I plan on getting a D7K as soon as possible, and am indecisive about ordering a lens with it. I mostly want the camera for low light capabilities. With my D80, I use mostly an 18-200, and have the 50 f1.8 and a Sigma 150 f2.8.
I am considering getting either the 17-55 f2.8 or the 35 f1.8. Which would be most useful generally, the greater speed of the 35 or the zoom of the 17-55, considering the zoom gives up a little speed? Or am I foolish to think that I would need either, because the higher ISO's of the D7K would allow me to get by with the 18-200?
It depends on what you plan on shooting. For general purpose shooting the versatility of the zoom is much more useful than the extra 1.3 stops of the prime. As for your dilemma, get the D7000 and use your 18-200mm with it. Then you can make an informed decision based on your particular needs and shooting style. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
Sat 30-Oct-10 05:11 PM | edited Sat 30-Oct-10 05:12 PM by lovemy8514
Get your new body and learn to enjoy/use it first with your 18-200mm.
If you find yourself shooting in the wider range of the 18-200mm, consider the 17-55mm f/2.8 in the future if you want to further improve image quality when shooting at larger apertures. In some cases the improvement may not be noticeable or there, while in others it may be obvious. It would really depend on technique at that point. (Use of a tripod, shutter speed, etc.)
Getting the package here to Panama is a major problem, it makes a lot of sense to have everything delivered at the same time. Also, it is impossible to actually see and test gear here, I would need to order it sight unseen.
>... Which would be most useful generally, the greater speed of >the 35 or the zoom of the 17-55...
This isn't the way I'd look at it. You already have the speed of the 35 in your 50, and you already have the zoom of the 17-55 in your 18-200.
My thought is that the 17-55 is bigger and heavier than the 18-200 you already have, and has less zoom range (and, is more expensive), so I'd wonder how often you'd want to use it rather than the 18-200. I realize it's a pro lens, and you might want that quality, but I'd find it of limited usefulness for the price, I do believe.
The 35 has the advantage of being small and light, plus f1.8 if you really need it, and it is more affordable. That would, in my view, make it more useful.
That's the decision I've actually made. I have an 18-200, and a 50 f1.4 and 35 f1.8, and I'm not missing not having a 17-55.
If you really want top-quality lenses, you should probably get both the 17-55 and 35. And, if you are that type of shooter, you probably would not be satisfied with your 18-200. I've seen lots of critics of the 18-200 on Nikonians. That's not me, though. I love my 18-200! If you're happy with yours, the 35 would probably be the best addition to your kit.
I've just acquired the 17-55 2.8 & spent a week in Florence. I had my 18-200 in the bag but never felt need to use it once. In fact most days I left it in the hotel preferring to carry my 80-400 when extra reach was needed. The versatility and speed of the 17-55 was awesome particularly inside churches & museums.
I'm not sure how I've managed without it for so long!
>...I had my 18-200 in the bag but never felt need to >use it once... >preferring to carry my 80-400 when extra reach was needed...
Wow, Geoff, you have more of a tolerance for carrying around photo gear than I do! I have an 80-400, but I only take it with me when I know I'm going to want that extra reach. (It's my longest lens.) If you're willing to carry something that size, I'd think the 17-55 and 80-400 would make a good pair that would cover a lot of situations (but more than I'd like to be carrying).