Lens combination

[smalltake]

Does anyone here owns a Nikon 18-200VR and a Nikon 17-55 f2.8????:think: Which lens is sharper?

My intention for the 18-200VR is for travelling and outdoor use whereas the 17-55 is more for indoor use and portrait. Is this a 'wish' combination? I already have the VR, so anyone here thinks its 'silly' to get the 17-55mm??? Appreciate all the comments, thanks.

 

[Artosoft]

Does anyone here owns a Nikon 18-200VR and a Nikon 17-55 f2.8????:think: Which lens is sharper?

My intention for the 18-200VR is for travelling and outdoor use whereas the 17-55 is more for indoor use and portrait. Is this a 'wish' combination? I already have the VR, so anyone here thinks its 'silly' to get the 17-55mm??? Appreciate all the comments, thanks.

I don't have both, so I can't give comment on it.

Just want to say, it is not silly to have both. VR and fast lens are different.

Regards,
Arto.

 

[smalltake]

I don't have both, so I can't give comment on it.

Just want to say, it is not silly to have both. VR and fast lens are different.

Regards,
Arto.

Thanks for your advice bro..... when you said 17-55mm is a fast lens, would you consider that as a prime lens? I heard the bokeh is solid compared to the 18-200VR, is it true? Would the 17-55mm function better if I had a D200? Heard the focussing is faster on a D200? Since I only have a D70, would the lens perform below its capabilities???? Sorry, newbie here........

 

[Artosoft]

Thanks for your advice bro..... when you said 17-55mm is a fast lens, would you consider that as a prime lens? I heard the bokeh is solid compared to the 18-200VR, is it true? Would the 17-55mm function better if I had a D200? Heard the focussing is faster on a D200? Since I only have a D70, would the lens perform below its capabilities???? Sorry, newbie here........

The 17-55mm is not prime lens because it is zoom lens. Prime lens only have single focal length (no matter maximum aperture).

I believe the bokeh of 17-55 is better than 18-200mm VR.

D70 and D200 is different class of camera. Of course image quality and accuracy of Auto Focus (errr..., this AF accuracy I guess only) is better on D200.

Regards,
Arto.

 

[daydreamz]

Hi. was facing a similar dilemma a while ago. I loved the 2.8 capabilities but was limited by the reach. So instead opted out of buying the 18-200 VR and instead decided to top the 17-50 2.8 with a longer 80-200mm 2.8 instead.

Of course my $$$ were limited as i am no pro, so had to buy one third party (Tamron 17-50 which is really excellent) and the second was original Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 ED. However, in your case looking at your choices it seems that your $$$ might be a bit easier (guessing since you selected two expensive choices!! ) I would in fact recommend that you do buy the 17-55 2.8 and top up with the 70-200 2.8 VR. You would then have a real killer combo, sure to extract many green faces here!! hehehe ...including me! :sweat:

 

[smalltake]

Hi. was facing a similar dilemma a while ago. I loved the 2.8 capabilities but was limited by the reach. So instead opted out of buying the 18-200 VR and instead decided to top the 17-50 2.8 with a longer 80-200mm 2.8 instead.

Of course my $$$ were limited as i am no pro, so had to buy one third party (Tamron 17-50 which is really excellent) and the second was original Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 ED. However, in your case looking at your choices it seems that your $$$ might be a bit easier (guessing since you selected two expensive choices!! ) I would in fact recommend that you do buy the 17-55 2.8 and top up with the 70-200 2.8 VR. You would then have a real killer combo, sure to extract many green faces here!! hehehe ...including me! :sweat:

I just want to get some nice pictures..... some memories for me to remember when I am old.....heheheh......... Nothing to be envy. To each its own limit. You might be taking better quality photos then me..hehee.......... I still wan to keep my 18-200 leh, good for travel and dun like to bring too many lens. Happy weekends.... enjoy life!! Cheers!

 

[daydreamz]

17-55 = :thumbsup: bokeh!! one of the best in fact. (the 18-200 is a bit of a generalist, also it's abilities to perform under low light are questionable even with VR, cant even comapare to the 17-55 mate)

trust me...if you can afford the $3+K price tab, you will not look back from the combo i suggested earlier. you will own two of the best pieces of glass ever to be born!

 

[smalltake]

17-55 = :thumbsup: bokeh!! one of the best in fact. (the 18-200 is a bit of a generalist, also it's abilities to perform under low light are questionable even with VR, cant even comapare to the 17-55 mate)

trust me...if you can afford the $3+K price tab, you will not look back from the combo i suggested earlier. you will own two of the best pieces of glass ever to be born!

You really making my hand itchy man!!! Wanted to get another glass before the GST in July. Will consider trading in my 18-200mm VR for 70-200 VR............ by then, I think I am going to be broke liao............ :cry:

 

[your18]

Does anyone here owns a Nikon 18-200VR and a Nikon 17-55 f2.8????:think: Which lens is sharper?

My intention for the 18-200VR is for travelling and outdoor use whereas the 17-55 is more for indoor use and portrait. Is this a 'wish' combination? I already have the VR, so anyone here thinks its 'silly' to get the 17-55mm??? Appreciate all the comments, thanks.

From the nikon forum, http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=275123, the pics show that Nikon 17-55 sharpness is better than Nikon 18-200vr.

Is the combination or a so call combination really impt? Alot of hobbyists in CS, me included always discussed abt the lens combination from wide to tele, having the thought of having the best lens(in terms of sharpness, bokeh and the f2.8) But do we really need those lens as a hobbyist?

If u have the spare cash, well, go ahead, buy one, make yourself happy(this case the Nikon 17-55 f2.8) and start to take photos. Dun think abt the equipment anymore.

But since this thread is in the Newbies Corner, i would like to advise like-minded hobbyists to just concentrate on shooting, improving the technique u have learnt while learning to shoot with the lens u desired to have.

Well, if u have alot of lens u desired to have, may god bless you in the $$$ dept.

My 2cents worth, YMMV.

 

[smalltake]

From the nikon forum, http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=275123, the pics show that Nikon 17-55 sharpness is better than Nikon 18-200vr.

Is the combination or a so call combination really impt? Alot of hobbyists in CS, me included always discussed abt the lens combination from wide to tele, having the thought of having the best lens(in terms of sharpness, bokeh and the f2.8) But do we really need those lens as a hobbyist?

If u have the spare cash, well, go ahead, buy one, make yourself happy(this case the Nikon 17-55 f2.8) and start to take photos. Dun think abt the equipment anymore.

But since this thread is in the Newbies Corner, i would like to advise like-minded hobbyists to just concentrate on shooting, improving the technique u have learnt while learning to shoot with the lens u desired to have.

Well, if u have alot of lens u desired to have, may god bless you in the $$$ dept.

My 2cents worth, YMMV.

Noted on your comments bro, thanks. This will be probably my last lens for the year, then wait till end of year bonus before getting the next lens. Maybe the 85mm f1.4???? ;p if budget permit, otherwise, will be the 50mm f1.4. Having a relative wedding up at end of year, so the 17-55mm will probably be good to shoot with. Cheers and yes, I am happy shooting....... just finding the time to shoot........hehehhe..........