Tokina la boss and according to the tokina distributor here in malaysia its already available. Still havent get my hands on them yet though, scared terpoison myself

Why not, it's just comparison. You might already known that many DX users are actually using 3rd party equivalent for Nikkor 17-55 even Pro Wedding Photogs; As I said, there's no wrong or right.

As for buyer differentiation, I'm just saying as example; Please don't be sensitive, it's not about "putting people at different level" kind of thing. It's very normal or common question, there're people who just use for hobby; Even hobby, there're people who earn little and earn a lot, or simply have $$ OR willing to spend more, while there're those that not willing to spend too much; We can't generalize and category everyone and expect everyone to pay for the best.
I didn't say they should buy this or that either, I'm just giving "alternatives" and then explain why I suggest this; I hope it's clear, some people prefer to say "go for this" but don't mention why, but there're people who don't care why or they prefer simple and straighforward answer, while there're those prefer to know the details and reasons. I'm simply sharing my point of view, the buyer can decide based on "everyone's" feedback, not just me, plus I'm nobody.
Besides, I also specifically mentioned the weakness of the "alternatives", I didn't try to hide it or saying the 3rd party is how great to how great.

Many hobbies are expensive, but not everyone spend the same; Some willing to spend more, some less; Some earn a lot, but spend little on the hobby, while some earn little, but willing to spend a lot on the hobby (even saving for years just to own 1 lens). For work, it's again different, if the job is going well, the cost can be cover back and the lens is actually important as it will help out on the job.

Not sure how many people will use the 17-55mm on FX; I see more people selling and lower resale value compare to many others. Plus, for many other lens, their 3rd party counterpart don't give so much difference; As I said, 17-55mm Nikkor is around 4 times more expensive than it's 3rd party counterpart, and each TIMES, the amount is RM1200; It's not small amount difference. For people using for hobby (shooting indoor, kids), they may not necessarily need such expensive lens, plus it's big and heavy; Plus, I also mentioned shooting at "extraordinary" angles, and the need to move a lot when following kids around, shooting in tight spaces, going down, low, shooting between chairs/objects, etc.
Of course, I'm not saying that's not possible or not good, just an "example" of convenience and whether is it really a need for it; Everyone has their own preference, if I have the luxury to own it, I don't mind it

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jul 22 2011, 03:57 PM

well, imo 17-55 is targetted at the pros who have dx bodies and value image quality.
likewise, there are the tamron 17-50s out there for the casual users, or those who cant afford the nikon pro lenses.

but with FX, those who buy the bodies usually have money anyway...so most dont even bother looking at the 24-70 equivalents like sigma...who btw do make a 24-70 f/2.8 which is basically half the price of the nikon equivalent.
tamron also has a 28-75 f/2.8 for rm1.5k which is also almost 4 times cheaper than the nikon 24-70, but u dont hear of many ppl using it...tho im taking a guess the image quality should be similar to the 17-50.

imo, the 17-55 gets a 'bad' name due to there being way more DX users who are looking for something cheaper.
not to say there are no FX users looking for cheaper alternatives, but the numbers arent there to see many significant complains

True, if one can afford FX, the price factor is different. DX have more types of users, only those who can afford can go for FX, thus the price difference is not so significant. Imagine a common DX body of 2-3K, very FX body of > 8K?
Then lens which double the price of the BODY on DX? Comparing with FX which the body cost much more.

I won't say 17-55mm is bad or give it a bad name, in fact, I didn't say it, just to make it clear if you're referring to me; I just feel the price is too steep (personally), but I don't disagree it's a great lens with amazing built and optical quality, no doubt.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jul 22 2011, 04:20 PM

not referring to u.
just in general, cos ppl say 17-55 not worth it better buy tamron etc.
but its all in the spending power, dont see many FX users say nikon 24-70 not worth it better buy sigma 24-70.

If under budget, I would not go for 17-55; As DX user, especially not working as photographer, and under budget, RM5K is a big amount, not something we can buy with even 1 year saving; You might read before some people save over 2 years just to get the 70-200mm f/2.8. If the person wants to own few lenses, they may consider "alternatives" depending on the price difference and so on, if makes a lot of difference.

However, the 2nd hand price is considerable; The main issue is finding a good condition unit especially after some horror stories.

FX is different case, having able to spend a FX body, the "value" of the money is different; RM1000 value for people who can afford DX VS people who can afford FX is very much different.
Just like people who can afford budget car VS people can can afford luxury car, the "value" of money is different; That day at one shop, I heard the owner of Audi TT talking about the some aftermarket headlamp, he said "only RM4000, cheap lah!" (not sure for both sides of only 1); For people who just say drive a B-Segment car, even RM1000 is "very" expensive?

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jul 22 2011, 04:42 PM

I personally will not buy 3rd party lens anymore.. Have a bad experience on 3rd party lens.. bad build quality, front/back focusing issue, slow focusing, difficult to focus & etc.. I owned tamron 18-270 & 17-55 and sold it off after few months.. Now i would rather save more money and stick back to orignal.. I would say for 3rd party brand Tokina is the best.. but again, TTL will not be accurate in wide open..

if under budget of cos diff story.
but if not, why go 3rd party?
what i see here is, even if the person has a big budget, everyone is still recommending 3rd party lenses over the 17-55.

This post has been edited by Everdying: Jul 22 2011, 06:10 PM

My previous recommendation is because he mentioned is for hobby indoor shooting kids, so suggest an alternative for him to "consider" due to the lighter weight, smaller size which is easier to use and he can save more money (plus, he wanted the 24-70; the savings can get him that later or some other lens, or perhaps something else).

