For the last two years, I’ve been shooting the Nikon 17-55 AF-S f/2.8G with my Nikon D70s as my primary bread and butter lens. The lens is delicious: AF-S fast and silent focusing; superb construction; full-time manual override; internal focusing. Of course, all this comes at a price—and a mighty hefty one at that. When I bought the 17-55 it was espoused as one of the great lenses for the DX format. It is nice but something about it just never sat well with me. In fact, my gut feeling is that I prefer the images out of my 80-200 a little more than the 17-55. Perhaps it’s the fact that the lens cost so much and my expectations of it were out of this world. Either way, what was clear to me was that the images coming out of the 17-55 weren’t vastly superior over the images of many other lenses. How could this be? I spent countless hours shooting test charts just to see if my lens was problematic but it checked out to be pretty perfect. The users who espoused the virtues of the 17-55 posted some marvelous pictures. That definitely swayed me to make the purchase. However, it seems that many people were taking equally marvelous pictures with “crappy” lenses, too. And so it became obvious that equipment makes not a photographer. Yes, we’ve heard this time and time again but sometimes, you have to take a personal beating before you can fully understand what something means.
With the announcement of the D700, my personal feeling is that the DX sensor format will be relegated to cheap consumer bodies while FX will rule under the rubric of serious amateur/pro shooters. But what does all this mean for my glorious 17-55? It’s a nice lens but I know that some day I’ll probably go full-frame because of the high ISO performance (which is most of my shooting). Proponents of DX may argue that DX high ISO performance is bound to improve and they’re right—it will. But a larger sensor will always offer the possibility for even better performance (assuming we don’t hit quantum limits at some point). And so it came to pass that after a lengthy struggle, I decided to part ways with my 17-55 and sell it to someone who was more capable than I was. I figured, at some point, I’ll go full frame.
Meanwhile, I struggled on what lenses to get after selling the 17-55. Originally, I was set on getting the 24-70 since it, too, has received such high accolades. However, the cost of the 24-70 is very high and I realize that a f/2.8 still isn’t fast enough for most low-light situations. I’ve also decided that the elements of prestige that are associated with having the highest end Nikkors isn’t really something that should care about anymore…at least not as a hobbiest who has no chance in hell of making a single penny off of my photos. After many sleepless nights, I finally decided to get an 85mm f/1.8 (though the 1.4 was the front runner for quite a while—but again, I couldn’t stomach the cost, especially knowing that a replacement was likely due in a few months). For a mid-range zoom, I debated between the Tamron 28-75 (which has received relatively high praise) and the Sigma 24-70. Both are f/2.8 lenses as well. The camera store didn’t have the Sigma in stock and so I decided to get the Tamron instead. By all initial accounts, these two lenses appear to be quite good. While I haven’t had much of a chance to use them in the real world just yet, initial testing is that they’re both reasonably sharp wide open and extremely sharp when stopped down to the usual sweet spot of f/5.6.
Through this entire transaction, I’ve lost AF-S focusing, sturdy construction, and a little bit of prestige (the last of which, obviously, didn’t help me take better photos). I never thought I would buy another prime beyond the 50 f/1.8 but now primes have really whet my appetite. I never thought I’d buy a non-Nikon lens either. I’ve come to realize that part of the reason I didn’t want to sell the 17-55 was the fact that it was regarded as one of the highest end DX lenses available. How could I get rid of it? People see it and know that I’m serious about photography!
The lens set that I have no consists of no expensive lens but the expanded repertoire certainly allows for more flexibility for different shooting conditions. A woodworker I once corresponded with said to me, “in the game of life, it’s the guy that has the most tools, not the biggest, that wins.” With the 17-55 now gone, I am without a single lens that has AF-S. But the screwdriver driven lenses that I once so loathed (offset only by the wonderful images the 80-200 makes) actually seems like not such a bad thing—I have no statistics to say one way or the other but my guess is that these lenses are less likely to have long-term mechanical problems. Even if they do, they aren’t that costly to replace. Aside from the noise, on a D200, the screwdriver focusing seems pretty snappy.
Anyway, only time will reveal whether or not this decision was the right one to make. I’ll let you know how things unfold as I shoot with the new lenses.
