Lens redundancy?

[three_eyed_otter]

17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor

12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor

I am thinking about purchasing the 17-55mm to replace my 18-55mm kit lens. At the same time I really want the 12-24mm to give a go at some decent depth of field photography. Would having both of these lenses in the same kit be redundant? TIA for any opinions:
ME: via OFr. from L. opinio(n-), from the stem of opinari 'think, believe'.

TIA for any facts:
:greenpbl:C15 (orig. meaning 'an act', later 'a crime', surviving in the phr. before (or after) the fact): from L. factum, neut. past participle of facere 'do'.

have a good one
3Eo

 

[JIP]

That is a decision only you can make. Personally, I think 12 is effectively alot wider than a 17 so you really get the 12 for the ultra-wide. But really if you get this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300487-GREY/Nikon_2148_10_5mm_f_2_8G_ED_DX.html instead you will not be getting redundant lenses.

 

[Garbz]

There are others to consider. The 17-55 is a wonderful lens, but if you don't want to feel entirely that redundant why not look at the Sigma 10-20mm for the other. It is also a very fine lens. The extra wide angle will not seem redundant by any stretch.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

I guess I'm also asking do you guys have lens that overlap or have you created such a roadmap for lens purchases to avoid such things. In my N80 (film) days I only had two lenses (the kit lens and 70 -300mm) that rig was stolen and when I replaced it I never got a new 70-300mm. Now I find myself really enjoying the adventures of digital photography and have decided to purchase (in time) a decent repetoire of lenses. I just want to avoid (if possible) making any unnecessary purchases, hence the concerns of overlapping focal lengths.

have a good one
3Eo

 

[S2K1]

All three of my lenses overlap with one or the other, and I have no problem with it, the 17-55 would be great as a walk-around lens and the 12-24 would be great for wide-angle shots. They're for specific purposes and I see no issue with it.

 

[Garbz]

Yep I have an 18-70 and a 70-150. But in there I have a 50mm and a 105mm. I have plans for the 85mm too.

Lenses are specific purpose so even if they do overlap there's no major problem. Like the 50mm is f/1.8 the 85mm is f/2.8, and the 105mm is a f/2.8 macro.

One of the lenses I would consider buying that would overlap directly with what I have is a 35-105mm even though this range is already covered it is a great range for portrait uses, which would mean the 18-70 70-150 can stay at home when taking portraits. In reality I don't have the spare capital for that though

 

[three_eyed_otter]

So overlap is inevitable, it's just a matter of getting different lenses for different purposes.? The thing that was bothering me about the two lenses is that I have read some 12-24mm purchaser reviews and lots of them say that the lens stays on their camera most of the time. While I was thinking that the 17-55mm would stay on the camera most of the time and the 12-24mm would be for more specific uses.

have a good one
3Eo

 

[fmw]

Not at all. In fact, it is what I carry. Think the 17-55 as your normal lens with some variation on either side and the 12-24 as your wide angle with some variation on either side. Great combination.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

http://www.foodieforums.com

Is it dinner time?

have a good one
3Eo

 

[DSLR noob]

thats his signature, not what he said to you.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

thats his signature, not what he said to you.

Yeah, I went and checked out the foodie site and in my previous post I was trying to give it a little plug.

 

[kundalini]

I'm pretty sure a used 50mm f/1.8 is in my near future, saw one recently at a decent price. But I want to save up for Nikon's 105mm. This prompts the question of getting an older used one or be patient until the funds are available for the latest model? I want to shoot close-ups and portraits with my D80. Any thoughts?

Also, I have seen the term "prime" lens used on the forum. What is meant by that?

 

[Garbz]

Exactly that. Prime lens is a 50mm or a 105mm. They don't zoom, they are often cheaper, larger in aperture, and very sharp. I would buy a new 50mm AF f/1.8 they are close to the cheapest lens there is and are fantastic to use for portraits.

I have the older 105mm Macro lens and it is fairly useless for portraits. You can get away with it but you need to stand on the other side of the room and limit yourself to head or head/shoulder shots. That said it's a fantastic macro lens. I bought it off someone who just bought the new one. Then only real difference is the new one is less susceptible to flare (the old one didn't matter so much because the lens element is recessed by about 4cm), and the new one focuses much faster and quieter. It's also a bit sharper but having used both I find the difference isn't noticeable in the field, but only if your photographing something perfectly stationary with a tripod, and mirror lockup.