Đánh giá nikon 17 55 f2 8 năm 2024
|
Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Dec 15, 2022 I have a Nikon D5100 with 18 to 70 , with great results...except left side of picture frame is sometimes soft. Wondered if I should replace the lens with more expensive [17 to 55 2.8 ] one for even better IQ? I normally use 5.6 aperture , so 2.8 is not important to me....just IQ Would upgrade to Tamron 28\75 ,17\50, Nikon 17\55 , be any better in IQ vs 18\70? Lastly would Fuji Xt10 with 16MP sensor give better, more film like results vs buying more expensive glass? I love small cameras... RBFresno • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,236 18-70 X vs 17-55DX: Thom Hogan's Comparision 3 Guillermo1 wrote: HI! Thom Hogan did a review/comparison years ago: Thom's 17-55 f/2.8 DX Lens review I've shot with both the 18-70 and 17-55 "DX" lenses. The 18-70 was a "kit lens" for the D70 (which is how I acquired mine). The 18-70 was surprisingly good, but nowhere near the image quality (or build, or the size) of the 17-55 f/2.8 DX. 17-55DX 14-24DX 18-70DX I suspect that you might be able to find a 17-55 in good condition for a reasonable price I shot his magazine cover with a D200 and the 17-55 when my D3 was out for repair: Best regards, RB Nikon D2H Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z8 +25 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? 1 Guillermo1 wrote: Perhaps I'm the wrong person to reply since I use both lenses with an IR-converted camera. From what I can tell, though, you'd see only a small gain in "so-called IQ" over a properly functioning 18-70mm. Your copy may be slightly decentered. My 17-55mm is a recent purchase; I thought the price was too good to pass up. In retrospect, I expected too much from a "pro" lens designed in 2003 to be used on 12 megapixel dSLRs. As a result, for me it falls into the "tweener" category. For "freestyle" shooting, it's less versatile than my consumer zooms, and for more composed shots, I have FX lenses which cover the same range. Here are a few suggestions:
-- hide signature -- Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today! Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +49 more Spanner • Regular Member • Posts: 419 Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? 4 When I bought my D850, I kept my D500 simply because of the amazing 17-55 2.8 Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Guillermo1 wrote: The 17-55/2.8 DX is a huge behemoth, and the Tamron SP 17-50/2.8 AF (A16, no BIM) 95% of the IQ, less good build quilty, but much better, faster than the Sigma 17-50/2.8 variatons, especially at the corners, check the Photozone(OpticalLimits now since years) reviews. It's on my D7000 since ever then, >90% all the time, rest is Sigma Art 30/1.4 lens. With the 39 Point AF and screwdrive Autofocus, it's AF speed is lightning fast, and barely audible from the mechanism. D7100/D7200 should even being a tad faster. It was already my daily driver onto the D90 before (2008). My D80 goes always with the 18-70 DX, or the 35/1.8 AF-S DX. (52.5mm FoV in 35mm terms) Good Light. -- hide signature -- "The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis Nikon 1 V1 Canon EOS 5D Sony a7 Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-T1 +68 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? It is he good professional grade lens - for its DX era. As most photographers have upgraded to an FX equivalent it is available secondhand depending on condition between about £220 and £320 in the UK. -- hide signature -- Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity. Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? 2 Guillermo1 wrote: I agree with Marc -- the non-VC Tamron 17-50 is excellent. However, keep in mind that the screw drive autofocus doesn't work with all cameras. Mine was stolen, so replaced it with a Tokina 17-50 f2.8, which I didn't like because it was too soft. I then had the Tamron VC version for years on my D300S and D7100 -- almost as sharp as the original, but the VC made up for that difference. Then, three years ago, I bought a camera that came with the Nikkor 17-55. The Tamron VC was sold a week later! So, yes, the Nikkor is that good; but keep in mind that if you "love small cameras" then this one might feel front-heavy at times. It's big and heavy, Adapted on a smaller Fuji body (or my Nikon 1 V3), it's almost unwieldy. (This is a bit of a "broad sword vs dagger" kind of thing.) Bottom line, at f8 you probably won't be able to tell any difference, but if you plan on using it a lot, but experimenting with more shallow depth of field for portraits or still life, there's still no better lens like the Nikkor in that focal range. Today, the next-best choice would be the Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 VR. It's smaller, lighter, bigger range and loses only one stop. Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon 1 V3 Nikon Z7 II +34 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? As another option, have a look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 NON VC A16Nii ( with the built in motor). This version DOES work with all aps DSLRs Check out the reviews: opticallimits etc. An excellent lens and a bargain - I paid £120 new a few years ago. You can get it used for near this now i think. AF motor is pretty fast and quite quiet. Lots of noise about the build quality but thats a load of tosh and bilge IMO - It might have been "plasticy" in 2008 but its a tank by modern standards Alternative is the Sig 17-50/2.8 HSM OS Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Richard Dutton wrote: I wrote this before, nevermind. FYI, the A16N (not A16NII - thats the BIM version, i own both) the A16NII is a) louder, and subtle less sharp, than the faster, screwdrive A16N version.Why? Because i do know, i own both.A16NII sits on my D60 all the time, A16N is on my D7000. And the various Sigma 18-50/2.8, 17-50/2.8 with or without HSM aren't that good - check photozone (optical limits), they're more unsharp always at the very edges - i've tested them all...years ago, reading Photozone since the early days, and never bought a melon because of this, therefore often posting links on DPR. I'd say the A16N is 4 Stars out of 5, without hesitation. Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX on D7000 Tamron 17-50/2.8 A16NII on D7000 Into short - The Nikon scored 3 1/2 Stars out of 5. The Tamron A16NII scored 3 1/2 to 4 Stars out of 5. Tamrons 17-50/2.8 VC is meh, only 3 out of 5 Stars, never considered it since then, but for many people, lenses with (just) 3 Stars are perfectly fine. Good light. -- hide signature -- "The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis Nikon 1 V1 Canon EOS 5D Sony a7 Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-T1 +68 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Apologies Marc. As usual I skip read the thread and missed the essence of your post. My copy of the A16Nii is very very quiet and AF seems quite nippy - but I have not compared it to the screw drive version. The few screw drive lenses I have or had are/were much noisier than my copy of that Tamron whatever, it works for me and I have had no desire to find an alternative. richard BasilG • Forum Pro • Posts: 10,852 Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Guillermo1 wrote: If you love small cameras, the 17-55/2.8 might not be what you want. It sounds like the 16-80 f/2.8-4 (discontinued but probably available on the used market) might be a better match for your needs. Also, I have to say that I owned the 17-55/2.8 and for me, it never really worked very well. It had some strange quirks that made it unreliable in my hands for my use case (something that I never experienced with any other lens). RBFresno • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,236 Re: 18-70 X vs 17-55DX: OpticalLimits analysis In reply to RBFresno • Dec 19, 2022 1 RBFresno wrote:Guillermo1 wrote: Hi! Here are the results from "OpticalLimits" Nikon 18-70 DX Review Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Dx Review If I just look at the 3.5 star summary that each lens is given, I don't get as much info as looking at the MTF, Vignette and distortion tests, especially if one compares these at similar f stops Again, as someone who has shot with both of those lenses, I found the image rendition visibly better with the 17-55 than the 18-70 (though not as good as Nikon's more recent FX 24-70 f/2.8 FX and Z lenses). I hope that this and the Thom Hogan article help address the OP's original question Best Regards, RB Nikon D2H Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z8 +25 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? I hear folks talking about the Tamron 17 50 2.8 non VC, I had one several years ago? worked just great for me, when I had chance to upgrade to Nikon version, I jumped! Still have my Nikon, years old, still love it. I don't use very often, i took the 17 55 and my D2X out for an afternoon play time last fall, whew! I forgot the weight? But no plans to part with. I'd say get the non VC "Tammy" if you can find one. "dog house riley" Nikon D5300 Nikon D7500 Nikon D200 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +14 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Mark, you have a lot of equipment….how does Nikon 18 to 70 compare with Tamron 28 to 75 2.8 and 17 to 50.in image quality…my 18 to 70 has a loose screw , need to replace it ,very good quality ,but wonder if Tammy would be even better? also..does ccd produce better film like images vs cmos ? I find ccd produces attractive skin tones ,beautiful blues at the beach….older camera selling for a few dollars ..are they worth looking at? Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Guillermo1 wrote: You have a PM. -- hide signature -- "The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis Nikon 1 V1 Canon EOS 5D Sony a7 Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-T1 +68 more FiggeB • Junior Member • Posts: 43 Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? It is a very nice professional lens if you need f2.8. It was married to my D300 and later D300s camera since 2008/2009. It still is but is now used by my daughter. It was very good with the 12Mp DX cameras of the time. Sharpness may perhaps be somewhat lacking if used with todays higher resolution cameras. My daughter loves the lens and uses it a lot. Unfortunately, Nikon has not replaced the lens with something better. Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? 1 Marc, I am in the market for a zoom for my Nikon D200. I was lookin at the 17-55mm, but it seemed to heavy. I can get a mint used copy of the Tamron 17-50, 2.8, the A16N for 150 Euros. Would that be good price? How does the Tamron 17-50 compare to the Tamron 18-75mm, 2.8? Sony a6300 Sony a6600 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EOS 5D Sigma 30mm F1.4 (E/EF-M mounts) +11 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? An avid reader wrote: Marc, I am in the market for a zoom for my Nikon D200. I was lookin at the 17-55mm, but it seemed to heavy. I can get a mint used copy of the Tamron 17-50, 2.8, the A16N for 150 Euros. Would that be good price? How does the Tamron 17-50 compare to the Tamron 18-75mm, 2.8? I am seldom here, check the reviews at https://opticallimits.com, former photozone. The A16N is the best from all Tamron 17-50/2.8, it's "glued" on my D7000 ever since then (2010). No BiM, AF via in-body screw-drive, which is 1) faster 2) much more silent, than the A16N II version, which i do also own (on my D60 here). Can't say anything about the prices, think 130-160 is a good deal. "The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis Nikon 1 V1 Canon EOS 5D Sony a7 Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-T1 +68 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? Ok. Thanks for you response. At what about the Tamron 18-75, 2.8. Do you still use it? Sony a6300 Sony a6600 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EOS 5D Sigma 30mm F1.4 (E/EF-M mounts) +11 more Re: Nikon 17 to 55 2.8 IQ? marc petzold wrote:An avid reader wrote: Marc, I am in the market for a zoom for my Nikon D200. I was lookin at the 17-55mm, but it seemed to heavy. I can get a mint used copy of the Tamron 17-50, 2.8, the A16N for 150 Euros. Would that be good price? How does the Tamron 17-50 compare to the Tamron 18-75mm, 2.8? The A16N version is indeed the best, and now the least expensive, but the VC version is not far behind in image quality but better built (plus VC/VR). The Nikkor is bigger and heavier, but better all around and most compatible with newer cameras. Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon 1 V3 Nikon Z7 II +34 more Keyboard shortcuts: FForum MMy threads Latest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsThis $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone. Sony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos. OM Digital Solutions has updated its flagship high speed camera just two years after launch. The latest version includes more memory and some performance and handling tweaks. The Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR delivers a 35mm full-frame equivalent field of view and stands out due to its small size and weather-resistant build. However, it faces stiff competition from lenses with faster F1.4 apertures. In this review, we tell you what you need to know about this popular lens. The EOS R100 is the cheapest way to get into Canon's RF-mount system. But, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for, since its older components make the R100 feel dated. Latest buying guidesIf you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. |
