Tough Decision

[teatime0315]

So here's the deal, I'm currently in the process of trying to acquire a 17-55 2.8 Nikon. The seller is willing to trade for lenses. He wants my 60mm F2.8 Macro (new AF-S version) and the 70-300 F4.5-5.6 VR. Seller is claiming the lens is new. Do you guys think its a fair trade? What would you guys do in this position. BTW my wideangle lens right now is a kit lens (18-135mm F3.5-5.6). It's horrifically slow, aperture wise.

 

[jpeyton]

Value wise it seems fair.

 

[teatime0315]

Thanks jpeyton

 

[jpeyton]

Are you going to stick with a DX camera for the near future?

You're trading two full frame lenses for a DX lens (albeit an awesome one).

 

[teatime0315]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are you going to stick with a DX camera for the near future?

You're trading two full frame lenses for a DX lens (albeit an awesome one).

I think i'm going to stick with DX for a while. I currently have a D80 and a possible future upgrade would be either the d300 or d400 whenever that comes out.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

And do you actually need the 17-55mm f/2.8 more than the macro and telephoto? You can always convert the 17-55mm to macro with extension tubes. But if you need the telephoto...

Where are you buying from? Do you think the seller is trustworthy? Do you REALLY need a brand new 17-55mm? Would you settle for slightly used or something?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: teatime0315

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are you going to stick with a DX camera for the near future?

You're trading two full frame lenses for a DX lens (albeit an awesome one).

I think i'm going to stick with DX for a while. I currently have a D80 and a possible future upgrade would be either the d300 or d400 whenever that comes out.

Is the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 really THAT good of a lens, optically speaking? Having read the reviews, I'm lead to believe that it's not quite worth its price tag. Unlike it's Canon counterpart, the EFS 17-55mm IS, the Nikkor lacks IS and is not quite as sharp. The one thing it really has going for it is tank-like build quality, but unless you need a lens that you can use for self-defense why not just sell your macro and buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 plus Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro?

You can find mint used copies of the Tamron 17-50 for around $300-350, and similarly good copies of the 90mm f/2.8 Macro for as little as $225-250. Both lenses are well known to be quite sharp.

Just for your reference, I looked up the Photozone reviews for the Nikon and Tamron and here are some comparisons:

Distortion:
17mm: Nikkor-2.19%, Tamron-2.7%
24mm: Nikkor-0.24%, Tamron-0.06%

Vignetting @ f/2.8
17mm: Nikkor-1.21 stops, Tamron-1.4 stops
24mm: Nikkor-0.83 stops, Tamron-1.24 stops
50/55mm: Nikkor-0.75 stops, Tamron-1.27 stops

Resolution @ 17mm, f/2.8

Center: Nikkor-2114, Tamron-2157
Border: Nikkor-1759.5, Tamron-1836
Extreme border: Nikkor-1565, Tamron-1751.5

Resolution @ 24mm, f/2.8

Center: Nikkor: 2028.5, Tamron-2087
Border: Nikkor: 1699, Tamron-1825
Extreme border: Nikkor: 1345, Tamron-1697.5

Resolution @ 50/55mm, f/2.8

Center: Nikkor: 1952, Tamron-2055
Border: Nikkor: 1560.5, Tamron-1815.5

To me it doesn't seem that the Nikkor is a better buy than the Tamron, especially at 3 times the price. The Nikkor is definitely built better and has faster AF, but it's much heavier and optically it's actually slightly worse than the $350 Tamron...

 

[twistedlogic]

If I were you, I'd keep your two lenses and just go with a used Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. True its not built like the Nikon, but you could go through three of these for the price on one Nikon. Unless of course, you really need AF-S.

Even though you think you might not go FX, you never know what the price of entry-level FX will be here in a few years. Just look back at entry level DX prices from years ago.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[teatime0315]

After I had a night to think about it, I think I'm not going to do it. Like many of you guys have said, this is a DX lens. I think I might be better off saving for a 24-70. BTW this was on CL and the seller wants either 900 dollars or and even-trade. Thanks again guys.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: teatime0315
After I had a night to think about it, I think I'm not going to do it. Like many of you guys have said, this is a DX lens. I think I might be better off saving for a 24-70. BTW this was on CL and the seller wants either 900 dollars or and even-trade. Thanks again guys.

You might also want to wait for the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. This new version adds a ring hypersonic motor to their 24-70 EX, which was a lens that performed very well optically. With HSM, it matches up well against the Nikkor 24-70 that costs $1700. At around $800, the Sigma is a much cheaper, better option if you want to move to FF later on.

Link to Sigma product page

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Good decision. I've owned the Tamron 17-50mm and the Nikon 17-55mm, and I find that my Nikon is super super sharp and the built quality is phenomenal. HOWEVER, there's no reason to get it unless you really need that extra build quality and focusing speed (I did).

 

[soydios]

The Nikon pro cameras are going FX. I'm hoping that the D400, if it exists, will be the last DX camera above $1000. Thus you might want to keep your FX lenses.