Dilema - 18-200 + 50 1.4 VS 17-55 2.8

[jabadia]

I own 18-200 which i'm not so pleased about in its edges( i.e +100mm) and its general sharpness, but I am happy with its 'all in one' capability.

I also have 50MM 1.4 which i'm very happy about.
and i have 70-300ED which i did not used much since the 18-200 .

I have a chance to trade 18-200+50mm with 17-55 2.8.

then i'll start using the 70-300 to cover the range.

what would you advise ? go for it or not ?

Thanks in advance for your advise..

 

[jabadia]

I've found some similiar question in the forum, i'll look around..

thanks.

 

[malch]

I have a chance to trade 18-200+50mm with 17-55 2.8.

then i'll start using the 70-300 to cover the range.

what would you advise ? go for it or not ?

Personally, no.

I completely understand the desire to add the 17-55; great lens.

I have f/2.8 pro glass covering 14-200mm but I still love my 18-200 for its light weight and versatility. It's a keeper. Your 50mm f/1.4 is a keeper too.

I think the 70-300 is the lens you'll most likely replace at some point at time (in favor of something faster and/or longer).

 

[jabadia]

Thanks Malch,

Appreciate your answer, hope i'll get more thought that will make my decision easier ..

Yossi.

 

[larsbc]

I own 18-200 which i'm not so pleased about in its edges( i.e +100mm)
and its general sharpness, but I am happy with its 'all in one'
capability.

I also have 50MM 1.4 which i'm very happy about.
and i have 70-300ED which i did not used much since the 18-200 .

I have a chance to trade 18-200+50mm with 17-55 2.8.

then i'll start using the 70-300 to cover the range.

what would you advise ? go for it or not ?

I kind of did what you're contemplating on doing.

I had a 17-55/2.8 and 18-200VR. I didn't like using the 18-200VR past 100mm due to softness and/or focusing issues. So I sold it and replaced it with a 16-85VR and 70-300VR. Obviously, the 18-200VR was the better value (16-85VR costs almost the same as the 18-200VR and then add the 70-300VR cost on top of that) and more convenient. But now when I use telephoto, my keeper rate is much higher. The image quality is much closer to my 70-200VR now.

But would I replace the 18-200VR's short end with a 17-55/2.8? That's a tough call because the 17-55 is a big lens. My 18-200VR was primarily used for casual photography and travel. The 17-55 I use for times when I'm going out to photograph something where I know that lens will be useful (events, portraits..."serious" photography).

If you don't mind the weight/size of the 17-55 and you don't need the VR, then sure, the 17-55 + 70-300 combo makes sense. But generally speaking, I've found that VR is more useful than f/2.8 for most of my photography.

I guess you could always sell the 17-55 if it's too heavy and buy a 16-85VR.

larsbc

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

I would definitely go for it.

Myself, I bought a 24-70 when I became dissatisfied with the shatpness of the 18-200. I still have the 18-200, but I almost never use it anymore. I also have a 50F1.8, which normally doesn't even make it into the bag. (Probably would be used more with an FX camera).

The 24 end of the 24-70 isn't wide enough, so I have to put on a 12-24 sometimes. The difference between 55 and 70 on the other end is basically nothing - could either crop a bit or walk forward a couple of steps. If I need more reach, I put on a longer lens anyway.

The 17-55F2.8 has always looked to be an extremely good lens on DX.

 

[Lawnjockey]

My thoughts are similar to the previous post. I rarely use the 18-200 in favor of my 17-55 and 70-200, but I'm not parting with it because it's a great lightweight travel lens.
--
Apolooza
apolooza.smugmug.com

 

[Yachty]

I have the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-300. A friend bought a D90 & I advised he get the 18-200 plus 50mm 1.4. I think that he has more fun. The 17-55 2.8 is great but I miss shots through having to change lenses.

Hope this helps.
Paul

 

[jrmyrnsm]

I think it really comes down to what you use it for. If you are happy with the 18-200 and primarily use your camera for casual photography or snapshots and use the 50 1.4 for indoors I dont know if you would really have the need for the 17-55 2.8. If you are shooting events, weddings, portraits, or shooting primarily in Manual mode than I think the fast constant 2.8 is almost necessary and I would make the trade in a heartbeat. I've got one of the new 18-105mm VR that I have started using for casual photography and it is a fun lens to leave the camera in program and just shoot but I do a lot of wedding and engagement photography and use a tamron 17-50 2.8(hope to upgrade to the Nikon soon) and it is THE lens I use for 90% of my shooting. So I think it really comes down to what you want. If it was me I would do the trade yesterday, if it was my wife she would probably keep the 18-200 because she doesnt like to change lenses. I think they are both good setups depending on what your needs are from your camera. Hope that helps!

 

[Paul Linder]

The question is and has been from the first days of the 18-200, did you get a good one or a just passable one. I was one of the naysayers at the start and only bought one when a deal came along. Since then I use it more than anything in the bag. When shots fail it's usually because I was in too much of a hurry or pressed the lens past it's capabilities. Perhaps you should set up some easy lens tests and determine the quality of your copy.
--
Lil Poppa
http://www.pbase.com/pal
If it isn't made in the Far East and sold in the US, I can't afford it.

 

[Karld70]

It just does not give me as a good of a picture as the 2.8 glass. I would rather carry two bigger lenses and not make the compromise.

Another thought. I did pick up a tamron 17-50 2.8 just to have something fast, but light weight. I use that way more then I ever thought I would. It is almost as good as the Nikon 17-55 2.8, but much smaller and lighter. That has become my walk around lens. It’s really a perfect compromise.

My 10 year old son loves the 18-200, that is where most of the use for that lens has gone.

 

[devhdc]

As others have previously mentioned, it all depends on your style of photography and your needs.

But, since you mention you are looking for opinions... I'd say the following: I have 18-200 and 50/f1.8. Personally, I would definitely trade 18-200 for a 17-55/f2.8. But, not the 50/f1.8

 

[Planet Art]

I just don’t understand why some people pick on the 18-200.

My doctor is the type of person who buys D90/18-200 kit and takes snapshots of his kids and travel. He makes 6x4 prints and they look absolutely fabulous. End of story. It’s marketed for people like my doctor, who will never need or buy another lens, not professional photographers.
--
Art

 

[jabadia]

Hi devhdc, thanks for the reply. ( thanks for all the other as well! )

Question is, once you'll have the 2.8, will you still use the 50mm.

I guess we need someone who has them both..

Jabadia