How do you compare this lens against the 18-55 Nikon "Kit" lens and the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G lens?
1664836
This is generally seen as a direct upgrade from the 18-55 Kit lens. It covers almost the same focal lengths, but with wider aperture (more possible light), better autofocus, and better overall image quality. If you like the zoom range on the kit lens but are unsatisfied with the images that come from it, this is a lens you should consider.
1664837
Faster zoom, sharper photos and the 2.8 makes yummy bokeh. I use it for all my close proximity low light situations like parties in a home or bar.
1239597
Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck. Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this... » Read More Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck. « Show Less
990750
I'm glad someone posted this question! It really has helped me decide to buy this lense too. I have the double kit with the other 2 lenses mentioned. I haven't used the 55 200 yet!! The weather is terrible and I'm afraid to take out the new camera. I do a LOT of indoor shooting of my kids and this lense sounds like it will work very nicely. I'm still blown away by the D5000. The pictures in just Auto mode with the 18 55 kit lense are night and day above my other cameras. I'm in heaven!
1850457
I have also the XF18-55. The XF27 is a little slower than the 18-55 and a little less accurate when tries to find focus (under difficult and not contrasty conditions). But in general i'm happy with this lens, is not for sports but for street photography for example is fine. Also is very sharp and small and with my X-E2 i can take it everywhere.
1703580
I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache... » Read More I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. « Show Less
1796675
It is a slight bit better than the 50mm 1.4...way better than the 18-55. It's not up to an L lens quality but it does slightly beat out the build of my 50mm 1.4
2038042
go to nikonusa.com.. look at lenses you have the ability to check a box and compare lenes, side by side.. i love my 24-85...
608535
Hey,the focus is very fast and absolutely noticeable compared to the 18-55mm. Hope that helps.Kind regards
1186138
Those are both low-light situations. You will want a "fast" lens. The 18-55mm lens is an f/3.5 lens. The lower the "f stop" the faster the lens which makes low light situations easier to shoot. Nikon makes 2 "Prime" lenses (lenses that don't zoom) that both cost about $200 each. One is a 35mm f/1.8 and the other is a 50mm f/1.8. If you use either of these lenses and put the camera in "Shutter Priority" mode (S on the dial) with the shutter speed set to 1/200 or a little faster, you should get great pictures. - All of that works great for me at the race track at night shooting sprint cars going 80+ mph with this camera. Those are both low-light situations. You will want a "fast" lens. The 18-55mm lens is an f/3.5 lens. The lower the "f stop" the faster the lens which makes low light situations easier to shoot. Nikon makes 2 "Prime" lenses (lenses that don't zoom) that both cost about $200 each. One is a 35mm f/1.8 and the other is a 50mm f/1.8. If you use either of these lenses and put the camera in "Shutter Priority" mode (S on the dial) with the shutter speed set to 1/200 or a little faster, you should get great pictures. - All of that works great for me at the... » Read More Those are both low-light situations. You will want a "fast" lens. The 18-55mm lens is an f/3.5 lens. The lower the "f stop" the faster the lens which makes low light situations easier to shoot. Nikon makes 2 "Prime" lenses (lenses that don't zoom) that both cost about $200 each. One is a 35mm f/1.8 and the other is a 50mm f/1.8. If you use either of these lenses and put the camera in "Shutter Priority" mode (S on the dial) with the shutter speed set to 1/200 or a little faster, you should get great pictures. - All of that works great for me at the race track at night shooting sprint cars going 80+ mph with this camera. « Show Less
599173
Without knowing exactly what you are photographing, I would give it a qualified yes. However, if you are going to be photographing from a distance, then the kit lens of 18-55mm is not going to fill your needs. Depending on distance, you may need something like an 18-135mm or for even greater distance, something like the 55-300mm lens. Beyond that, you'll be looking at large aftermarket lenses in the 150-500mm range.
2240579
Okay...I'll give you the details but I'm just a novice that likes to take pictures. The colors with the 17-40 are rich and beautiful....the lens is sharp and the photos have a "pop" to them, but when the light gets low the 17-40 has a hard time. Outside with good lighting the 17-40 is hard to beat. I use the 17-55 inside or when the lighting is low. It's sharp and fast. If I had to choose only one it would be the 17-55 because it is a faster lens...f2.8.