Nonetheless, I didn't say must, just giving a different point of view, plus I did specifically highlight the weakness of the 3rd party (at least I mention this to let the person know, rather than just recommending blindly or say something "simple" like "better get Tamron, cheaper and good image quality", right?)
But if the person wants to know which is the better lens and he/she can afford it, the answer is very clear.

i have a 17-55 dx nikkor. and i don't think i will sell it even if i go full frame. most likely will use it for a lower end body for travel usage

it's hard to compare it side by side with 3rd party lenses. you must use it then you'll feel it.

for me it is a lens that you learn to appreciate with time.

yea, weaknesses...
indoor shooting with the lighting conditions, i wonder if the likes of tamron is able to focus properly or not.
and especially if the kids run around, i doubt the tamron can lock focus fast enough.
if like that, imo even cheaper nikons say the 16-85 or even *ancient* 18-70 would be a better choice...
or even the 50mm 1.8G

This post has been edited by Everdying: Jul 22 2011, 07:04 PM

Oppphs, sorry boss.

I will buy a 3rd party lens if it can proof itself to be worthy. A good example is the Tamron 90mm f/28 macro lens which is a very good alternative to Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 micro.

Yeah, 3rd party lenses can be a headache too in terms of compatibility. Not to say that ALL 3rd parties are bad but the chances are higher than say a bad Nikkor.

Like I mentioned, selling 3rd party lenses can be a little difficult too and you'd probably loose more than say selling a Nikkor.

I would agree that if someone is on tight budget, 3rd party option is nice. Perhaps it's just an interim before one is poisoned to get the better Nikkor.

However, if someone already has some budget or the budget can stretch a little, the Nikkor can be somewhat an investment. If don't like or want to quit or want to upgrade to FX, you can always sell it for a reasonable price to fund your next item. It's not going to loose a lot of money. Put it this way... I think if you think about the lost of value when selling a 3rd party lens because you don't like it or if you want to upgrade to a better lens is quite high compared to if you had a Nikkor. Oh, plus the fact that during ownership of the Nikkor, you get the satisfaction of enjoying good quality images from the lens. Sometimes, that makes up more for the price.

Poor gid, he was asking for more opinions between selecting a 17-55 and 24-70 ended up in a long debate between Everdying and Andy214. Well, I'm not trying to side neither sides nor saying who's correct because it's all opinions and individual preferences.

Before I sum 17-55 vs 24-70 on which could be better, let's sum up the Original Nikkor Lenses vs 3rd Party Lenses:

Nikkor Lenses (Original Nikon Products)

Pros

• Generally sharper?
• Generally better color contrast?
• Generally faster focus
• Better focus accuracy
• Better built quality
• Less likely of front/back focusing problem
• Generally high resale value but not all
• Less noisy auto-focus motor (for AF-S lenses)

Cons

• Very expensive
• Some lenses has lower resale value which would cause bad resale value ratio

3rd Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina)

Pros

• Generally slower focus and some very slow
• Not so accurate focus
• Chances of focus hunting in low light
• Built quality not as great as Nikkor lenses
• Likelihood of front/back focusing problem
• Some has noisy auto-focus motor (for AF-S lenses)

Cons

• Cheaper alternative than original Nikkor lenses (some even cheaper by 3x~4x)
• People tend to prefer 2nd hand Nikkor than 2nd hand 3rd party lenses?

That's what I could collect from the debate

However, please do note that there are good 3rd party lenses that could be better compared with Nikkor lenses. One good example would be Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 which is generally known it's sharper than Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. For this example, the Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 or known as Sigmalux is priced higher than Nikkor's.

This post has been edited by vearn27: Jul 22 2011, 08:28 PM

Forget about the price tag, the 17-55 is one of the top quality lens

u get what u paid lar

Again for gib, both 17-55 and 24-70 are top grade lenses from Nikkor. Likelihood of renewing both models are yet to know, but these two lenses already very good enough even for professional photographers. Sharpness wise, focusing rate, focusing speed, built quality, etc. both should be on par. Color contrast wise may be slightly leaned towards 24-70 due to Nikkor very own popular Nanocoating in which the lens bearing the N symbol.

Since both lenses quality on par, the one thing that should matter the most to your decision should be the focal length. If you using the kit lens 18-105 and you find that many times you shoot at 24mm and below, most likely the 17-55 will be a better choice since 24mm could be still tight on DX body which is less preferable for tight places, group or landscape shooting. 24-70 on the other hand provides you slightly further reach than the 17-55 but again, being losing out on the wide coverage.

It's all down to you on how you wanted to use the lens and what you intended to shoot the most. I picked the 17-55 because I need the wideness for covering my event shooting. Good luck

Fellow Nikonians here, just wanted to get some pointers in using flashgun.

I have the Nikon SB-900 flashgun with me. All the while I have been relying on i-TTL, Even Flash and switching in between Flash Sync Speed 1/250s (Auto FP) and 1/250s. Been advised not to use the dome diffuser because it will be creating shadow. I bought the Demb Flash Diffuser Pro (DFD) altogether with my flashgun but seldom using it as I'm not sure on how to controlling the light.

Anyone here willing to share on how you use your flashgun with everyone? i-TLL as well Or perhaps Manual setting?

Munch munch munch~ by CY Pixels, on Flickr

Feeding time~ dry grass

For normal/fast action event shooting, I depend primarily on the on-camera TTL, aperture priority mode. The only light modifier (besides those that come together with SB900) that I have currently is Honl 8" Speed Snoot and I'm using that quite a lot.

When I wanna get creative, I go manual. Both flash and camera settings. I've just posted some basic general rules of flash photography here. Hope that will give you some insights in controlling the lights.

celciuz what monopod you got last time? Im thinking to get one. Can give me some of your thoughts?

Manfrotto 680B by CY Pixels, on Flickr

Manfrotto 680B. Solid But I suck at using monopod -.- or maybe it was wrong timing to use it haha!