Best Deals nikon 70 200 f2 8 g ed if af s vr

Why this lens. . . ., January 23, 2007

By 

Deborah S. Hall (Rochester, New York United States) – See all my reviews

  

Reviewers below have already described how great this lens is — I add my voice to the choir but wanted to write here about the decision process that led to 17-55. As others have also said, choosing the camera is relatively easy but choosing the lens (or lenses) is mind boggling. I spent the better part of two weeks researching online and going to photo stores. The 17-55 was barely in my peripheral vision when I started. Of course the first thing I considered was the 18-200VR. All the reviewers like it — Rockwell was practically orgasmic — and softly bashed the 17-55 as a heavy, expensive and overkill for most. I looked at many options and kept coming back to the 18-200 as the best all round but something wouldn’t let me pull the trigger. And it’s this: I like natural light. Many of my photos are references for painting, and I do a lot of portraits and some landscape. Getting the best color, in natural light is my highest priority. In amongst the 18-200 reviews there were a few hints about it being a bit dark at the 200 end (even with VR allowing slower shutter) and about “creep” of the lens when held vertically. I liked the possibility of a one-lens for all situations but began to wonder if I would get my use out of the 200 end without flash or tripod. Came to the 17-55 and dismissed it several times until finally tried it in a photo store. In retrospect, the reviewers suggest focusing on your priorities and for me the 17-55 made the most sense. I admit that I am partial to the simple feel of the lens — phrases like “built like a tank” carry a lot of weight with me. I’m careful but do use the stuff. I also got an 85 1.8 for portraits so for the two lenses spent double the price of the 18-200VR — not what I had planned on. But this selection focused the dollars to the heartland priorities and perhaps eventually I will bracket these with a 12-24 (third party) and a longer Tamron. The value of SLR, it seems to me, is to choose the options that match your needs.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comments (18)

A great lens for Nikon digital SLRs, December 27, 2005

This is a great lens for photojournalism, weddings and general photography. I’ve not had the opportunity to shoot landscapes with mine yet but I expect it to excel in that aspect as well. Wide open, the lens is very sharp – When opening images in Adobe photoshop, there is often no need for sharpening.

The lens balances well on my Nikon D70, and is very comfortable to use – the zoom and focus rings are adquately sized and have a nice consistent resistance throughout their respective ranges. Additionally, the lens focuses very close (about a foot from the subject), allowing a lot of creative flexibility.

I purchased this lens as an upgrade to the D70 kit lens (18-70 f/3.5-4.5) and can honestly say it was worth it. I shot a low light wedding (my first) with this lens and an 85 1.8 and found the 17-55 indispensible. The fast 2.8 aperture is great for low light while the 17mm end (appears similar to a 27mm on film) allows for a much wider angle than comparable 28-7x lenses. I’ve heard of sample variation, but have had no problems with mine. Highly recommended.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comment

One of the best Nikkor lenses ever built…but Pros and Cons, December 2, 2006

By 

RonAnnArbor (Ann Arbor, MI United States) – See all my reviews

  

I have been using Nikon cameras for 30 years, and their digital SLR’s for the past 5 or so…this is far and away one of the best Nikon lenses I have ever used – amazingly well built, excellent image quality, fast focusing, wonderful glass. The downside is primarily the price — it’s as expensive as a full camera, and the weight — this is a two pound lens. If your budget can accomodate this lens, get it, you will be thrilled. If your budget can not, get the Tamron 17-50 which has similar image quality, weighs less than a pound, and sells for 1/3 the price of this lens. But wow…once you try this lens, you will kick yourself for getting anything lesser….Warning: filter size is 77, so most of your existing filters probably won’t work, and do your self a favor and get yourself an UV filter/lens protector out of the box before you put your fingers on your 1300.00 lens.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comment (1)