True, it's important to evaluate what the person wants; For simple and casual use, better to go for high end point and shoot or mirrorless; If they get DSLR, and then prefer to use LIVE VIEW, they'll find the performance dissappointing and not what they expected, handling also different, bulky, lazy to carry around everytime, need to think about cleaning sensor, lens, this and that.

Maybe they should go to a shop and test/try out those high end compacts (with superzoom if they like zoom), or even better, mirrorless.... Check out the GF2, the performance is so good, touch focus and blaaaazing fast focus and snap even indoor shots, plus it comes with tons of features that were not available in DSLR, they can adjust background or foreground blur, etc. And yes, there're also telephoto lenses available. This one is compact and good for on-the-go casual shooting, easy and fun to use.

Do some simple focus test, make sure no front or back focus issue; Shoot wide open and at close distance, hold camera very steady or put on table. You can shoot battery, the box cover (put like 45 degrees and shoot the word in the middle), etc. You can google focus chart for more accurate test if you want to go the the extreme, or you can google to understand more on how these test were done.

Go search around LYN or PhotoMalaysia, I don't think it's over RM2K for official Sigma Malaysia set.

What are the reason you want a 1.4? Do you really need the 1.4? Is the price difference worth to pay?

Check out the new 50mm f/1.8G, it's around RM650, way way WAY cheaper than the 1.4s around and performs very well (if not better), and it's sharp wide open. There're many amazing sample photos posted in PhotoMalaysia almost everyday.


No problem bro, good luck on your purchase and enjoy!


I think he mentioned before that he prefer to expose for the skin tones, and he doesn't really bother about others.

Ok, I'm one of them but I do state I test it at BTS and so the opinion should be taken as is; Besides, the most important is still the person itself to try it out and decide; never buy solely because of word of mouth or reading around, it should be taken as reference, which can be useful when one do the actual test.

Anyway, everyone have their own experience and opinion to share, the person reading doesn't have to believe everything immediately, it should be served as referenced, and if disagreed, it's ok. We're all here to share and learn, but try to be nice to each other loh

True, the short time test is just "first impressions"; but it will help to read around and use as reference when testing; e.g. slow focusing, one can test is and "roughly" see if it's acceptable slow; Of course, on the field use is again different case and overtime, when one uses a faster focusing lens, things will again be different. Those "first impression" test are more or less to get the feel and also usually compare few lenses to decide the purchase, or worth the investment.

On the field use, can be different again, like focus accuracy especially, how the focus speed during real shooting, etc. One thing is as you said, it's also up to the person handling it, how he/she accommodate to overcome the lens weakness, etc. (e.g. slow focusing --> pre-focus earlier, etc; but focus accuracy is tough here). Of course, with better tools, it helps.

Depending how important the wide is to you; Don't forget both lens are big and heavy; Hobby shooting indoor, you might not want to carry such big glass and chasing kids or trying "extraordinary' angles. For that, you actually have MUCH MORE cheaper options, lighter, smaller and "arguably" comparable sharpness and good image quality, such as the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, for only around RM1200 (around than 4 times cheaper than a NEW 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor). The main issue is the slower AF, hunting and inaccurate AF in low light, and noisy motor; however it's much more lighter and compact, easier to move around and shoot for hobby indoor.

If money is not an issue, 17-55mm is great, but it's just way too expensive, for DX lens and it's so far apart from it's 3rd party counterpart, plus the 2nd hand value is much lower (unless you plan to go for 2nd hand). For budget or hobby use (under budget), I personally feel the price is too steep; But if one is using it for "work", it's different story.
Imagine this: One could buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 and at the same time spend extra about RM1K and get the Tammy.

Anyway, just my personal opinion. There's no wrong or right, it depends on how each person see/evaluates it.

That's if you don't need the f/2.8; The AF hunting and inaccuracy in low light is very bad, Sigma is much better in this case, but less sharp wide open.
Plus, there's no new 18-70mm.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jul 22 2011, 02:04 PM

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

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

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

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.

Why not; As I said, there're pro wedding photographers using it, I think kytz also mention one pro photographer using it. Anyway, it's not that bad until it's not usable, just that you need to learn how to utilize your tools; Better tools, surely helps, save time, trouble, hassle and the disappointment (e.g. getting out of focus shots due to inaccuracy, not able to capture the moment).

As for 16-85 and 18-70, as I reply to isepunye posting, for people looking for f/2.8 equivalent, they would not have look here. Anyway, nobody is saying the 3rd party is superior, just an option/alternative.


I think the debate is in "proper discussion" manner, it good for information sharing and clearing any misunderstanding. In non-malaysian forum, it's very normal especially long replies. Honestly, I start internet from those forums, so I'm already use to it; just try not to make it into personal issue which tends to happen in forums. I would see this is positive and constructive.

Anyway, actually, for 3rd party, if you read reviews around, there're few 3rd party that were highly recommended.
1. Sigma 50mm f/1.4
2. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (You can read most reviews will give high recommendation on this)
3. Tamron SP90 f/2.8 (Tough, the price against the Nikkor, is MUCH LESS difference compared to 17-50 Tamron VS 17-55 Nikkor)
The Tamron in this case, extends during focusing, it's MUCH SLOWER; To be honest, it's a much worst recommendation comparing Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8;
* and some others

So, you see, recommending the 3rd party is VERY COMMON; If you have to know, go read others and see how others debate over it. Honestly, I just give a small suggestion/alternative based on the "SCENARIO" provided and what the person is use for, in other forums, you'll read even more "strong" debate.

