17-55 and 17-50 different alot? if so the i think i will save up my budget and get a 17-55 2nd hand, but most people ask to go for 1750 wor, can save money for other things...
yea most prob gonna go FF bah... thats why thinking about buy the 17-50 or don buy, save for 24-70...

brother using le.. ._.

17-50mm im using, got pros and cons
pros
sharp at 2.8
cheap

cons
when shoot at 17mm, right side will blur a little, i also dont know why, might be the lens problem
focusing slow, noisy
plastic build

17-55mm
very good lens, sharp, focusing fast and silent, very nice color quality
but
heavy and costly.. lol

hmm.. the IQ presented different a lot? i dont mind the weight thou...
at first tot can use prime lens tru out, mana tau event time so headache @@ or maybe i not good enough using primes @ 35mm

IQ quite alot tho lol
plan 1st before go for any shooting, check the area available for u to take pic, check the lighting as well, then only decide which lens and gears to use

hmm okay ba... i think its better IF i wanna go for FF in the future, go for 17-55 2nd hand, then sell off when wanna change to 24-70... like that better or str8 24-70?

okay will take note =) but sometimes like sudden event / carnival duno their setup oso hard ><

the 17-55 is defiantly worth to buy. even if you sell, if its in good condition the price wont dip too low. But I see from your signature, you already have so many primes. you sure you want a 2.8? From my experience those with many primes dont usually play zooms xD

spam:D


Sunny Girl #2 by Song laa, on Flickr

hmm okay... i'll invest in it ba... i need it for events.. 35mm for streets, 85mm for portrait.. so far still trying to use 35mm for events lah... paksa paksa can loh, just group shot more than 6++ people left to right will be hard abit...

so you're suggest go for 1755 only go 2470? dont str8 jump?

Btw spam



This post has been edited by BlizzardCraft: Apr 24 2013, 02:49 AM

Guys, is there any gathering happening soon~ wanted to go yamcha with sifu~

when?

Buy Nikkor 18-70. Cheap and good

Tamron is lousy ! f4 still quite soft

@bold

17-55 personally i don't really fancy it. My friend using it for 1yr+ then when touch 24-70, straight sell 17-55
Tho, not that wide but he got UWA to compensate la.
If your situation, you have flash, f/2.8 is not a must. Why not opt for something cheaper eg Nikkor 18-70 ? Tamron, personally i feel the color is wash out. If you compare side by side with nikkor lens.
Nikkor 18-70 used only cost about 600

This post has been edited by KTCY: Apr 24 2013, 07:15 AM

How long will it take for your to switch to FF? Later you get the 24-70 you still find not wide enough and need to step back and no space, end up you may want to sell it.

If you got a kit lens, just use it. It's good enough and can save you money to fund your FF or next lens. For group photos and if you have flash, you don't really need f/2.8, most likely you'll be using smaller aperture to get more DOF.

If you want a f/2.8 and don't want to spend too much, then the Tamron is good enough, a 2nd hand unit is much cheaper below RM800 (without VC), and even if you sell it later, the price is just around there. Sharpness and IQ wise, it's comparable to Nikon's (provided you get a good copy), but the main issues is the accuracy and speed, e.g. if you want to track subject (e.g. wedding walk-ins in low light, kids running) and here's where the big different between Nikon's 17-55mm vs the Tamron's 17-50mm; but if you're just using for group photo, portraits, there's no issue, not really worth spending few thousands on another lens, in fact your kit lens is also good enough.
Fact is, you can show people photos taken from the kit lens, Tammy 17-50 or Nikon 17-55, who can actually tell the difference? I've shot with both lens and deliver photos taken by both lens, nobody knows the lens is different just by looking at the photos; only yourself will know when you use it, with the Nikon's, you'll find the accuracy, speed and silent focusing; of all, the accuracy is the primary and most important especially you're shooting action/moving subjects and in low lights.

If you want to get the Nikon's 17-55mm, then the 2nd hand is much more worth it considering the BIG dip in price from NEW, it's really not worth to get a new unit; the problem is to find a good copy 2nd hand unit and if there's problem, prepare to break your wallet because the repairs may not even worth to pay, but then you have purchase the lens. This lens is actually big and much heavy compared to the Tamron, less convenient and more worrying if you want to carry it around for normal/casual shooting.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Apr 24 2013, 09:48 AM

ya meh.. i been using my 1755 since 2009 ... still my go to lens during weddings.. yes used 24-70 also but.. not really effective on DX lor. 17-55 + 80-200 one body. Second body FX 35, 50, 85

N color different
My friend didn't shoot wedding la.

Actually why not direct go FX... its an eventuality d800 maybe ?

Been wanting to ask..going to NZ next week..seems like a lot of landscape photos to be taken..is 18-105 lens good enough to bring along for travels & take landscape/scenery pics?

if you have UWA, better.
If not, stick to what you have lor !

well color different these days is compensate by photoChop so no probs. Normally Nikkor glass over priced and well over all the IQ is good la... but have you all tried the new sigma 35 f/1.4 Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

use what you have.. or kidnap a few lens from you best buddy ( a bad habit i always do)

yea UWA is nice...

I love the build quality of Sigma 35/1.4
Like CZ

UWA is the lens I will get first whenever I go travel.
Others can put aside.