Help me....

[Dennis]

to come to some decision. I have the itch for the 17-55mm (trying to resist ) but would you buy it if you already have 12-24mm and 24-120mm and don't intent to sell any of this ?. Any idea also if the build in flash can be used without blocking like the 12-24 (maybe 17-35 users can give some insight). All comments welcome.

[espn]

Hmmm the range is covered, you don't need it.

But it's not me if I dont say Buy buy buy!!!.

[showtime]

i would do the 12-24, 24-85, and 70-200 combination...

[jOhO]

dun worree i'm having the same problem too... getting the 12-24 dunno whether to get the 17-55. the only thing that's stopping me is money, i can't squeeze pus out of fresh skin....

anyway.. i was thiking of 12-24, 17-55, 70-200... lose 15mm in the middle somewhere (55-70), and sell the rest of my lenses (24-85afs, prob keep 50/1.8)

key word is THINKING OF.....

espn... shut up.

[coke21]

Originally Posted by Dennis to come to some decision. I have the itch for the 17-55mm (trying to resist ) but would you buy it if you already have 12-24mm and 24-120mm and don't intent to sell any of this ?. Any idea also if the build in flash can be used without blocking like the 12-24 (maybe 17-35 users can give some insight). All comments welcome.

You don't really need is since you haev the range covered. What kind of shots do you usually shoot close-up? If yes, and you have spare cash to spare, go buy it...if not then think you should just give it a miss and save up for something else instead...

[Dennis]

OK to clarify, I have 10.5, 12-24, 24-120, 70-200, waiting for my micro 105. Will not go for any tele except maybe a TC20 just for fun. I do everything but no time and it is not for covering the range. The 12-24 / 24-120 combination does not give me the sweet range especially if I only want to carry 1 len but again I see the 12-24 and 17-55 combination more useful than 12-24 / 24-120.

Originally Posted by coke21 You don't really need is since you haev the range covered. What kind of shots do you usually shoot close-up? If yes, and you have spare cash to spare, go buy it...if not then think you should just give it a miss and save up for something else instead...

[coke21]

Originally Posted by Dennis OK to clarify, I have 10.5, 12-24, 24-120, 70-200, waiting for my micro 105. Will not go for any tele except maybe a TC20 just for fun. I do everything but no time and it is not for covering the range. The 12-24 / 24-120 combination does not give me the sweet range especially if I only want to carry 1 len but again I see the 12-24 and 17-55 combination more useful than 12-24 / 24-120.

In that case just get it... Seriously, you should know how you shoot and at what focal lengths you prefer to shoot at. If it fits your style get it.

But the fact that you seem to be procrastinating seems to suggest that you don't really need it....

[Dennis]

Yes you are right, I really think that a 17-55mm f2.8 is a very good general lens to carry around as both the 12-24 and 24-120 is not fast for indoor without flash. But again over 2k is not cheap and I can't earn it back as a hobbist, got to get some reason first .

Originally Posted by coke21 In that case just get it... Seriously, you should know how you shoot and at what focal lengths you prefer to shoot at. If it fits your style get it. But the fact that you seem to be procrastinating seems to suggest that you don't really need it....

[sykestang]

If you wanna get the 17-55dx but not sure what to do with your Nikon 12-24... sell me!!!

I am for real... been looking for one but just not willing to pay for a brand new one...

Can PM me and we can meet up to deal.

Hope I've solve your problem

[gadrian]

Haha.. well I live with my 17-35 and 70-200.. coz for me. to make a photo 12.. it is like 2 or 3 feet of stepping back..

and as such I wouldnt even think of the 17-55.. unless only to think of the f/2.8 but thats what AFS on your 24-120 is about.. I would rather go walking about with the 12-24 and 24-120..

[Dennis]

No 12-24 I will keep, I actually don't know what to do with the 24-120 !!.
I find the 17-55 compliments the 12-24 more than the 24-120 ?.

Originally Posted by sykestang If you wanna get the 17-55dx but not sure what to do with your Nikon 12-24... sell me!!! I am for real... been looking for one but just not willing to pay for a brand new one... Can PM me and we can meet up to deal. Hope I've solve your problem

[espn]

Actually the 17-55 is a WA with extra reach, it doesn't really compliment the 12-24 as a mid-zoom

[Dennis]

Come to think about it, both has it merits and the 17-55 has its use for me especially when I only wanted one lens. have not thought much about the sweet range when I sold off the kit lens . I find problems when I carry only 1 lens, 12-24 sometimes I find it too wide, 24-120 sometimes not wide enough especially indoors. 17-55 is both fast and in between !. I think both the 24-120 and 17-55 are great outdoors and have no problems. BTW I was told that the 17-55 are out at the stores already. Will probably take a look and have a feel of it first .

Originally Posted by gadrian Haha.. well I live with my 17-35 and 70-200.. coz for me. to make a photo 12.. it is like 2 or 3 feet of stepping back.. and as such I wouldnt even think of the 17-55.. unless only to think of the f/2.8 but thats what AFS on your 24-120 is about.. I would rather go walking about with the 12-24 and 24-120..

[Dennis]

I don't agree, maybe I am a wide angle guy. 12 and 17 are very different perspective (especially so in wide angles). I tend to think that 12-24 is a wide with extra reach and the 17-55 a normal with slight advantage on the wide side.

Originally Posted by espn Actually the 17-55 is a WA with extra reach, it doesn't really compliment the 12-24 as a mid-zoom

[lightchaser]

Buy it if you want to. Experience says that your other lens or this lens maybe collecting dust later.