Anyway, I've made it clear, and I'm just "simply" suggesting a 3rd party, it's not a crime. If it makes anyone unhappy, I'm truly sorry for that. I did not say Nikkor version is not good or anything, just stating my personal opinion on the price and altervatives, it's purely personal opinion, anyone may disagree, but hope anyone don't get "unpleasant" over it.

True, but for wedding or job (especially paid ones), I would highly recommend use the better tools, no doubt; But then, even with better tools, it doesn't mean the anyone can get the best results; In the end, it still boils down to the person's technique/skill.

Haha, yea, last time, those wedding pictures I was impressed before, look back, omg, notice so many things. guess when we move onto photography, we learn and see more details, even when I see some of my friends wedding photo/album, there can be a lot to comment. Previously, talked to one wedding photographer, he mentioned 'some' wedding studios they use very old body, and have very old or cheap lense (e.g. kit lens), some may have the 50 f/1.8d. Anyway, if they can produce great result then it doesn't really matter, but if not, I feel its not fair to those who paid high price for their package.

The Tamron SP90mm f/2.8 VS Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G Micro AF-S has quite a lot of difference; Probably it's more suited to compare with the f/2.8D? The G version is a great piece of glass, fast and accurate focusing, it doesn't extend (Internal Focus and Silent), comes with VR; The main issue is probably the focus breathing which can be an issue for serious macro shooters.
The Tammy version extends very long, it's slow and less accurate, etc; Comparing with the Nikkor, it's actually quite a big difference;
If to compare this comparison with the 17-50 equivalent, this has more reasons/points to go choose Nikkor version (personal opinion).

For the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron, the sharpness is actually pretty good wide-open; The main issue is the slower focus, hunting in low light and inaccurate focus in low light, for those using for jobs or wedding, this is important as the higher chances of getting the wrong focus will ruin your work.
That said, it doesn't guarantee that using the best available will guarantee perfect focus; As my previous post, when I review back some photos, I notice it was taken with Canon's very own 17-50mm f/2.8, I see many OOF and soft issue; And another wedding photographer I know, which is using Tamron version, took quite a lot of nice shots (altough I did not review his picture in 100% crops).
In the end, it's depends on the photographer utilize and making use of his tools, however, a better tool would help to photographer to achieve better result.

Yup, it depends on how the person weight the weakness and make compromises. For weddings, events, the speed and accuracy is important which meant getting higher hit accurate hit rate and capturing the moment; thus if one is paid, there's no excuse to go cheap solution, people are paying a big amount for their big day.

As for the macro lens, I believe many don't just use it for macro purpose; It can be a great portrait lens as well, thus, the accuracy and speed is useful; As for macro, the "extension" for Tamron SP90 is, pretty long, and it's also kind of noisy and slow. It may not be an issue if all macro lens are the same, but once use the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G, it's so much different... it's about 2X more, but you're getting a whole lots of difference, including image quality. As another plus, it serves as a great portrait lens, with VRII, accurate and fast focusing. This is purely my personal take, you may find others supporting the Tamron SP90, just like many others supporting the Tamron 17-50mm (although, technically I'm not supporting Tamron 17-50 over the Nikkors 17-55)

Its fast for macro lens actually, macro has very long focus ring. If you put to full focus, it'll take longer time, for normal use, switch to limit, its pretty fast, especially if you have pre-focus, it'll lock on like a snap! Anyway, this lens might not be use for action, more for macro and portrait, for portrait, the focus speed is good enough.

Using flash can help to freeze motion; Using flash, you can even handheld shooting portrait at 200mm (350mm on DX) at 1/30 and still get sharp image; However if the movement is "fast enough", you will get shadows or trails (more obvious when you zoom in); Usually portraiture or group photo, it should be alright.

Depends on your definition of OK, basically for these compact cams with such small sensor size, the noise is pretty bad and muddy, loosing a lot of details even at ISO 400 and above:

Try this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q42010high...roup/page13.asp

Try to compare against other mirrorless like PEN-EP2, GF2, etc. set ISO to 100, zoom at the "Grandma's face", you will see a lot of lines and details. As you go higher ISO, you can clearly see those compact cams with small sensor loosing details and gone muddy. At ISO800, it's pretty bad (for me at least).

Anyway, the discussion was about sensor size for the mirrorless camera; I agree with CY, it should at least have a bigger and good sensor, at least probably m4/3; but as a DSLR manufacturer, it should have APS-C like Sony, especially previously Nikon Rumors did mentioned Nikon is targeting the mirrorless towards "professional", but their sensor chosen seems otherwise? Then again, these are all rumors.

Yea, but actually our topic is about Nikon mirrorless camera; In this context, it should at least have a good sensor with good ISO capability against it's rival; Plus, it's one of the well known DSLR brand manufacturer, and another plus, it's known for providing good ISO capability.

Besides, for the S90/S95 competitor, there's already a specific model for it, and for compact size, there is already many models for it. Now we're talking about mirrorless; If it's true that it's a small sensor, I guess the competitor is the Pentax Q? There's no match at all for any other mirrorless out there, which are already so much advance.

Then again, it's still just rumors.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jul 26 2011, 11:21 PM