Lens Choice....


Status
Not open for further replies.

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
After I acquired AF 14mm D, I am stuck btw the following choices....

Nikkor AFS
- 17-35 F/2.8
- 28-70 F/2.8
- 70-200 VR


In particular, everyone keep raging about 17-35 F/2.8 and 70-200 VR. If you only can make one choice....which one would you go for?

I am asking coz enough is enough.....no more buy buy buy :mad2:

Still need money for bread and butter ley :cry:

Thanks for your valuable input. Especially Espn for not posting buy buy buy virus HERE :bsmilie:
 

markccm

Deregistered
Jan 25, 2003
2,095
0
0
Asylum, Ward 4444
Visit site
well, the focal range is totally different.
one is a wide the other is a tele.

so u have to decide for yourself what do u shoot?
which range is more useful for u?
 

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
well, the focal range is totally different.
one is a wide the other is a tele.

so u have to decide for yourself what do u shoot?
which range is more useful for u?

thanks mark, I had looked at photos by the 17-35 and 70-200 VR. I am very impressed by both lens. Unfortunately, I think I am stuck with a choice to one of them only for the year.

70-200 does give me more room to manouvre.....especially sneaking up on pple :bsmilie: Don't know anyone bother to look at the price or not....it isn't tat much difference I think. photo quality also quite near if I am not wrong.

But I could be wrong, that's why I asked for more opinions.

Guys, let me know wat you think of the shapness and color by both of the lenses will you...of course, the tele is another plus factor.
 

litefoot

New Member
Jan 27, 2005
888
0
0
Benign said:
Thanks for your valuable input. Especially Espn for not posting buy buy buy virus HERE :bsmilie:
He will only tell you buy all and talk later.

I would go for the 17-35 f/2.8. Its a great lens and its a likely lens that you will use often especially if you shoot with a DSLR.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
Benign said:
After I acquired AF 14mm D, I am stuck btw the following choices....

Nikkor AFS
- 17-35 F/2.8
- 28-70 F/2.8
- 70-200 VR


In particular, everyone keep raging about 17-35 F/2.8 and 70-200 VR. If you only can make one choice....which one would you go for?

I am asking coz enough is enough.....no more buy buy buy :mad2:

Still need money for bread and butter ley :cry:

Thanks for your valuable input. Especially Espn for not posting buy buy buy virus HERE :bsmilie:
Can't decide getting wide or tele? Go for a smaller aperture!! Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR :thumbsup: BUY BUY BUY!

Ooops.. wait... You shooting film or DX?
 

markccm

Deregistered
Jan 25, 2003
2,095
0
0
Asylum, Ward 4444
Visit site
both r the Trinity.

for me lah i find the 17-35 just very slightly sharper than the 70-200 VR.

ultimately like i said b4 is what u wanna shoot.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Why think so much, get them all :thumbsup:
 

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
both r the Trinity.

for me lah i find the 17-35 just very slightly sharper than the 70-200 VR.

ultimately like i said b4 is what u wanna shoot.

Thanks, I think the thing I need to know is how much sharper or betta in color lor. Coz the tele comes with new features like VR and focal length too.......

I like the subject to be themself. But if the sharpness and color is a big difference...then I have to think otherwise.

Anyone think different?


Can't decide getting wide or tele? Go for a smaller aperture!! Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR BUY BUY BUY!

Ooops.. wait... You shooting film or DX?
No different btw them.....they can fit into film or digital bodies lor.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
You'll prob want either the 28-70 or the 70-200, depending on what you need the second lens for - the 17-35 is rather close to what you already have so I'm doubtful about its usefulness to you.

Benign said:
After I acquired AF 14mm D, I am stuck btw the following choices....

Nikkor AFS
- 17-35 F/2.8
- 28-70 F/2.8
- 70-200 VR


In particular, everyone keep raging about 17-35 F/2.8 and 70-200 VR. If you only can make one choice....which one would you go for?

I am asking coz enough is enough.....no more buy buy buy :mad2:

Still need money for bread and butter ley :cry:

Thanks for your valuable input. Especially Espn for not posting buy buy buy virus HERE :bsmilie:
 

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
You'll prob want either the 28-70 or the 70-200, depending on what you need the second lens for - the 17-35 is rather close to what you already have so I'm doubtful about its usefulness to you.

Thanks Vince, wat about the sharpness and color.....noticeable difference?



See what I mean?
He is ....haizzz. Wat can I said.....Possessed! We need a Photocist :bigeyes: To rid of this man's evil
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Benign said:
Thanks Vince, wat about the sharpness and color.....noticeable difference?





He is ....haizzz. Wat can I said.....Possessed! We need a Photocist :bigeyes: To rid of this man's evil
For the 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200VR you won't go wrong getting either, however, you need to be sure what you intend to use them for.

Comparing the 17-35 vs 70-200VR is not useful as it's application is pretty diversified.

Sharpness wise, 17-35 gives me amazingly sharpness even at f/2.8 open. Color wise, the 17-35 is also very good, all got fight.

28-70, I like the sharpness around 35-50mm. 70-200VR I like the sharpness at 70mm f/2.8-4. Colours are all very good and swee... the bokeh of the 70-200VR also makes me lau chiu nua.

