so...if you had to choose...

70-200 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
17-55 f/2.8

I WILL own the 70-200 at some point, but I can't decide if I want the 17-55 or 24-70 also. And once I figure THAT out, I can't figure out which I want to purchase first!

My friend is getting married in a few weeks, and while I have the 18-200 (which I've grown to love and hate) and the 50 f/1.4, I decided that now was as good a time as any to put some of my camera money to good use.

I think the 70-200 might not be wide enough for any indoor shots, although the zoom would be fantastic to have (since I'm sure I won't be as close as I'd like). It would also fit perfectly into what I currently enjoy shooting the most (pets, usually dogs, and wildlife, with a teleconvertor).

The wider/mid-range zooms would be great for everything that the 70-200 can't accomplish. I do take some landscape shots, and its always nice to have a wider end for travel, group shots, or anything indoors in cramped spaces.

I guess I'm just looking for some objective opinions. I've been doing so much research lately I feel I've taken a few steps back, rather than forward!

I've got the Nikon D80 and yes, I'd like to stay with Nikon glass.

8/2/2008 10:07:42 AM

17-55 f/2.8

8/2/2008 10:20:30 AM

i always get you confused with Wolfy

8/2/2008 10:36:31 AM

17-55 f/2.8

8/2/2008 11:01:50 AM

I thought we had a camera thread


oh, wait.

8/2/2008 11:02:25 AM

17-55 and then 70-200

8/2/2008 11:03:20 AM

Portrait work :17-55 f/2.8 any day of the week

Just remember, "portrait work" entails getting up in their face for a good, sharp shot. If you're sitting 20 rows back you'll want something longer, but it will be useless at the reception.

[Edited on August 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM. Reason : a]

8/2/2008 11:07:17 AM

actually i'd think for portrait work you don't want to get too far up in their face... which is why the 50 or 85mm choice are ideal for portrait work. group shots would need a wide angle yeah i suppose. I think you'd be good with your current 18-200 for the wide angle stuff. I just don't like the idea of going DX at this point in the game because i'd like to use my stuff on my film camera too if i wanted to. not to mention if you ever did upgrade to a full frame sensor it'd be nice to have that full frame lens.

my personal opinion is if you are going to keep your 18-200 then to get a 70-200 because light rarely is ideal in weddings or indoors in general.

overall you have a 18-200. it covers your entire range in question. why not see which range you use the most.

8/2/2008 11:22:44 AM

^ but wouldn't the 2.8 help with the poor light situation? I know that upping the ISO (beyond 800) to compensate isn't the best option in the world with the D80, but it would help, esp if the lens lets in more light to begin with? I'm not a huge fan of flash and if I can get around using it, then I prefer to go that route.

While I'm a fan of the range the 18-200 offers, the IQ is driving me up the wall, as is the fact that the lens isn't all that fast in low light. Granted, this could end up being the brightest reception in the history of weddings, but I'm thinking proooobably not.

If I ever go full frame, it will be so far down the road that I don't think I should even consider it as an option at this point. My next step will likely be the D300, but at that point I should have all the glass I need

8/2/2008 11:39:15 AM

I've rented a 70-200 before and while it was the most amazing lens I've ever used, it really doesn't fit the bill because almost everything I shoot requires a wider angle.

17-55 for sure. A friend of mine has it and the sharpness is just amazing.

[Edited on August 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ..]

8/2/2008 11:45:01 AM

indeed it would help the poor lighting at 2.8. and all of them are 2.8 so what i am thinking about mostly is where it helps the most. and at 2.8 at 200 is more of a drastic change than at 17. at 200mm you need a faster shutter speed and the aperature goes down to like 6.3 or something when you are using the 18-200. so at 200 the 2.8 will show the biggest difference.

I haven't seen a quality comparison between the 17-55 and the 24-70 yet. I haven't played with either. actually wait, they may still have the 24-70 at the wolf camera in brier creek. check it out.

8/2/2008 11:48:53 AM

I dont live in raleigh anymore...and unfortunately I don't think any stores here in Dare county sell anything even remotely d-slr related.

oh, and it goes to 5.6 at 200...which still sucks unless I'm outside in a sunny area. even then, it leaves a lot to be desired.

so a lot of responses for the 17-55. why are you all choosing that lens over the 24-70?

8/2/2008 11:55:44 AM

17-55 won't be long enough for portraits. The 24-70 is a great lens, but it's disadvantage is that you aren't as wide (on a DX camera) as you're 18-200. I agree with the others that the 70-200 would be the lens to go with to compliment. I know I'd be switching back and forth between the 17-55 and 70-200 too much if I had both, and if I just had the 17-55 I'd be too much in the person's face to get the shots I want.

8/2/2008 12:15:01 PM

i think people see 17 and say wider is better. but i think overall the 24-70 is supposed to be a better lens. for landscape you'd be good with the wide angle. if it were me... personally i'd go for the 24-70. i'm thinking the pic quality is supposed to be better. its a newer lens. got the nano coating for less ghosting. and it has that medium range that gives you some good close up.

8/2/2008 12:43:07 PM

I guess if I really missed the wide end then I could just grab a lens (somewhere down the line) dedicated for that type of work

8/2/2008 1:04:43 PM

The three main lenses I use for weddings:

24-70 f/2.8- great range and serves most of my needs for group shots, portraits, formal shots and close candid shots.
70-200 f/2.8- longer range to be out of the way and get candid shots of the ceremony and reception.
50 f/1.4 - low light lens and mainly use it to for portraits and still life captures.

Although I use a Canon with a 1.3x crop so these lens are totally different. If I had a 16-35, I might use it for group shots, but honestly, I really don't use the 24 wide angle that much. I'm more between 35-70 on the general purpose lens.


I'd say if you already have the 18-200 (which is a pretty good lens on its self for what it does) and the 50 1.4, I'd grab a 70-200 2.8. For the shots that really matter, most are from my 70-200, at least for me.

8/2/2008 1:08:14 PM

Quote :

"17-55 and then 70-200"

8/2/2008 1:34:32 PM

my overall verdict. 70-200.... then invest in the 24-70... then when you get enough money for the trifecta... 14-24...

then you are set. period.

by the way, the reviews that i read showed the 24-70 being sharper.

8/2/2008 1:53:52 PM

good lord the 70-200 is one hard lens to find! just poking around at my fav online sites, its out of stock at every one!!

8/2/2008 4:27:43 PM

I just saw one at wolf camera. gimme the money and i will pick it up for you

8/2/2008 5:56:04 PM

lol dangit if only I was still in raleigh!!!

8/2/2008 6:12:07 PM

you could probably find one used. just look over it good.

8/2/2008 7:08:23 PM

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/274780/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html

8/2/2008 7:34:47 PM

I completely forgot B&H had a used section...sweet!

8/2/2008 7:43:06 PM