Nikon 17-55 vs 35/50 1.8 Primes

[Tarazed]

How does the 17-55 compare to the inexpensive 1.8 primes? I know its big and heavy, not a concern. How about sharpness? I take a lot of "people" shots in natural light. Is 2.8 too slow? I'm using a d7000 with 80-200 afs, 105 vr, 35 1.8 and 50 1.5. I need something wider I had 16-85 but found it sooo slow. The 2.8 wider primes don't seem to have the greatest reputations. So I'm looking at zooms.

Thanks

 

[HallieD]

Honestly, Im not the most experienced, and able to answer, but I made the jump to the 17-55, and its not let me down! Im often in low light, tight spaces (I photograph births), and its be a great lens! Its great if you like the options a zoom will wllo. I have a 35mm 1.8 that I often use too. I like primes, but sometimes, having the zoom is really helpful. It is heavy, and after a full day of shooting with it, my hand will be tired. But over all, love it, just watch filling the frame 17, that wide will distort the image a bit, but if your aware and shoot accordingly, no worries.

 

[zamanakhan]

personally i prefer a 35 1.8 and a wide angle zoom together over a mid range 2.8 zoom. but this can get hectic in changing lenses, if iq is a concern than this is the best way. However you cannot argue with the conveinece of going from 17mm wide to 35 or 50 instantly. its like having 3 lenses in one, but none as good if they were just for that one specific purpose. For still subjects the two lens combo is better as a walk around a midrange zoom cant be beat. Only you can decide what you need.