nikonians

Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

| |
Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D90/D80/D70 (Public) topic #253085
View in linear mode

Subject: "New to Forum" Previous topic | Next topic
aspenextreme Registered since 04th Oct 2011Wed 06-Nov-13 08:48 PM
123 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"New to Forum"


Marietta, GA, US
          

Hi all, I am new the Nikonians forum and wanted to say hi. I have had a D90 with a 50mm 1.8g for around 2 years now and still love it. Recently bought a SB-800 that was gently used and having fun with that.

I typically take photos of my daughter and family at this time but eventually will shoot some sports when she gets a little older.

I have been looking to get a new lens and was thinking about the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. What does everyone think about this to replace the 50mm 1.8? I do love it but it can get a little tight indoors.

I am always up to learn more and do minimal PP in LR5. I probably could do more but to me less is more when it comes to that.

Looking forward to being involved and learning a lot more.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: New to Forum
Asgard Administrator He is your Chief Guardian Angel at the Helpdesk and knows a lot about a lot
06th Nov 2013
1
Reply message RE: New to Forum
tamphlett
07th Nov 2013
2
Reply message RE: New to Forum
JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit.
08th Nov 2013
3
Reply message RE: New to Forum
DaveSoderlund Silver Member
08th Nov 2013
4
Reply message RE: New to Forum
aspenextreme
08th Nov 2013
5
Reply message RE: New to Forum
WhatAboutBob Gold Member
08th Nov 2013
6
Reply message RE: New to Forum
aspenextreme
08th Nov 2013
7
     Reply message RE: New to Forum
jcsocalphoto Silver Member
08th Nov 2013
8
          Reply message RE: New to Forum
aspenextreme
08th Nov 2013
9
               Reply message RE: New to Forum
mkbee1 Silver Member
12th Nov 2013
10
                    Reply message RE: New to Forum
aspenextreme
12th Nov 2013
11

Asgard Administrator He is your Chief Guardian Angel at the Helpdesk and knows a lot about a lot Nikonian since 07th Apr 2004Wed 06-Nov-13 09:21 PM
52430 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 0


East Frisia, DE
          

Welcome to Nikonians, Eric

Thanks for joining us.

Gerold - Nikonian in East Frisia
Eala Freya Fresena

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

tamphlett Registered since 03rd Apr 2013Thu 07-Nov-13 08:07 AM
30 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 0
Thu 07-Nov-13 08:08 AM by tamphlett

UK
          

Hi & welcome to Nikonians!

The answer to your question could come up with a whole raft of suggestions, but if you are sticking to family portraits and sports, well, the 50mm is good for portraits but for sports 55mm would be way too short a focal length. (If on the other hand you were looking at landscapes, the 17-55mm might not be a bad option.)

For most sports (apart possibly from chess ) I'd look at a telephoto zoom to at least cover 55-200mm.

As an F2.8 zoom can be expensive, it might not be a bad idea to rent before you buy to make sure you get what you want.

My Nikonians Gallery

Tim Amphlett
Lancs, UK

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Fri 08-Nov-13 06:41 AM
4887 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 0


Seattle, WA, US
          

The 17-55mm is a great indoors lens. When I was shooting DX bodies, it was my go-to lens for events. It was also usually my walk-around lens in spite of its size and weight.

While the 17-55mm does overlap the 50mm with its zoom range, it does not necessarily replace the 50mm. The 50 is a good low light lens with its f/1.8 ability.

When it comes to post processing, "less is more" is often a good philosophy. Take a look at the "post processing and workflow" forum.

---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA

D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

DaveSoderlund Silver Member Nikonian since 29th May 2010Fri 08-Nov-13 02:22 PM
436 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 0


Geneva, US
          

Welcome, Eric!

I shot a D90 for more than 3 years before moving to a D7100. Here's my $0.02 on your question about lenses.

After dithering and researching, I settled on a basic 2-lens kit for my D90 consisting of the Nikkor 16-85VR and Nikkor 70-300VR. The 16-85 is not as fast as the 17-55, but it is a very capable lens, has the useful VR feature, and is much lighter and less expensive than the 17-55 (used copies of the 16-85 are typically available on the Want To Sell forum for about half the price of used copies of the 17-55).

