Yatlapball
Senior Member
I usually would not be shooting wide angle landscapes at f/4. would you? Just a thought.
which is the best nikkor lens and which is the most overrated?
- Thread starter erictan8888
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I was quite shocked that Nikon stopped its production.. but it is certainly a good lens!
To me it's expensive, but to others who doesn't even need to bat an eyelid to buy the trinity lenses I think it's probably nothing. ;pWhy not? It's ultra wide, hyperfocal distance is so near. So maybe that's why the Nikon one cost so much more. In fact, I find that having the maximum aperture at f/4 is already a cripple so it's worse if it is not useable.
agree ! 18-200VR is a very useful lense for me. it covers most of the every-day used focal length. and VR can somehow compensate the 3.5-5.6 apperture size.
70-200VR, of coz a very classic one, but for me, not that convenience, if i use it, I need another Body to avoid switching lenses on site ...
if to buy another lense, maybe 17-55/2.8, 17-35/2.8 is the best choice for me. Last time i tried in one shop: fast, sharp, silent ... but COSTLY ...
I never used film SLR, so my opinion is only based on my DSLR experience.
70-200VR, of coz a very classic one, but for me, not that convenience, if i use it, I need another Body to avoid switching lenses on site ...
if to buy another lense, maybe 17-55/2.8, 17-35/2.8 is the best choice for me. Last time i tried in one shop: fast, sharp, silent ... but COSTLY ...
I never used film SLR, so my opinion is only based on my DSLR experience.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
why? 18-70 is quite okay for me ... i usually used at 7.1 - 9, looks okay to me ... maybe bcoz i am a BEGINNER without trained eyes ...
no la.. becos Sharpness issue is a YMMV kind. what u may deem as sharp may not be to another person.
likewise for beauty etc.etc.etc.
cheers!
agree ! 18-200VR is a very useful lense for me. it covers most of the every-day used focal length. and VR can somehow compensate the 3.5-5.6 apperture size.
70-200VR, of coz a very classic one, but for me, not that convenience, if i use it, I need another Body to avoid switching lenses on site ...
if to buy another lense, maybe 17-55/2.8, 17-35/2.8 is the best choice for me. Last time i tried in one shop: fast, sharp, silent ... but COSTLY ...
I never used film SLR, so my opinion is only based on my DSLR experience.
sharpness wise, 17-35 def beats 17-55.
i have both, but sold the 17-55 later on.
erictan8888
Senior Member
i tried with 3 pieces of 17-55mm and a few 17-35mm as i was considering which of these 2 lenses to buy....
this decision took me about 9 months and i finally decided on the 17-35mm....
reason being the 17-35mm is so much better....
this decision took me about 9 months and i finally decided on the 17-35mm....
reason being the 17-35mm is so much better....
Cheesecake
Senior Member
u can't go anywhere too far out or lost with either the 17-35 or the 17-55 unless of cos one has an issue with the latter being a G or/and a DX lens.
i certainly have no issues. i would've chosen the 17-55 if i started on digital instead of film. sharpness is subjective.
:thumbsup:
i certainly have no issues. i would've chosen the 17-55 if i started on digital instead of film. sharpness is subjective.
:thumbsup:
erictan8888
Senior Member
distortion? flare? FF? film? quality control?
these are some reasons i chose the 17-35mm over the 17-55mm....
that's just my opinion... to each his own....
cheers
these are some reasons i chose the 17-35mm over the 17-55mm....
that's just my opinion... to each his own....
cheers
Cheesecake
Senior Member
only have a 50 f1.8D and 18-70 lens so ...anyway i prefer 50 when i can u leg zoomming ...
to know which is overated have to become jeanie first ;p
:sweat:
Opposite of you, I sold of the 17-35 and kept the 17-55. Both are good but 17-55 is more versatile..... of course if you shoot film as well, then different story
105VR - :thumbsup: but not for everyone....
- Status
Similar threads
