Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?

    The tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non vc will be more worth it. Value for money

  2. #42
    Senior Member rain5533's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    S'pore, JB
    Posts
    3,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nedy77
    The tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non vc will be more worth it. Value for money
    Tamron non BIM should be much faster lens than BIM / VC.
    The 17-50mm BIM VC, just only slow AF & CA quite bad on wide open. All you can shots just don't zoom in and see the object

    Sigma 17-50mm OS should be better performance, but I never own before.
    For the 18-50 HSM is best also faster AF, but if need the sharpest have to stop down on F4 onward.

    For the 17-55mm I have no comments, cause too pro for me and never think to have one.

  3. #43

    Default

    The Sigma 18-50mm is hardly good at all.

    It is the new Sigma 17-50mm OS HSM that is capturing the attention of today's consumers.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

  4. #44

    Default Re: Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?

    Lets say I'm pairing up a wide angle lens for DX, (17-55 f/2.8 + 11-16 f/2.8) Or (12-24 f/4 + 24-70 f/2.8)? For all those who say 24-70 f/2.8 is simply not a good range for DX?

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BokehMaster
    Lets say I'm pairing up a wide angle lens for DX, (17-55 f/2.8 + 11-16 f/2.8) Or (12-24 f/4 + 24-70 f/2.8)? For all those who say 24-70 f/2.8 is simply not a good range for DX?
    You lose the f/2.8 if you use the 12-24mm.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

  6. #46
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BokehMaster
    Lets say I'm pairing up a wide angle lens for DX, (17-55 f/2.8 + 11-16 f/2.8) Or (12-24 f/4 + 24-70 f/2.8)? For all those who say 24-70 f/2.8 is simply not a good range for DX?
    I use a 24-70 with a 11-16. Works well for me. The extra reach offered by the 70 end of my lens really helped me many a time. The loss in the wide end I usually make up by walking back a few steps or just simply swap out to the 11-16.
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  7. #47

    Default Re: Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fudgecakes View Post
    I use a 24-70 with a 11-16. Works well for me. The extra reach offered by the 70 end of my lens really helped me many a time. The loss in the wide end I usually make up by walking back a few steps or just simply swap out to the 11-16.


    Yo can't get the wider angle perspective by taking a few steps back nor you can get the same compressed perspective of a long tele by walking a few steps forward.
    Inferiority Complex Behavior Signature: A900.D3x.M9..I have this and that blah blah...

  8. #48
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wakaowalao

    Yo can't get the wider angle perspective by taking a few steps back nor you can get the same compressed perspective of a long tele by walking a few steps forward.
    True. I didnt say you can get the same perspective but it gets you near there.
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  9. #49

    Default Re: Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?

    Quote Originally Posted by BokehMaster View Post
    Lets say I'm pairing up a wide angle lens for DX, (17-55 f/2.8 + 11-16 f/2.8) Or (12-24 f/4 + 24-70 f/2.8)? For all those who say 24-70 f/2.8 is simply not a good range for DX?
    Well, Not Good being defined as "Not useful to the user in terms of how often he/she could/would have the opportunity to use it for their means".

    For me, when i am walking around in Singapore photographing, I (Me, Not others) rarely find anything interesting to frame between 36mm to 105mm. It could be the places i go or the perspective i have so the 24-70mm (36-105mm DX) would not be a lens i would buy as i could otherwise use the same money to buy something else that i can use immediately. Perspective being entirely subjective, really depends on the end user.

    ** Interesting to me means: Able to tell a story to my audiences of how a place is like, the color, scene, building, populous at that point of time.
    Last edited by Luminare; 13th July 2012 at 04:18 PM.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East of Singapore
    Posts
    1,750

    Default Re: Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?

    I've both the Sigma 17-50 1 year before I bought the Nikon 17-55 and my thoughts are, I should have bought the Nikon in the first place.
    I get paid more shooting part time ...... damn, I should find more time to shoot part time

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •