Rx4Photo said:
I have a feeling (more like wish) that within the next several months Nikon will announce an update to that 17-55mm f/2.8 lens to push back the competition (Sigma 17-50mm with OS and Tamron 17-50mm with VC). If they do update it they're likely to enhance the ergonomics as well and hopefully bring the IQ up to par with the 24-70mm. I'd like to sit on the sidelines but that Sigma is kind of calling my name.

And the price, naturally, will also be seriously "enhanced." :P

Rx4Photo said:
I have a feeling (more like wish) that within the next several months Nikon will announce an update to that 17-55mm f/2.8 lens to push back the competition (Sigma 17-50mm with OS and Tamron 17-50mm with VC). If they do update it they're likely to enhance the ergonomics as well and hopefully bring the IQ up to par with the 24-70mm. I'd like to sit on the sidelines but that Sigma is kind of calling my name.

if only.......

oh and I think I'm going to buy US models from now on.

heartyfisher said:
I think that 11-16 may be use on fx from 14 - 16 (pipe up those who have it?)

I borrowed one for a couple of weeks and found it to be a great lens but too limiting in range for me. I have the Tokina 12-24 and really love it, sharp, low distortion and built like a tank. I really just shoot 16-24 mostly on it though.

I have been looking at the 16-35 for more range and to move more towards FX glass. Distortion is a peeve of mine so moving to the 16-35vr is low on my list.

I have a feeling (more like wish) that within the next several months Nikon will announce an update to that 17-55mm f/2.8 lens to push back the competition (Sigma 17-50mm with OS and Tamron 17-50mm with VC). If they do update it they're likely to enhance the ergonomics as well and hopefully bring the IQ up to par with the 24-70mm. I'd like to sit on the sidelines but that Sigma is kind of calling my name.

If you lived in Canada, and tax is 12%, would you buy a canadian model glass/body and pay 500 dollars more, or would you just order from an American store and pay 500 dollar less. For example, you pay 3800 for a body and lens in Canada, or you pay 3300 from Adorama.

I still can't justify paying 500 dollars more for Canadian warranty.

Oh, and 3800 dollars in Canada = ~3982 USD. So you're actually paying around 650 dollars more

soshigee said:
i think it's 15

the point is you can still use it on fx

i think it's 15

I think that 11-16 may be use on fx from 14 - 16 (pipe up those who have it?)

tried the 17-55 along with the two trinity zooms. I don't like how the focus ring feels... it's not as 'smooth' as the others... I like the feel of the 24-70, and I don't really like the feel of the 1424... barrel is ridiculously big haha

Hmm. 1year old 17-55 with full box and etc. + receipt for 1100. Not bad. Hmm... But for a 1300 dollar lens... the price to performance ratio is NOT that good... at all... It's just the coverage that's of benefit to me...

Uhh here's a thought. I use a tokina 11-16 for my widies on my D7000. Also, I'll get the 24-70. This will resolve my problem of my need for wide as well as mid-zoom versatility. Then, when I finally get FX, I won't have to worry about wide because 11 on DX is around 16mm, and the 2mm difference (referring to 14-24 on FX) can always be made up with a step back. Then, I'll have the 11-16 on D7k as 2nd body, and my 24-70 and 50 1.4 ready for my FX and switch it up when I need the wide.

I guess I'll just carry one of them around, maybe get a belt thingie to just hang one of them on when I walk around the beach or something. :P 11-16 is only like 400 used and 600 new. With 1650 new for 24-70, I think I can handle it. :)

Any comments, criticism, other suggestions? Comments on the tokina 11-16?

Do they even take in stuff for warranty repair without proof of purchase?

soshigee said:
I'm looking into used 17-55. One in particular is 3 years old, no receipt or box, and US warranty, (I live in Canada).

Anyone have experience getting a second-hand US warranty honoured when not even a US resident? I suspect the existence of said warranty should not be considered an object of value.

I'm looking into used 17-55. One in particular is 3 years old, no receipt or box, and US warranty, (I live in Canada). The condition is very good, and reason for sale is that the seller uses primes more often now. Would you buy this, or would you not? I'm thinking no. I'd probably want the receipt for "proof of purchase" so I can get warranty work done :|

@ Mike

Hi, first off I'd like to thank you for your suggestions. However, I rarely ever need an ultra-wide, and I think the 18-105 is a waste. I'd very much rather get the 18-55 kit :) However, I tend to be a bit rough when handling my camera (I don't drop it though) and in time, I think the kit will snap off from the mount ]: I know it's cheap, but I'd like a very solid feel like my 70-200 VRII. I love heavy lenses ;D Maybe when I evolve as a photographer and start needing the ultra wides, I'll go for the 10-14 DX or if by then I do have the D800, I'll probably buy the 14-24. And with the FX will come the 50mm 1.4G to replace the 35+DX. I'm not too comfortable with primes while playing around friends. I'd like to zoom and take quick shots of "the moment" where the "moments" don't last 10 seconds for me to move forward or back :P

Hi,

"I say this again, I do not care about light weight. I actually prefer heavier glass. I'd rather not waste money on stuff that becomes waste that goes into my toilet. ^-^

"I love the feel and weight of my 70-200 :] "

Youth truly is wasted on the young.

