which is the best nikkor lens and which is the most overrated?

[antere]

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....

Don't mind sharing in which way it's better?

 

[Culés]

I dont know whether it's overrated or not, I feel sorry for my other lenses because all I use now is my 18-200 VR :embrass:

 

[renegade150]

how u all find the 50mm 1.4D?

 

[jeanie]

how u all find the 50mm 1.4D?

sharp.
i'm able to take birthday shots at subject blowing out candles without flash.
but of course, must up the iso and shoot wide open.

 

[ryuggen]

I dont know whether it's overrated or not, I feel sorry for my other lenses because all I use now is my 18-200 VR :embrass:

Same goes for me.;p Cant seem to find other reasons to use prime lens. My petty shoulders cant seem to carry more than 3kgs( including tripod)

 

[jeanie]

Same goes for me.;p Cant seem to find other reasons to use prime lens. My petty shoulders cant seem to carry more than 3kgs( including tripod)

i like my 18-200.but for me, it's only good for travel.
for really good bokehs, i still stick to my big lobang lenses.
though yes...weight is a very serious consideration for me.:cry:

 

[erictan8888]

Don't mind sharing in which way it's better?

just to name a few;
flare, distortion, film, FF, quality control, and many more....

 

[antere]

just to name a few;
flare, distortion, film, FF, quality control, and many more....

Thanks!

 

[Liew]

Don't mind sharing in which way it's better?

i can't think of an excuse that the 17-55mm is better.
except that it's 20mm longer. quite a redundant range anyway.

 

[Liew]

best nikkor that i'll never leave home without
17-35mm f/2.8 IF-ED
35mm f/2 - why get the 50mm f/1.8D when you can get a 35mm f/2?
80-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED - i love this. it's cheap, it's lighter, there's no AF and VR so you don't have to worry about those breaking down anytime soon. if breaks, a used unit is only 1/3 of the VR price.
200mm f/2 VR - ok, i don't own this. but it's a superb lens. i've tried it before. super. no flaws from the looks to the performance.
200-400mm VR - another superb lens.

overrated nikkor lenses
50mm f/1.8D - seriously overated. it's cheap, yes but sharp & good bukeh? a lot of newbies jump into the conclusion that with a fast lens they don't need a speedlight.
12-24mm f/4 IF-ED - it's just way overrated. WAYYY.
70-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED VR - except for the good looks and VR, this lens' performance is adequate comparing to the price you're paying for. with the 80-200 AF-D, you sort of expect the same result. and it's so big and heavy, it can't fit into any of my bags.

 

[ryuggen]

I'm actually hoping they will release a DX version of 70-200vr or of equivalent. The current 1 is so heavy.

 

[erictan8888]

i dun think they will release a DX version of the 70-200VR.....
why is there such a need? to make it cheaper? maybe....

but then, i really dun think the DX version (if any) of the 70-200 will be any lighter...

just look at the 17-35 and the 17-55 .....weight not very different...

 

[gernie]

sharp.
i'm able to take birthday shots at subject blowing out candles without flash.
but of course, must up the iso and shoot wide open.

how u feel about the 50m bokeh?

 

[lsisaxon]

i can't think of an excuse that the 17-55mm is better.
except that it's 20mm longer. quite a redundant range anyway.

It's not a redundant range. In fact it puts you right in the medium-tele range at 55mm for DX crop. At 35mm, it's just a normal lens range which in my opinion is quite useless. Too long for anything wide but too short for decent portraiture.

Thinking in terms of FF film, the 17-35 is a great ultrawide zoom. But when it comes to DX, the 17-35 is just like a 26-52mm, not very wide, not very tele, in fact it's nowhere. The 17-55, however, would be like a 26-82mm. If you've shot weddings on film, then you would know how versatile the 28-70 or 24-85 is and that's exactly the range which the 17-55 serves to cover for the DX.

If you don't need an ultrawide zoom for film, then the 17-55 should be the lens to go for because the 17-35 range is not ideal for DX. Just because it's one of the so called trinity lenses doesn't make it any better if you don't know what it should be used for. For that money, you might as well get a 24/2 or 28/1.4 since 20mm means nothing to you.