Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED
- Thread starter david fun
- Start date
- Status
glennyong
Senior Member
Original is always unrivalled....
Original is aways the best in its class.
Original is always the supreme....
Go for Original.
------------
Theres a reason why people pay millions for Ferrari, and a reason why people pay for Honda...
You pay what you get. U pay gold u get good stuffs. u pay peanuts u get monkeys..
Original is aways the best in its class.
Original is always the supreme....
Go for Original.
------------
Theres a reason why people pay millions for Ferrari, and a reason why people pay for Honda...
You pay what you get. U pay gold u get good stuffs. u pay peanuts u get monkeys..
glennyong
Senior Member
yah.... Money is sensitive. Assurance is a lifetime thing. Quality is what you want. And Quality dun come cheap.
if not enough peanuts/money. eat grass a few more months and u are off for a camera purchase...
and i did the same thing too! coz i ate grass and drink river water before i upgraded... and now i still eat grass and drink water from the tap... i still not like the pros can eat rice with soy sauce already.. :bsmilie:
seriously... u wun go wrong with original products....
if not enough peanuts/money. eat grass a few more months and u are off for a camera purchase...
and i did the same thing too! coz i ate grass and drink river water before i upgraded... and now i still eat grass and drink water from the tap... i still not like the pros can eat rice with soy sauce already.. :bsmilie:
seriously... u wun go wrong with original products....
clubgrit
Senior Member
Me too, the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 will be the main lens. And it is Da Bomb ! (together with the 70-200 VR for longer range). Fantastic photo quality, reduced my post-processing by 95%. Saving a lot of time already justifies it.
Whoever said the 17-35mm f2.8 was soft on digital SLR either has a bad lens, or bad camera, or doesn't know how to use it.
Whoever said the 17-35mm f2.8 was soft on digital SLR either has a bad lens, or bad camera, or doesn't know how to use it.
/ glennyong said:a 17-55 is no go for me...
my main glass is till 17-35..
some tell me... "aiyah.. 17-35 dun justify the cost... its way to ex"
but i tell u. 17-35 is one great lens to have. never regretted since day 1.
but if 17-55 is what u want. go ahead and buy it. but remember to test the lens, and make sure the lens is performing.
and btw, size does not matter..... its the quality that counts, and its the photographer behind the camera that matters..
clubgrit
Senior Member
Yes, there are ... if you do a search on the net (which I have been doing before buying this to have some info) ... here's one of some :
http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-17-35mm.htm
At the end of the day, I believed Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan, and one other guy from Europe, and of course some CS'ers here who wrote about it some time ago with photo samples too ... spot on, now I found the lens that will serve as my camera protector
i.e. will be stuck on it most of the time ...
http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-17-35mm.htm
At the end of the day, I believed Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan, and one other guy from Europe, and of course some CS'ers here who wrote about it some time ago with photo samples too ... spot on, now I found the lens that will serve as my camera protector
i.e. will be stuck on it most of the time ...Lmodel said:
shutterbug
New Member
No second thought, AF-S 17-55mm DX f2.8 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
clubgrit
Senior Member
Nothing is perfect. Even Bjørn Rørslett had to try ten samples. But that's all in the early batches, should be all good now. After using the 17-35, I agree with the reviews of KR, Hogan, and , Bjørn Rørslett, no need for salt. It is superb, state-of-art. Others can take my enthusiasm with a grain of salt , the range may not be suitable for some.
, the range may not be suitable for some._espn_ said:Take things with a pinch of salt, sometimes, a bucketful
- Status