Fast (f/2.8) zoom telephotos are both heavy and expensive. The 70-300VR is one of Nikon's "sleeper" lenses -- very good in the 70-200 range and softer but still very useful out to 300. The main drawback of this lens for sports is that it is probably not fast enough to shoot at night or indoors. It is also a steal in terms of price -- you could easily get used copies of both the 16-85 and 70-300 for the same price as a used 17-55!

I recently bought the new Nikkor 70-200 f/4, which is a spectacular lens that is about the same size and weight as the 70-300, so I am not using the 70-300 much now. Even so, I like it as an option for my backup D90 body.

Based on my experience you could significantly broaden the scope of your photography with the two lenses I suggested without breaking the bank. As you gain experience and come to understand better your specific photographic needs they may also cause you, through their limitations, to ask the lens question again.

Dave

http://davidmsoderlund.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsoderlund/

Visit my Nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
aspenextreme Registered since 04th Oct 2011Fri 08-Nov-13 02:32 PM
123 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 4


Marietta, GA, US
          

appreciate all of the responses. Like I said I don't do much in LR5 so I am with you on the less is more. I always adjust the WB in there and do the lens corrections and a couple other minor things. I am a big believer in getting the right picture the first time instead of using software to fix a bunch of mistakes as I would rather be shooting that behind a computer. Heck, I am behind a computer all day at work so I would rather make my time in LR5 minimal if I can help it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

WhatAboutBob Gold Member Nikonian since 02nd Nov 2009Fri 08-Nov-13 03:19 PM
97 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 0


Georgetown, US
          

If you're looking for an inexpensive lens to complement the 50mm, check out the 35mm f1.8 for DX. I've used that a lot with pictures of our baby - just use the sneakerzoom. I do not have the 17-55 f2.8, but do desire it. Not sure if I want to spend the cash on that lens if I ever make the leap to FullFrame...

Welcome to Nikonians!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
aspenextreme Registered since 04th Oct 2011Fri 08-Nov-13 05:23 PM
123 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 6


Marietta, GA, US
          

I have looked at the 35mm 1.8 G and I do like it and have thought about adding it to the collection.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jcsocalphoto Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2013Fri 08-Nov-13 06:10 PM
1310 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 7


San Diego, US
          

Hello...

I've had and used all of the lenses you're talking about here. They are all great lenses. As has been noted, the 50mm f1.8 is a lens you should keep anyway. There are things that lens does that not all other lenses can do (and that at times includes very low light). On your DX body, the 35mm f1.8 is the "50mm" comparing to FX or Film Cameras. So, that's a nice lens to have to if you're shooting with primes (which much of the time are better quality images - but not always). The 17-55mm was a lens that I truly loved and it spent the most time on my body. Not cheap, but well worth the cost. Also noted, it was not something you'd use for sports, but I used it for most everything else. The 70-300 is a great inexpensive lens for sports. Any of the 70-200's will be great on your DX body too, if you want to spend the money to better that 70-300 option.

So, to help answer your question - it's a hard call. I had the 35, 50 and the 17-55 all at the same time. I used the 17-55 the most because of the convenience of zoom. I used the 50 for specific things and rarely used the 35 at that time. When I decided to sell my 17-55 (I basically at that time picked up an 80-200mm f2.8 two-ring version ED for the "trade"), I then used the 35 the most for "normal" shooting and found it to be an excellent lens.

My vote though if I were doing it again on DX - I'd get the 17-55mm and keep the 50mm too. The 35 is a great lens and takes extremely sharp images, but I would 'use' the 17-55 more. (It's ironic that I say this because I'm now shooting FX and do the opposite of what I said I'd do on DX - I now use my 50 the most... which would be the 35 on your DX body... I had, didn't really like for whatever reason, and sold my 24-70... which is the 17-55 on your DX body that I just told you I'd vote for... strange).

