[Dave]

Have a plan hatched that if I sell my Nikon 18-70, Sigma 10-20 plus 50 f/1.8 I might be able to scrape together enough for Nikkor 17-55 AF-S 2.8 DX (waiting for onestop quote )

Now I know the 17-55 is far better than 18-70, so 1 tick..... I can sacrifice the extra wide angle for the 17-55, so 2 ticks.....but how will this lens perfrom vs the 50mm f/1.8 , putting speed difference aside ? Anybody had chance to play side by side ?

[P-E]

I have the the 17-55 2.8 & the 50mm 1.4 (not the 1.8).

[Venomator]

Originally Posted by DJW

Have a plan hatched that if I sell my Nikon 18-70, Sigma 10-20 plus 50 f/1.8 I might be able to scrape together enough for Nikkor 17-55 AF-S 2.8 DX (waiting for onestop quote )

Giving up on the 18-200 ?

Unfortunately I don't got a primary (now !) but is the 17-55 really superior to the 18-70 ?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by P-E

I have the the 17-55 2.8 & the 50mm 1.4 (not the 1.8).

Even better....how do they compare PQ wise at f/2.8 with the 17-55 at 50mm please ?

[P-E]

Originally Posted by DJW

Even better....how do they compare PQ wise at f/2.8 with the 17-55 at 50mm please ?

The 50mm is sharper than the 17-55.

Having said that the 50mm rarely comes out of the bag and the 17-55 rarely comes off my D2Hs.

For me the 17-55 2.8 was a good buy......expensive but worth it imo.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Venomator

... but is the 17-55 really superior to the 18-70 ?

At 3 times the cost I hope so Seriously though from reviews at FM here & other sites, plus the pro's like Arkady using the 17-55, it's a mighty impressive lens. Now if only I could afford the 70-200 VR to go with it

[Arkady]

Get the non-VR lens instead - £100 cheaper and better quality. You just have to steady your heart-rate a little more.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by P-E

The 50mm is sharper than the 17-55.

Having said that the 50mm rarely comes out of the bag and the 17-55 rarely comes off my D2Hs.

For me the 17-55 2.8 was a good buy......expensive but worth it imo.

Was half expecting this, as you have both lenses . Thanks for reply....money permitting this has to be the lens to get then

[P-E]

I also was looking at adding the 70-200 VR but at the time they seemed to be in short supply so after much thought purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

I must say I am most impressed with the Sigma 70-200 2.8........sharp & fast.

I doubt you will be dissapointed with the 17-55 2.8 DJW

[Dave]

Originally Posted by P-E

I also was looking at adding the 70-200 VR but at the time they seemed to be in short supply so after much thought purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

I must say I am most impressed with the Sigma 70-200 2.8........sharp & fast.

& saved a fair wedge in the process

[P-E]

Originally Posted by DJW

& saved a fair wedge in the process

I got it new from HK for less than £500.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Arkady

Get the non-VR lens instead - £100 cheaper and better quality. You just have to steady your heart-rate a little more.

Thanks Rob....always good to see unbiased review. Will look into it if/when I have the cash to invest.

[Arkady]

The VR chip does wierd things to the images sometimes. If you're doing Sports for a newspaper it's a good piece of kit, but for the best quality images, the non-VR is a better bet.
That's why they still make both of them.

[Dave]

Is it not possible to turn VR off, in which case you would have best of both worlds ?

[Arkady]

It is, but the optics on the non-VR lens are better from the off.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by DJW

..... I might be able to scrape together enough for Nikkor 17-55 AF-S 2.8 DX (waiting for onestop quote )

They have quoted £799 incl VAT & delivery, which is £170 cheaper than warehouseexpress