17-55 f2.8 vs 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VR Kit Lens. Yes.. really.

tcole1983

@sprayandpray...lol. I know it shouldn't matter. There were too many kit lens cameras hanging out in the last couple of places I have been though...I needed my massive heavy F2.8 lens to show off B-)

I didn't really care that much. Just felt silly when I had $4000 of lenses in my bag and I was using one that now costs under $100. Since I purchased my 105 F2.8 I have become accustomed to the pro feel of lenses...there seems to be no going back.

gnoshme

Hi All,

Such great input. For the record, I change gear as often as I change underwear. Since starting this thread last week I've upgraded from the D7000 to the D7100. I used the 17-55 intensively for 3 days and saw that outside of the test shots I was doing to compare I found a big difference. The biggest place I found the difference was where the bokeh / focus contrast created a stellar impression of sharpness.

But I sold it A month ago I decided to take my camera EVERYWHERE for one week, and I was doing pretty well.. but when the 17-55 was on it, the ideal of lugging it around made me LESS likely to take it. I'm looking out for a decent deal on a used Sigma 17-50 (it seems better than the Tamron) and we'll see how that goes.

I just went on a road trip over the weekend and now limited with the kit lens for when I wanted wide angle, I still think it's got great sharpness, and it's convenient but yes, it's biggest downfall is the inability to get a shallow depth of field.

I think I"ll go with the Sigma and see how that goes. I'd love a little wider than 17, but at the same time I do enjoy the 17-55 range and if I'm heading out with body + 1 lens then that's the one for me.

Thanks all for the great debate.

Anyone use that Sigma?

K

spraynpray

FWIW the requirements of 'light and small' don't usually equal 'rugged and high IQ'. Take that to extremes and you have D810 Vs point'n'shoot. You pays your money....