Jack
D700 | D2X | F100 | Nikon 1 V1 (really the wife's)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
aspenextreme Registered since 04th Oct 2011Fri 08-Nov-13 06:24 PM
123 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 8


Marietta, GA, US
          

Thanks for the reply and yes it is a tough decision. I think based on everyone's comments and my thinking about it more I am going to rent or borrow a 17-55 & 35mm before I buy it.

I have lasted over 2 years with my trusty D90 and the only lens I have is the 50mm 1.8g. I have had no problems at all and have loved every minute of it.

Eventually I would like to go full frame for its low light capabilities but that is probably in 2 years from now. When I do that I more than likely will have the 50mm 1.8g to use on that and then I would really like to get the 70-200 2.8 VR1. As much as I would like to get the VR2 it is a little up there in price.

Tonight I am going to a high school football game and going to crank the ISO up more than normal (usually shoot at ISO 200) to see what kind of noise I get on my shots at low light.

>Hello...
>
>I've had and used all of the lenses you're talking about here.
> They are all great lenses. As has been noted, the 50mm f1.8
>is a lens you should keep anyway. There are things that lens
>does that not all other lenses can do (and that at times
>includes very low light). On your DX body, the 35mm f1.8 is
>the "50mm" comparing to FX or Film Cameras. So,
>that's a nice lens to have to if you're shooting with primes
>(which much of the time are better quality images - but not
>always). The 17-55mm was a lens that I truly loved and it
>spent the most time on my body. Not cheap, but well worth the
>cost. Also noted, it was not something you'd use for sports,
>but I used it for most everything else. The 70-300 is a great
>inexpensive lens for sports. Any of the 70-200's will be
>great on your DX body too, if you want to spend the money to
>better that 70-300 option.
>
>So, to help answer your question - it's a hard call. I had
>the 35, 50 and the 17-55 all at the same time. I used the
>17-55 the most because of the convenience of zoom. I used the
>50 for specific things and rarely used the 35 at that time.
>When I decided to sell my 17-55 (I basically at that time
>picked up an 80-200mm f2.8 two-ring version ED for the
>"trade"), I then used the 35 the most for
>"normal" shooting and found it to be an excellent
>lens.
>
>My vote though if I were doing it again on DX - I'd get the
>17-55mm and keep the 50mm too. The 35 is a great lens and
>takes extremely sharp images, but I would 'use' the 17-55
>more. (It's ironic that I say this because I'm now shooting FX
>and do the opposite of what I said I'd do on DX - I now use my
>50 the most... which would be the 35 on your DX body... I had,
>didn't really like for whatever reason, and sold my 24-70...
>which is the 17-55 on your DX body that I just told you I'd
>vote for... strange).

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
mkbee1 Silver Member Nikonian since 26th Nov 2012Tue 12-Nov-13 06:00 PM
663 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 9
Tue 12-Nov-13 06:00 PM by mkbee1

West Valley, US
          

Hello, and welcome!
In my never-humble opinion, I would look for a lens with a bit more reach than the 17-55mm.

I use my Nikon 18-70mm with great satisfaction, but my dream, do everything combination would be the 16-85 and the 70-200mm f/4. Of course, I would keep my 50mm 1.8D.

I have great liking for the Nikon 28-105, which is a little "long" on the DX format, but it, my D90 and I get along very well!

Good luck

It is a Fine and Pleasant Madness

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
aspenextreme Registered since 04th Oct 2011Tue 12-Nov-13 06:33 PM
123 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: New to Forum"
In response to Reply # 10


Marietta, GA, US
          

Thanks and I will check that out. Maybe I might get a d700 at some point as a second body as well.

>Hello, and welcome!
>In my never-humble opinion, I would look for a lens with a bit
>more reach than the 17-55mm.
>
>I use my Nikon 18-70mm with great satisfaction, but my dream,
>do everything combination would be the 16-85 and the 70-200mm
>f/4. Of course, I would keep my 50mm 1.8D.
>
>I have great liking for the Nikon 28-105, which is a little
>"long" on the DX format, but it, my D90 and I get
>along very well!
>
>Good luck

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D90/D80/D70 (Public) topic #253085 Previous topic | Next topic