Nikon 17-55mm
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
enough of the :hammer::hammer::hammer:ing, and more about the 17-55/2.8.
I want to know if I never want to touch a FF body, would the 17-55mm/2.8 be good enough (wide enough) so that I won't need the 12-24/4 or 10.5/2.8 ?
My quibble with the 12-24/4 is that its not fast enough.
My quibble with the 10.5/2.8 is that the pics from it need to be post processed.
One more question: Can PS de-fisheye the 10.5 images? What effect / filter is it?
is it a must to use nikon capture software (the not-free one) to remove the fisheye effect?
Any comments?
I want to know if I never want to touch a FF body, would the 17-55mm/2.8 be good enough (wide enough) so that I won't need the 12-24/4 or 10.5/2.8 ?
My quibble with the 12-24/4 is that its not fast enough.
My quibble with the 10.5/2.8 is that the pics from it need to be post processed.
One more question: Can PS de-fisheye the 10.5 images? What effect / filter is it?
is it a must to use nikon capture software (the not-free one) to remove the fisheye effect?
Any comments?
17-55 is a DX lens not recommended for FF, it will give dark corners.
If you want wide angle 12-24 is a nice lens, as for f4 no worries most of the time you will be using apertures smaller than f4 for landscape or anything wide. 10.5mm no need post process but if you are considering it as a normal wide lens my advise is think carefully. Fisheye are used for special effects and in situation where nothing else can be used. As a normal wide after de-fish you may not like it, used it as a last resort. For PS I am not sure how to de-fish but with Nikon Capture 4.1 it is one mouse click and instant.
If you want wide angle 12-24 is a nice lens, as for f4 no worries most of the time you will be using apertures smaller than f4 for landscape or anything wide. 10.5mm no need post process but if you are considering it as a normal wide lens my advise is think carefully. Fisheye are used for special effects and in situation where nothing else can be used. As a normal wide after de-fish you may not like it, used it as a last resort. For PS I am not sure how to de-fish but with Nikon Capture 4.1 it is one mouse click and instant.
kfeng said:
How wide depends on what you shoot.
For landscape - it is still possible to stitch, so the 17-55 can suffice.
PJs use 19mm (+/- 3mm) for documenting events where there is a distinctive subject (soldier, shouting protestor, burning tank, killed civilian) against a contrasting/complementary backdrop (burning village, protest rally, abandoned road, angry mob, some festib). You get the idea
(many have differing opinions on what PJ style is, I am only stating one such generalisation).
For such pj shoots, the 17-55 is not wide enough. The corresponding digital wide would be 12 to 14mm. It is not possible to stitch such shoots (not with my limited skills that is)
I LOVE the ultra-wides but some people are not used to the wideness and find it distorted. I booked the 12-24 with AP but got the 17-55 instead. I chose the 17-55 over the 12-24 for one reason - range. The difference in cost between these 2 lenses is only ard $500 and I get a more usable range.
Your mileage may differ.
Now for the fisheye, I have my eyes set on it too. But it is a specialised lens, defishing will result in slight distortion. I documented a children's xmas party with a sigma fisheye on 10D before - loved it. :heart: Defished some, left the others as it is.
For landscape - it is still possible to stitch, so the 17-55 can suffice.
PJs use 19mm (+/- 3mm) for documenting events where there is a distinctive subject (soldier, shouting protestor, burning tank, killed civilian) against a contrasting/complementary backdrop (burning village, protest rally, abandoned road, angry mob, some festib). You get the idea
(many have differing opinions on what PJ style is, I am only stating one such generalisation).For such pj shoots, the 17-55 is not wide enough. The corresponding digital wide would be 12 to 14mm. It is not possible to stitch such shoots (not with my limited skills that is)
I LOVE the ultra-wides but some people are not used to the wideness and find it distorted. I booked the 12-24 with AP but got the 17-55 instead. I chose the 17-55 over the 12-24 for one reason - range. The difference in cost between these 2 lenses is only ard $500 and I get a more usable range.
Your mileage may differ.
Now for the fisheye, I have my eyes set on it too. But it is a specialised lens, defishing will result in slight distortion. I documented a children's xmas party with a sigma fisheye on 10D before - loved it. :heart: Defished some, left the others as it is.
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
kfeng said:
This evening got a feels of the 17-55mm2.8 body, find it a bit stiff when turning as compared to the 17-35mmf2.8. If I were to choose, highly go for the 17-35mm though $700 more coz still can be used back on my F3, F100 etc as I know that film is still there for many years to come.
While in dilemma to choose, mentioned the 12-24 and got it :heart: ... this is actually what I wanted waited so long ..... :angel: :sweat:
Just waiting to test this babe for coming weekend events ... may the forces be with me :devil:
Notice there are still some like me who liked wide angles. Most ppeople I know prefer long tele. 
Actually I find the 17-55 compliments the 12-24. One is on the wide side and one wide to mid tele, 2 very different purpose but of course the 17-55 give more usable range. Should also consider the 12-24 when if you have the chance. You are spot on with the fisheye, I think it is a love it or hate it affair and Nikon is the only one with a proper fisheye for their DSLR.
