only reason I could imagine screwing that on...well I can't imagine wanting to!!!

I would like to sell these to recoup just a bit of my expenditure for the 17-55. But I am somewhat hesitant to get rid of them, possibly without a real reason (pack rat syndrome??). Anyway, any convincing reasons/arguments to keep either or both??

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I kept my 18-55mm b/c the resale isn't worth giving it up. Currently, it lives on my old d60 as a lightweight setup for my wife.