Camera Labs

I have a problem and need some advice. I have the oportunity to buy a 17-55 at the cost of 600 euro + my 85 f1.8, is it worth it? I mostly take portraits and when i'm not doing that i shoot in low light conditions( clubs and parties ) and i would like to use the 17-55 as an allrounder, including everyday use.

P.s. Please excuse my grammar, english is not my native language

Your english is fine, don't worry.

I'd keep the 85, it's a great lens for music photography, and portraits. Perhaps spend the 600 euros you have on a Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 instead?

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

The only reason i am trading in the 85 mm is that i do not have the money to pay the full price for the lens, is the sigma as good as the nikkor? I saw a forum thread where somebody testet both the sigma and the nikkor and said that the 17-55 has no rival, but even if it is worth the money, is it okay as a walkaround lens?

It is awesome in every possible way.

Except that it is HUGE

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

It's huge heavy and expensive. If price was not an issue, the Nikkor is the best lens. However, you should ask yourself what you expect from an 18-50mm F/2.8 lens. Thse Sigma might be a bit less sharp, but is a LOT cheaper, and you probably will not see the lesser sharpness, unless you print at huge sizes (posters).

I have used the sigma 18-50, and I quite liked it.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

I'll go and see how the lens actually feels. I like to travel lite, so if it's very heavy I won't buy it.
Do you guys know a good solution? i really need a walk-around lens, and i want Nikkor. My area is portraits, low light and street photography and i already have a 85mm 1.8 so the portrait part is covered, a 50mm 1.8 and a 55-200 and i shoot a D90.

Was thinking of getting a 35mm 1.8 as a walkabout, should i go wider and get the 24mm 2.8?

18-200. Perfect travel lens.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

not bright enough

Well, you're not going to get a wide aperture zoom which does all of those things well and is also light - no such thing exists unfortunately. Primes obviously fit the bill in your case since they're nice and light and good for low light shooting. The only issue is a lack of flexibility, if that is indeed an issue for you. The 85 is an excellent portrait lens but too long for street photography, so the 35 may be a good choice for general use. If you need something wider, well, unfortunately there isn't much choice in the way of wide angle primes for DX either, so zooms are generally your best bet. Difficult choice really, and as always it depends on what's most important to you. Like Citruspers mentioned above, have you considered other third party lenses like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/2.8, both of which are considerable smaller and lighter than the Nikkor?

I guess his answer will be no

_________________
- Wout -
Nikon D80 with 18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX
Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod with 488RC0 midi ballhead
Lowepro CompuRover AW and Nova 200 AW

I only want nikkor.

I've just seen the 17-55, very big and not good for street photography. I'll just stick with primes.

35 mm 1.8 or 24 mm 2.8?

If you're doing street and want the environment as well as people, then you'll need wider than a 35 on DX.

I have a 35mm prime and it was great on DX but is fantastic for that sort of thing on FX. I'd go for a 20-24mm prime myself in your situation, and the faster the better.

Had a look at the fast Sigma primes? They might be better than the equivalent Nikkors as the only one I'd recommend at the moment is the slightly pricey 24mm f1.4 for your situation

I'd ultimately recommend a Zeiss 25/2.8 or 21/2.8 but I'm biassed

If you only want nikkor then you are going to spend far more money on good glass and you will get great lenses no doubt, but you will be missing out on some great lenses that are only slightly behind the nikon glass. The Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, Tokina 11-16 2.8, are lenses that are next on my purchase list and the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II non-os lens has been in my bag for 2 months and pretty much is the only lens I have used since i got it because it is just such a quality piece of glass.

Go to you local camera shop and try these lenses before you rule them out as you may find exactly what you need and at half the price or better then the nikon glass.

_________________
A great photo is worth far more then a thousand words!

Visit Flickr!

Nikon D90/D60/MB-D80 Battery Grip/Sigma 70-200mm 2.8/AF-S 18-70mm /AF-S 70-300mm VR/AF-S 35mm /AF 50mm 1.8f

Thanks for the advice, but I like to get the best for my money, so no third party glass for me. The only third party lenses I would consider are Zeiss and Voitangler, but the downside is that they do not offer auto-focus besides being expensive.

I reached the conclusion that expensive zoomes are not worth it, at least for me. Good primes offer better quality for the money and I like that they help you find new angles.

In place of the zoom i bought a 28mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.4 AF-D, I will be posting photos taken with them shortly at the specific topic.

Thanks for all your advice.