1084343
B. Stoops did you purchase this lens? I'm about to buy the T2i (550D) and am debating to get this as part of the kit or get the 18-55 and potentially buy this one separately later.
1573072
jessiegirl, OK. To answer your initial question, I don't think the 17-40 f/4L USM is too much lens for you. You'll most definitely appreciate the better build quality and optical performance of this lens though. More importantly, since you already have the kit lens which is I believe a EF-S 18-55mm IS, you're already covering this focal length anyway. The 17-40 f/4 L is optically better than the kit lens but the difference between 17 mm and 18 mm is small. Because your camera has a crop factor of 1.6, 17 mm becomes the full-frame equivalent of 27 mm. This is wide angle, but you could go a lot wider. What you might find more useful is perhaps Canon's EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. This lens used on your Rebel will give you the equivalent of a 16-35mm used on a full-frame camera. In other words, very wide! There are optional 3rd party lenses that could do the same thing; like Tokina's AT-X 124 PRO DX II. This is a 12-24mm f/4, although this lens is temporarily unavailable at the moment. Sigma also has several wide angle lenses that would give you the wide angles you are looking for. Check this page out: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/wide-angle-zoom-lenses Another web site that I've found useful is fredmiranda.com. It's a great web site specializing in reviews of Canon and Nikon cameras, lenses, and forums with tons of customer feedback and experiences. Let me know if you have any other questions. Michael
2118675
I wouldn't do this. 17-70 is a nice lens, but not very sharp, especially wide open. This is nice replacement for the kit lens and not much more.
494444
Yes by all means. The 18-135 is much better lens with better optics, and the additional focal lenth will come in handy. This lens is also heavier but much better built than the 18-55. Also the lens hood for the 18-135 is a nice petal shaped hood, but the hood for the 18-55 is a complete joke.
1820411
I have a question along these lines. The two big criticisms of this lens tend to be the construction and the focus noise. Many people with these criticisms seem to tend to own $800 lenses, so I don't know what these are in comparison to.How do the focus noise and construction compare to the XSi kit lens - the 18-55 IS 3.5-5.6 lens? As far as I can tell that lens is made of plastic and it isn't USM, but I wouldn't consider it slow at focus or loud or poor construction, but I can see how it could be better. Is the 50mm 1.8 lens comparable to the 18-55 IS, or is it of inferior quality? I have a question along these lines. The two big criticisms of this lens tend to be the construction and the focus noise. Many people with these criticisms seem to tend to own $800 lenses, so I don't know what these are in comparison to.How do the focus noise and construction compare to the XSi kit lens - the 18-55 IS 3.5-5.6 lens? As far as I can tell that lens is made of plastic and it isn't USM, but I wouldn't consider it slow at focus or loud or poor construction, but I can see how it could be better. Is the 50mm 1.8 lens comparable to the 18-55 IS, or is it of inferior... » Read More I have a question along these lines. The two big criticisms of this lens tend to be the construction and the focus noise. Many people with these criticisms seem to tend to own $800 lenses, so I don't know what these are in comparison to.How do the focus noise and construction compare to the XSi kit lens - the 18-55 IS 3.5-5.6 lens? As far as I can tell that lens is made of plastic and it isn't USM, but I wouldn't consider it slow at focus or loud or poor construction, but I can see how it could be better. Is the 50mm 1.8 lens comparable to the 18-55 IS, or is it of inferior quality? « Show Less
963789
55-210 like others has said should fit your needs. I wouldn't go with the 18-200 since you should already have the 18-55 with your kit. By the way, I use 18-55 for 90% of my shots. I bought the 55-210 myself, It's cheaper and in my test before I bought it, it has better contrast and IQ then the 18-200. The 18-55 and 55-210 are the only lens I take with me when I go on vacation. Also 18-200 is a lot heaver. FYI: Once you pass the beginning phase with this camera, get you some adaptors for other lens and it pretty much open a new world of options on photography. Have fun out there!