Ignoring that comment, and trying to make some sense of your on hand cash $2500 - wish I had your problems and back and muscles - ( ;-) ) the totality of all the comments you've made, and staying with the Nikon brand for lenses the recommendations for you are fairly simple.

They might not be big ticket - that is you might not like them because they are economical, but they make sense.

If you have the 70-200 (I hope it's the VR), you have the portrait zoom.

I'd add the 10-14mm DX wide (economical and can do double duty as a fish eye with software in RAW post processing and look terrific).

Also, a 35mm and 50mm in 1.8.

Get the 18-105mm kit lens.

As a student, you'll have you hands full just learning that and you're covered from 10-200 with two primes for normal and portraits. You could substitute 85mm for 50mm, I bought both, and I also have a 105mm micro.

Don't be afraid of kit lenses. They're in the kit for a reason. Nikon would be perfectly stupid to put a crappy lens in a kit as if they want the kit to be awful - think about it.

The the kit take good pictures. It's just a little slow. Great in the daylight.

But I think we spent your money wisely.

My best,

Mike

I have been thinking about it a bit more.. I have the 12-24, 35-70 and I do not have the 70-200. further more i am planing to stick with DX. so the 17-50 Sigma OS suits me. However, If didn't already have my 35-70 F2.8 and my 12-24. And already have the 70-200.

If I was really serious about going FX the 24-70 is the best option for the next lens. However FX is just LUST and DX is where you will be at for the next 7 years then the 17-55 is the choice.

soshigee said:
I don't have an FX yet. I'm thinking of getting one when the new ones release next year

Uhh... funny thing is, my shots are mostly 11-15 and 30-60 o.o ultrawide PLUS mid. haha

I use my 12-24 and my 35-70 for those kinds of shots.. ( I feel like a broken record.. ) get the 17-50 sigma OS 2.8 :-)

I say this again, I do not care about light weight. I actually prefer heavier glass. I'd rather not waste money on stuff that becomes waste that goes into my toilet. ^-^

I love the feel and weight of my 70-200 :]

to make things short and ease of the weight, at the same time get optimum image quality is your 35mm 1.8 and 18-55 vr. both lenses are extremely lightweight and produces fantasy image quality also inexpensive. with all the money that has been saved, enjoy it on accessories and going out buying expensive dinner with friends that will be memorial as much as your photos. remember stop wasting time searching for the right gears and start shooting with what you have, you will be more happy.

love brian

Hmm.. Dang. For a while I decided on the 24-70. Then, I read where unless I get payed for most of the shots I take, I'm better off sticking with DX unless I just have cash to spend and have nothing else to spend it on :P

I don't mind the size and weight of any trinity zooms, as long as I don't need to change up lenses often, which is why I'm looking for a zoom that covers some-what wide, and mid range.

I guess both the 17-55 and 24-70 work for me; however, I've read some stuff about these two.

The Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX is a professional grade lens and it certainly shows up regarding its exceptionally high build quality as well as very fast AF speed. Optically it is, without doubt, a very good lens but it has a few issues. The center performance is nothing short of stellar but the borders are a little worse than desirable at 24mm @ f/2.8 and at 55mm (for such a lens). The level of CAs, distortions as well as vignetting is quite typical for a lens in this class but then thing aren't substantially better either. So all-in-all there may be a few question marks regarding the price/performance ratio of this lens. It simply lacks the greatness suggested by its price tag.

Optical Quality: 3.5/5
Mechanical Quality: 5/5
Price/Performance: 2.5/5

The Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED exceeds the already very good performance of its predecessor. The center quality is nothing short of outstanding matching or beating the resolution of a 10mp APS-C sensor. The border quality is very good at large aperture increasing to excellent levels at f/5.6-8. However, you've to be careful with the curved focus field at 24mm which can result in out-of-focus corners! Distortions and vignetting are very low and not really field relevant. Chromatic aberrations are generally well controlled although they could have been somewhat more symmetrical (in the tested sample). The bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is unusually smooth and buttery for a zoom lens with aspherical elements. Please note, however, that 70mm f/2.8 isn't terribly fast on an APS-C DSLR so you've to be fairly close to your main subject in order to produce a pronounced out-of-focus blur. The build quality of the lens is superb and it´s a joy to handle it in the field despite its comparatively hefty size and weight. The high speed and low noise of the silent-wave AF drive is the cream on top of it all. The primary aspect which can spoil the game is, unsurprisingly, the high price point of around 1500€/US$.

