Replacement for a Nikon 17-55

Amp34 · 18 Oct 2014 at 13:09

I've had my 17-55 f/2.8 for a couple of years now. It's a big heavy beast but I like it. I'm not happy with it when shooting people though. I never seem to get sharp pictures of them when it's not full frame head shot. I would say technique but the GF tried on her camera and had the same issue.

Anyway it got me thinking about mixing things up a little, perhaps even going back to a prime as my walkaround lens. I used to shoot with a 35mm f/2 on my old canon crop and quite liked the results, but found it a little too long for most situations.

I'm using a D7000 and shoot mainly landscapes/travel. Ideally the lens also needs to be weather sealed and fairly compact (or at least no bigger than the 17-55!). Any suggestions?

D.P. · 18 Oct 2014 at 22:51

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8?

I really like my Nikon 16-85 as a travel lens. Small, light, well built, good AF, very sharp, contrasty, good VR, and 16mm makes a world of difference. You just have to be happy paying that for a f/5.6 lens.mit isn't value for money by any means but a great lens non the less.

nolimit · 19 Oct 2014 at 11:13

Alternatively you could get Fuji X100s.
Compact, silent shutter, f/2, 35mm with crop factor.

Amp34 · 19 Oct 2014 at 20:59

18-35 is an interesting proposition. It does leave a huge gap in range though, but then that'll be the same as a shorter prime. It's also another DX lens, which I'm not a fan of. The "sweet spot" factor of FF makes a massive difference I've always found. I actually have a 35 f/1.8 DX but I find it really suffers from being a DX lens.

I'll look into the 16-85 but I'm not sure about not being weather sealed. I seem to spend a lot of time in places that are either very wet or sandy so sealing is something I'm keen on as a precaution. I'm tempted by either the new 35mm FF Nikon or the Sigma 35 ART but IIRC neither of those are weather sealed either.

Not sure how the X100 will go with my 120-300 f/2.8 or other lenses unfortunately.

D.P. · 20 Oct 2014 at 04:28

Amp34 said:
18-35 is an interesting proposition. It does leave a huge gap in range though, but then that'll be the same as a shorter prime. It's also another DX lens, which I'm not a fan of. The "sweet spot" factor of FF makes a massive difference I've always found. I actually have a 35 f/1.8 DX but I find it really suffers from being a DX lens.

I'll look into the 16-85 but I'm not sure about not being weather sealed. I seem to spend a lot of time in places that are either very wet or sandy so sealing is something I'm keen on as a precaution. I'm tempted by either the new 35mm FF Nikon or the Sigma 35 ART but IIRC neither of those are weather sealed either.

Not sure how the X100 will go with my 120-300 f/2.8 or other lenses unfortunately.

The 16-85mm has a rubber O-ring at the mount, neither of those primes have even that.

The thig. With weather sealing is it is more of a grey scale than anything exact definition. Even supposedly weather sales lens don't conforms to any international standard. Pretty much for every lens light rain is no issue, heavy downpours and freezing rain or Sahara sand storm spells trouble. The only difference a high end pro weather sealed lens offed it will last a bit longer before failing. If you are really going to be in bad weather for prolonged periods you need to buy raincoats for the gear, and by then it doesn't matter. Sure I rather get a lens that is more weather sealed than not, all else being equal, but it won't change the way I look after my gear.

And TBH, with most lens you could dip it in fresh water, dry it out, and it will work fine even the kit lens. Cold will do more to harm a lens than fresh water, and salt water just screws everything.

Phal · 20 Oct 2014 at 08:27

The 18-35mm does leave a bit of a gap but it's pretty sharp so you can crop with it quite easily.

Above&Beyond · 20 Oct 2014 at 15:35

Have you got an example of these soft shots you are getting?

Amp34 · 23 Oct 2014 at 00:39

D.P. said:
The 16-85mm has a rubber O-ring at the mount, neither of those primes have even that.