Basically you should be looking at what you need and buy accordingly. All 3 are good glasses and if you own them all, you probably, as a hobbyist, no need others liao.

So just BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.
 

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
For the 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200VR you won't go wrong getting either, however, you need to be sure what you intend to use them for.

Comparing the 17-35 vs 70-200VR is not useful as it's application is pretty diversified.

Sharpness wise, 17-35 gives me amazingly sharpness even at f/2.8 open. Color wise, the 17-35 is also very good, all got fight.

28-70, I like the sharpness around 35-50mm. 70-200VR I like the sharpness at 70mm f/2.8-4. Colours are all very good and swee... the bokeh of the 70-200VR also makes me lau chiu nua.

Basically you should be looking at what you need and buy accordingly. All 3 are good glasses and if you own them all, you probably, as a hobbyist, no need others liao.

So just BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.

Thank you Evil 1 :thumbsup: Hope you rid of the BBB virus soon ley :sticktong

Think most likely I go 70-200 way...coz of the VR feature and focal length. I don't know whether my eyes no good or wat.....the sharpness and color btw them are very hard to notice lor.

I left out the 17-35 is also because I already got the WA 14mm liao....and I also got the 50mm. 28-70 look promising......but then for the quality and value. I rest on the 70-200.
Time to spend browsing on photos by these lenses again.......U guys got any of these three lenses. Shoot some photos and compared mah.....on the same subject. Focal length don't matter....but aperture and shutter can boh? At least the overall picture can see color and sharpness liao.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
Benign said:
Thanks, I think the thing I need to know is how much sharper or betta in color lor. Coz the tele comes with new features like VR and focal length too.......

I like the subject to be themself. But if the sharpness and color is a big difference...then I have to think otherwise.

Anyone think different?




No different btw them.....they can fit into film or digital bodies lor.
Yeah.. For the 3 lenses you mentioned yes, there's no problem but not for the 18-200VR I suggested.

Also, the focal length range is quite different when used on film and DX. For example, 28-70 becomes more like a normal-medium tele which is more ideal for portraiture when used on DX than a normal wide to tele general purpose lens when used for film.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
Benign said:
Thank you Evil 1 :thumbsup: Hope you rid of the BBB virus soon ley :sticktong

Think most likely I go 70-200 way...coz of the VR feature and focal length. I don't know whether my eyes no good or wat.....the sharpness and color btw them are very hard to notice lor.

I left out the 17-35 is also because I already got the WA 14mm liao....and I also got the 50mm. 28-70 look promising......but then for the quality and value. I rest on the 70-200.
Time to spend browsing on photos by these lenses again.......U guys got any of these three lenses. Shoot some photos and compared mah.....on the same subject. Focal length don't matter....but aperture and shutter can boh? At least the overall picture can see color and sharpness liao.
Depends on what you want to shoot lor. Since you already have 14mm and 50mm, it's a wise decision to go with the 70-200VR... Again, I assume you're using it for film.

For me, I rarely touch the 80-200/2.8 now. I'm mostly using the 18-200VR now.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
Since you've already got the 50, I'll revise my prevoius post to say you'll prob find the 70-200 most useful - of course again subject to your uses and intended shooting style.

Benign said:
Thank you Evil 1 :thumbsup: Hope you rid of the BBB virus soon ley :sticktong

Think most likely I go 70-200 way...coz of the VR feature and focal length. I don't know whether my eyes no good or wat.....the sharpness and color btw them are very hard to notice lor.

I left out the 17-35 is also because I already got the WA 14mm liao....and I also got the 50mm. 28-70 look promising......but then for the quality and value. I rest on the 70-200.
Time to spend browsing on photos by these lenses again.......U guys got any of these three lenses. Shoot some photos and compared mah.....on the same subject. Focal length don't matter....but aperture and shutter can boh? At least the overall picture can see color and sharpness liao.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Benign said:
U guys got any of these three lenses. Shoot some photos and compared mah.....on the same subject. Focal length don't matter....but aperture and shutter can boh? At least the overall picture can see color and sharpness liao.
You buy liao loan me I help you test... very expensive one leh :(
 

markccm

Deregistered
Jan 25, 2003
2,095
0
0
Asylum, Ward 4444
Visit site
Benign said:
Thanks, I think the thing I need to know is how much sharper or betta in color lor. Coz the tele comes with new features like VR and focal length too.......

I like the subject to be themself. But if the sharpness and color is a big difference...then I have to think otherwise.

Anyone think different?




No different btw them.....they can fit into film or digital bodies lor.
like i said they r the Trinities.
u know the famous Trinities?

they r all similar in terms sharpness & colour.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
markccm said:
like i said they r the Trinities.
u know the famous Trinities?

they r all similar in terms sharpness & colour.
Cost too..
 

Benign

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
494
0
0
Melbourne
gallery127599.fotopic.net
You buy liao loan me I help you test... very expensive one leh

BBB virus found a cure liao si boh? Finally know it is expensive :bsmilie:

Still need to budget it first lah.....think it is abt Sgd$2600 new in KL. :think: After this, dunno how to have a decent holidays liao.....supposed thinking of another holiday destination after KL. :(
 

Status
Not open for further replies.