Optical Quality: 4/5
Mechanical Quality: 5/5
Price/Performance: 4/5

The Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED N is a phenomenal lens. It is the sharpest ultra-wide angle lens tested to date. The resolution figures are simply stunning and unprecedented specifically at 14mm and that's straight from the maximum aperture setting. So far it is the only lens in this class which has the potential to scale beyond the pixel-density of 10mp APS-C sensors. And it doesn't even stop here - distortions and lateral CAs are very well controlled and vignetting is basically a non-issue in field conditions. Naturally even this Nikkor is not perfect in the true sense - it can flare quite a bit with streaking light sources and the bokeh can look a little rough although that's quite typical for lenses featuring aspherical elements. The build quality is exceptionally high and in line to the professional grade scope of the lens. The immense front element may be responsible for the superb performance but it prohibits front filters thus leaving the protruding front element quite vulnerable - a bit of a worrisome thought regarding the high value of this lens. Nonetheless - taking the sum of its qualities into account the verdict can only be ... highly recommended!

Optical Quality: 5/5
Mechanical Quality: 4.5/5
Price/Performance: 5/5

Hmm... those are the summaries/verdicts of pretty reasonably exceptional analyses done on photozone.de

Thoughts? Opinions? :]

studio460 said:
It's not about the music, hearty . . . it's about hot Asian chicks in miniskirts!

I thoroughly approve of this message! :D

No, but seriously, 17-55 should work fine for you. a nice 2 lens kit for the D7000. What you miss out on in the middle shouldn't concern you too much.

I live in Japan and see hundreds of hot asian chicks in mini skirts every day. I prefer it when they don't sing...

oh, and i recommend a lens that is easy to leave on all the time. ie; not a zoom. i used to leave my 50 1.4 on, now i leave my 35 1.4 on. you cant just woop out the 70-200, it's very noticeable, most people consider it to be a huge lens.

you could buy the 35 1.4 (a little crazy on dx, but if you upgrade, it's a dream) and an ultrawide prime for $2500.

heartyfisher said:
I recently "discovered" K-POP.. very interesting and was totally engrossed for a while. but after a while I find that most are so "manufactured", although I still dont mind listening to some when I am in the mood for fluffy and sweet with a nice dollop of corny.

It's not about the music, hearty . . . it's about hot Asian chicks in miniskirts!

soshigee said:
With a wide zoom, I considered getting a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8. But I've read that it's a little bit short on the DX for portraits, and I do have a 70-200 VRII for my portrait use.

The 50mm shoots pretty nice on DX as a 75mm-equivalent. You could get the 85mm f/1.8, but you already have the 70-200.

soshigee said:
One last thought. The chances of my upgrading to an FX when the new models come out is quite slim . . . Therefore, logically, I would be better of taking the chance that I would not upgrade to FX and go for the 17-55mm 2.8 DX, than getting the 24-70? I don't know if the 17-24 range is much help for what I shoot.

You answered your own question. I think the 17-55 is perfect for your needs. A 17mm lens is still wide enough on a DX body, and with the kind of shooting you do, I think you need the speed of an f/2.8 lens. I also think the 17-55 is an ideal focal range for a walkaround as well. Plus, if you keep shooting DX for a while, you'll also benefit from the the weight and bulk savings of a DX lens, compared with any other f/2.8 wide FX zoom, which is going to be big and heavy.

I would recommend getting both the 17-55 f/2.8, and a 50 f/1.4. You'll then have three fast lenses, allowing you to shoot almost anywhere, and among those three lenses, you'll also have pretty decent field-of-view coverage.

I don't have an FX yet. I'm thinking of getting one when the new ones release next year

Uhh... funny thing is, my shots are mostly 11-15 and 30-60 o.o ultrawide PLUS mid. haha

Budget of $2500?!? Your kidding me about a small budget! Do you already have an FX as well as the D7000 or are you just expecting to get one?

So OK then, analyse the dispersion of your pics over the range of focal lengths, discount those you can get with the 70-200, and wah-la - you have your lens requirement prioritised by numbers of shots over the ranges of the lenses you are considering. With that budget, you haven't got any worries.

spraynpray said:
Right then, that's sorted - you need a 11-200 f2.8 zoom.....

WOW! I can see why this is on 4 pages already. Well, If it were me - and I am on a low budget too - I think I would get a used 18-55 in the cheap kit lens range (which isn't really fast enough I know), a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and borrow somebody's 70-200 f2.8 until you can afford to buy one. The Tokina is the keeper there.

Good luck!

My budget is around 2500 dollars for 1 or 2 new lenses. I already have the 70-200 VRII actually. :P

The Tokina 11-16 costs around 600. I still don't think I should buy DX lenses... I mean, I don't use them as much, and to use 600 on a lens I won't be using much of is kind of a waste... I only use around 11-16 focal length like maybe around 2-4 times per concert. One to get the shot of the whole stadium, and some when I can't move back at all.