The thig. With weather sealing is it is more of a grey scale than anything exact definition. Even supposedly weather sales lens don't conforms to any international standard. Pretty much for every lens light rain is no issue, heavy downpours and freezing rain or Sahara sand storm spells trouble. The only difference a high end pro weather sealed lens offed it will last a bit longer before failing. If you are really going to be in bad weather for prolonged periods you need to buy raincoats for the gear, and by then it doesn't matter. Sure I rather get a lens that is more weather sealed than not, all else being equal, but it won't change the way I look after my gear.

And TBH, with most lens you could dip it in fresh water, dry it out, and it will work fine even the kit lens. Cold will do more to harm a lens than fresh water, and salt water just screws everything.

I understand where you're coming from, however proper weather sealing gives that added benefit over unsealed lens and gives you the confidence to shoot in places that aren't full on storms knowing there is a bit more leeway. Much like the difference between metal and plastic bodies. It gives that bit of extra protection. I agree with the the degrees of weather sealing as well, such as the O ring you mention on the 16-85. TBH I'd trust weather sealing on a problems from the main manufacturers and sigma, not much else (for example would I trust the Tamron 24-70s weather sealing... Hmmm).

Tbh I think part of the problem is that part me wants to go full frame. I'd like to have the ability to shoot wide and get less distortion at relative focal lengths, which full frame allows, although the negative is you don't get the sweet spot of using a FF lens on a DX camera. The problem with full frame is I don't like the corresponding size increase that goes with it, although the release of the D610 and 750 does make it more tempting. I could then get a 35mm (basically no distortion but still relatively wide on a FF camera) and/or a 24-70, the latter solving the weather sealing "issue".

Alongside the size issue is the length loss of crop factor on the long end, although as long as the pixel density is reasonably similar I can just crop...

Heck, I'm still semi seriously considering buying a Fuji 617 for the sheer medium format undistorted glory. I don't particularly want to faff around with film for that type of photography though. And I don't feel like lugging several of worth of metal and glass around on top of my digital stuff...

Above&Beyond said:
Have you got an example of these soft shots you are getting?

Not accessible right now and probably not for a few days. A more detailed description would be that the lens is pin sharp up close (full frame head shots for example) and sharp at landscapes but if I shoot a person and a scene (both using single point and auto focussing on the face) I seem to always end up with a face that's very soft.

I'm sure it's not the camera not being able to shoot faces but it only really seems to show up in that type of shot. Could be the lens needs servicing I guess as I can't replicate the same issue using the GFs Sigma 17-55 on my camera but she has the same issue with the 17-70 on hers.

TBH though that's an excuse for me wanting to have a play with another lens, if I can find a worthy replacement!

D.P. · 23 Oct 2014 at 00:57

I did nt upgrade to FF for years because of many of the same reasons. One require was equal pixel density otherwise the upgrade would be worthless. thankfully the D800 did that (of course it didn't take long for crop sensor to surpass, the D900 will likely be 48MP....)

The camera is bigger and heavier although that isn't the deal breaker per se, it is the glass. The 24-70mm is bigger than the 17-55mm. Bigger body PLUS bigger lenses adds up. Modern lenses just seem to get bigger and heavier as they strived for increased performance. And at the long end it only get worse since to really make use of the sensor you will need bigger telephotos, and that is the real kicker. A 300mm f/4.0 is small, light and cheap, the 200-400mm f/4.0 is big, heavy and expensive while still being effectively shorter.

As for wide angle lenses, I would really look at the reviews to see if there is a real distortion difference. There rarely is, except when putting a FF wide angle lens like the 14-24mm on a DX body. Distortion of lenses like the 16-35mm on FF is actually quite bad, 14-24mm is no worse than the better DX ultra wides.

There are a few advantages of the D800 though for die one like me. There is sufficient pixel density such that you are not too far behind DX, with the benefit of easy cropping, tracking fast movement etc. At th same time you have a egrets landscape camera that starts to rival MF (and surpasses many MF bodies). it is the ultimate all in one nature setup. In general the D800 allows you to frame wider and crop in post which can improve compositions and reduces errors, plus gives more flexibility in export aspect ratio. E.g. You can go squarer 5:4 (desirable for magazines) or go wider for panoramics like 2:1.
When you do have a lens long enough to compare to DX then the bigger sensor will capture more detail and more photons. Finally, if you do want shallower DoF for portraits it is easier.

