Replacement for a Nikon 17-55

[Amp34]

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?

 

[Amp34]

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.

 

[Amp34]

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...

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!