Actually I find the 17-55 compliments the 12-24. One is on the wide side and one wide to mid tele, 2 very different purpose but of course the 17-55 give more usable range. Should also consider the 12-24 when if you have the chance. You are spot on with the fisheye, I think it is a love it or hate it affair and Nikon is the only one with a proper fisheye for their DSLR. offspring said:How wide depends on what you shoot.
For landscape - it is still possible to stitch, so the 17-55 can suffice.
PJs use 19mm (+/- 3mm) for documenting events where there is a distinctive subject (soldier, shouting protestor, burning tank, killed civilian) against a contrasting/complementary backdrop (burning village, protest rally, abandoned road, angry mob, some festib). You get the idea
For such pj shoots, the 17-55 is not wide enough. The corresponding digital wide would be 12 to 14mm. It is not possible to stitch such shoots (not with my limited skills that is)
I LOVE the ultra-wides but some people are not used to the wideness and find it distorted. I booked the 12-24 with AP but got the 17-55 instead. I chose the 17-55 over the 12-24 for one reason - range. The difference in cost between these 2 lenses is only ard $500 and I get a more usable range.
Your mileage may differ.
Now for the fisheye, I have my eyes set on it too. But it is a specialised lens, defishing will result in slight distortion. I documented a children's xmas party with a sigma fisheye on 10D before - loved it. :heart: Defished some, left the others as it is.
Dennis said:Notice there are still some like me who liked wide angles. Most ppeople I know prefer long tele.
I also prefer wide angle...guess most people like long tele cos it looks more 'say', but with wide angle, can set at hyperfocal focus, hang it from your neck, set camera on timer, and shoot without people knowing and yet get sharp images (though composition might leave much to be desired)
actually I'm thinking of getting the 17-55/2.8 for use as a daily lens. The way you guys are comparing it is like it is a wide angle.
I perfer to have 1 very good f2.8 lens kept on the camera most of the time, so i am considering between the 17-55/2.8 or the 28-70/2.8
so which is better?
I perfer to have 1 very good f2.8 lens kept on the camera most of the time, so i am considering between the 17-55/2.8 or the 28-70/2.8
so which is better?
kfeng said:
I dun have a 17-55/2.8 len, but I'm using 28-70/2.8 for most of my street photography. One is a DX len, the other is a non DX. No doubt 17-55 has longer range, but it depends on your shooting style, do you shoot digital often or would you switch to and fro between film and digital? If the answer is later, you should get 17-35 or 28-70, but that depends on your need.
Attahced herewith are some links that I took pics with the 28-70 len in Tibet. Very reliable len under harsh environment.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
17-55 is equal of 25.5-82.5 in 35mm thus somewhat wide angle to mid tele. It is usable even tight corners but not the tightest of corners. That is why I say the 12-24 is a compliment to this lens. If you prefer to have only one good lens and switch between film and digital there is only 1 choice 17-35. If you do not use film than there are 2 17-35 and 17-55 both are good. You will probably find a 28-70 not wide enough for cramp corners.
kfeng said:
There are some people who prefer to use the 28-70 for a mid tele, and the 12-24 for really wide shots, and then a 70-200 VR to satisfy his focal lengths. But then for having spent around 7.5K :sweat: on that, the person better make use of all three lens very well.
BTW, I personally don't think I want to use the 17-55 DX on a film body. And since canon has sold 300Ds with 18-55mm lenses, i think it should be quite good for an everyday lens.
Anyway, the best answer to having one very good lens and switch from digital to film often would be a 24-70/2.8 (which only canon and sigma has currently.)
BTW, I personally don't think I want to use the 17-55 DX on a film body. And since canon has sold 300Ds with 18-55mm lenses, i think it should be quite good for an everyday lens.
Anyway, the best answer to having one very good lens and switch from digital to film often would be a 24-70/2.8 (which only canon and sigma has currently.)
kfeng said:
Erm, don't think you can fully utilise the 17-55DX on a film body even if you want to as the image circle of the DX format is optimised for a APS sized digital sensor and not the 35mm film format. You might get round pictures with film camera...
(anyway, can anyone who owns the 17-55 check the usable focal lengths on a film body? Thanks!)Anyway, don't think you can directly compare the Canon 18-55 kit lens with the 17-55 as they are two totally different classes of lens, unless you are just looking solely at the focal length coverage.
And I would think that best answer to any lens question is that the best lens is the one you actually want to use to take pictures. No point in owning the best lens in the world if you don't use it at all or use it infrequently.
Logically these are the calculation on 35mm camera when using a DX lens:
For 12-24 DX: effectively range on 35mm would be 18-24
For 17-55 DX: effectively range on 35mm would be 26-55
For 10.5 DX: Too bad man, it's a prime, so i guess it's not usable on a full frame camera (risk is higher to invest in this lens if you wanna keep it for future 'maybe' a Full Frame camera).
-- WH
For 12-24 DX: effectively range on 35mm would be 18-24
For 17-55 DX: effectively range on 35mm would be 26-55
For 10.5 DX: Too bad man, it's a prime, so i guess it's not usable on a full frame camera (risk is higher to invest in this lens if you wanna keep it for future 'maybe' a Full Frame camera).
-- WH
- Status
Similar threads