24MP FF just wouldn't work for me, I would have to have a good DX camera as well, and the. There is just way more weight.

deFiniLoGy · 13 Nov 2014 at 10:55

Have you tried using 85mm F1.4G?

And at what aperture have you been taking those portrait shots?

alexisonfire · 13 Nov 2014 at 19:44

D.P. said:
The 24-70mm is bigger than the 17-55mm. Bigger body PLUS bigger lenses adds up. Modern lenses just seem to get bigger and heavier as they strived for increased performance.

The 24-70mm is bigger and heavier because it covers a larger focal range and has more elements than the 17-55mm, not because its a more modern lens

The older 28-70mm is actually the same weight but much fatter than the more modern 24-70mm. The 24-70mm is slightly longer which makes it balance far better on a non pro camera. I use a 28-70mm on a d3 which works really well but on my backup d80 (even with grip) its incredibly front heavy!

Regarding the OP, get the nikon 24-70 if you want an ultra sharp and fast walk about/portrait lens, its worth the slight weight/size increase. Also because its quite thin, the ergonomics of the lens is lovely.

Primes are obviously going to give you (in most cases) a sharper IQ and lower aperture but unless subject isolation is very important to you, the trade off of flexibility is not worth it. I went almost full prime a few years ago (24/50/85 f/1.8, 130 f/2 & af-s 80-200mm f/2.8) and regretted it after only a few months!

Not to mention the main reason most people used prime lenses so much 5-6 years ago was because it was the only way to get photos in low light without using flash. With the ISO power of cameras now a days you can quite happily shoot at f/2.8 upwards and get any photo you need.

D.P. · 14 Nov 2014 at 19:44

alexisonfire said:
The 24-70mm is bigger and heavier because it covers a larger focal range and has more elements than the 17-55mm, not because its a more modern lens

The older 28-70mm is actually the same weight but much fatter than the more modern 24-70mm. The 24-70mm is slightly longer which makes it balance far better on a non pro camera. I use a 28-70mm on a d3 which works really well but on my backup d80 (even with grip) its incredibly front heavy!

Regarding the OP, get the nikon 24-70 if you want an ultra sharp and fast walk about/portrait lens, its worth the slight weight/size increase. Also because its quite thin, the ergonomics of the lens is lovely.

Primes are obviously going to give you (in most cases) a sharper IQ and lower aperture but unless subject isolation is very important to you, the trade off of flexibility is not worth it. I went almost full prime a few years ago (24/50/85 f/1.8, 130 f/2 & af-s 80-200mm f/2.8) and regretted it after only a few months!

Not to mention the main reason most people used prime lenses so much 5-6 years ago was because it was the only way to get photos in low light without using flash. With the ISO power of cameras now a days you can quite happily shoot at f/2.8 upwards and get any photo you need.

I had poorly placed 3 different facts next to each. Yes the 24-70 isn't bigger than the 17-55 because it is newer but because it has to cover a larger image circle.

This is what I meant:
1) The 24-70 is bigger than the 17-55mm. Not massive so but if you then add a bigger body then you certainly start to feel the difference on a hike.

2) In general there is a trend toward making lenses bigger and heavier in order to resolve more detail and offer higher IQ with less aberrations. Case in point is lenses like the Otus 55mm or the new Sigma 50mm.

Complex lenses in the first 10 years of the 21st century were generally quite a bit smaller than the lenses of he 80s and 90s because computer simulation allowed lens designs with fewer elements. Now we are seeing many of the prime lenses grow in size with more elements to be better corrected.
Still, some lenses like the superteles are getting lighter due to improved glass quality.

Troop · 14 Nov 2014 at 22:58

I use the same as Alex, Nikon 28-70mm with the D3, great combo and built like a tank.
The Nikon 16-85 good lens matched to a small DX frame.