Hi,

I have an 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor

Comes standard on the D70

Background: I went to a great camera shop and the consensus seems to be that there is a dramatic difference between this standard lense I have (that came with my D70) and...lets say...more expensive ones of the same focal lengths.

My question is: Is the difference really worth the price? I took sample photos in the store with both...

the other being: 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor

...and didn't see too big of a difference. Is this because a low lit store is a bad place or is there really much difference?

Details: 17-80 goes for $350 or so while the 17-55 goes for 1200-1300

Thanks so much!

You're paying for SPEED .. f2.8 vs. f3.5-4.5 ..

the uniform f2.8 thru all focal lengths costs $$$

my advice .. if you are in the market for a lens, get something you don't have already .. diversify rather than double up .. use this time to conduct more taste tests on the other lens .. and get it later if you begin to see the value

keep in mind, also, that lens mfrs HAVE always and WILL always fudge the numbers on the widest and narrowest apertures in order to come in under the wire for qualifying ... that is why a lens is seldom at its best at these apertures

so your f4.5 is really an f5.6 or f8 because of this


(*the above opinion is, just that, an opinion*)

f2.8 is also sharper

so, it produces a "sharper image"? oh I slay me.. :b

Keith is right. The big difference in price is because of the f2.8. Fast lenses always cost a lot, and they are definitly better to have if you are shooting in low light. Another thing that you might have to take into consideration is build quality. The kit lens is made for armature photographers who aren't always in search of the greatest quality. The 17-55 is a pro lens so it may be built alittle better (ie.More metal in the construction, better environmental seals). This claim im not sure about but it might be something worth looking into. But with that said, the 18-70 is still a very good lens. It still has your ED glass, and af-s focusing. It is nice and sharp and works great. Some say it is one of the best kit lenses out there.

There is no real straightforward answer to your question to whether or not it is worth the price. If you are shooting a lot of low light stuff indoors and can never get a shutter speed fast enough to get a crisp shot, then it might very well be worth that extra money. If you can use flash in most cases then it doesn't make as much of a difference. Personally i feel that you might as well go with what keith said and go for a lens that isn't already covered by what you already have.

Im curious noah, why do you say f2.8 is sharper?

I don't know what the resale value is on a kit lens ($100 or $200) .. but even if you were to sell your existing lens and get the other, you will still be out $1000 or more and be, basically, in the same place you were before, capability wise ..

where as, a MACRO lens .. or .. longer Tele will open up more options for you capability wise

and maybe you'll be able to put away some money for the hip surgery you will need after lugging around all this glass

:o)

I could never bring myself to leave equipment behind .. so here I am .. Busted flat in Baton Rouge, Waitin' on a train

1) Bigger aperatures = faster shots
2) Bigger aperatures = smaller DOF
3) I mean sharper as in build quality and glass etc etc. Take this for example. Same f/stop but the f1.4 is sharper than the f1.8.

If you compared the two at their biggest aperture (f1.4 vs f1.8) the f1.8 would be sharper...but if both were at f1.8, the f1.4 lens would be sharper. - i went in circles there. Anyways...

another.

But, i've been wrng b4. I couldn't find any websites that compare f2.8 vs a f5.6. So i'm not 100% on smaller f/# = sharper images. (of course the lens isn't sharpest whn it's fully opened).

ps: don't believe everything you read. ;-) F2.8 vs 5.6 is two(?) stops faster. 1/500th of a sec turns into 1/2000th of a sec. Or indoors, 1/60th of a sec becomes 1/250th of a sec...or so, i think i did it right.

of all the Noahlogicians .. he's the best

ok, then I pose this to you, seeing how you're a Nikon freak and all..their VR lenses are supposed to allow shots four stops faster (than non-VR hand-held). your thoughts on this?
*I'm specifically asking to know because I'm looking at their 18-200 VR

'4 stops faster' as far as handheld goes...but the subject will still be moving at the same speed. I don't have a VR lens, but...

...i'm telling my brother (since he will start taking sports photography [maybe]) he should use a monopod and/or tripod and forget the VR.He likes my telephoto lens and the images still look good (even with a little bit of dust inside)....pictures that we took at an indoor jr. tennis tournament at night without a monopod/tripod. But, for panning, i guess a VR would do the job better. I guess it matters who you ask or what you're using it for.

I'm also skeptical over a 18-200 lens....ummm, like quality both in the shots and how it's made. But, i've never used one, read about them, seen them, etc. etc...so you're asking the wrong guy.

Ask digicamman, i think he has a 18-200 (not sure if it's VR though).

I'm no expert =P ...though i may feel like one. >_>

i said freak, not expert :P I believe Jerry uses a tamron, which is fitted to a canon, not nikon,but thanks

Funny how my brain read expert...

...shows how dillusional i am.

This depends on what you are taking a picture of. Lower fstop like 2.8 for speed yes. if you are taking a still image or say sun set or portrait most likely no. But in the versatility end a more expensive faster lens is generaly a better lens do to speed and most likely better glass. Better glass better image in general.

thanks

i got a 50mm f1.8 lens (plastic casing/body version)...ouch, that thing rocks. It's my cheapest lens but i can take pics indoors with ease...


...without VR,


...at ISO 200,


...but i hardly use it. I'd recommend one - as a first lens; and maybe you're best lens as far as quality goes. =P

1.8 is pretty bright, admittedly, but i think i'd feel better about something constructed somewhat sturdier

It's actually relatively sturdy. The chances of breaking it is about the same as you scratching your glass (unless you serve dinner on your lenses).

If i dropped either my telephoto (or a 18-200VR for that matter) and the 50mm from 5ft, i don't think the former would stand a chance (b/c of the weight and the amount of glass elements and groups inside).

Oh, and my d50 body is constructed out of plastic as your camera (i believe) - so um, yeah, unless you wanna shell out some extra cash for a metal body....

..just had to link this. F/1, 1/60th sec at ISO 160 for a night shot!?!? WOW! Everytime i look at the leica m8 my stomache gives off a little wierd feeling...

...like i really want one feeling. Like a: i'll take one of those over a 5d (but not a hasselblad w/ a digital back) feeling.

Thanks so much everyone! I think I'll wait and see if it becomes a profession before I make a big purchase! You guys rock!