Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX or 105mm f/2.8 VR?

[forzaF1]

Ok,
I know these two lenses aren't often compared, but my situation calls for it. I have the 18-200mm VR and the 70-200mm VR with my D200 right now, and I would really like to add another to my set. All of Nikon's recent adds have the 17-55mm in them, and the reviews say it's great, so I know it's a very good lens, but if I had that, I'm afraid that I might not want to use my 18-200mm any more. The thing that attracts me to the 105mm f/2.8 VR is that I have never owned a macro lens before and I here that it's also a very good lens. The price of the 17-55mm is one of the only things that keeps me from deciding on it right now. So, what do you guys think?

Thanks a lot,

John

 

[dewey]

I own them both and as you mentioned they're apples and oranges. Optically the 17-55 in AMAZING, but then again so is the 105.

Unless you do weddings and need the fast aperature I would say you would be better off with the 105mm VR. It's something different. Then again the quality of the 17-55 is much better than the 18-200, so you would be better off there.

Hmmm...

I dunno but you'll end up with them both eventually I'm sure

 

[fmw]

You should get whichever applies to the photographic need you have for a new lens. These aren't comparable at all. They have different purposes.

 

[forzaF1]

You should get whichever applies to the photographic need you have for a new lens. These aren't comparable at all. They have different purposes.

As I stated before, I know they aren't comparable. Read the post before replying to it next time.

 

[fmw]

As I stated before, I know they aren't comparable. Read the post before replying to it next time.

I'll do you one better. I'll stay away from all your posts.

 

[forzaF1]

I'll do you one better. I'll stay away from all your posts.

That time of the month, huh?

Just because you disagree with a justified correction to one of your posts doesn't mean you have to totally high-jack the whole thread.

Grow up.

 

[JD in Socal]

Ok,
I know these two lenses are often compared...

No, they're really not.

So, what do you guys think?

Thanks a lot,

John

fmw told you he thinks, and you jumped all over him. If you ask a silly question that can't be rationally answered by anyone other than yourself, don't be upset when someone points that out.

Good luck with your comparison of an apple and an orange.

JD

 

[dewey]

But someone had to break the shocking news that the lenses were different! :lmao:

Everyone has bad days I guess.

 

[forzaF1]

No, they're really not.



fmw told you he thinks, and you jumped all over him. If you ask a silly question that can't be rationally answered by anyone other than yourself, don't be upset when someone points that out.

Good luck with your comparison of an apple and an orange.

JD

Ok. I honestly meant to type aren't, as I am very aware that these two lenses AREN'T often compared. I apologize for that, but he really didn't need to come back with a post like he did.

 

[dewey]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your typo - it was a small mistake. Sometimes on internet forums you ask a question and people feel the need to be nasty about it... maybe to make themselves feel better?

I dunno... anyway now that you know that the lenses are for different purposes maybe the thread can go back to the lenses. :thumbup:

I've been thinking about it today - I sure use the 17-55 much more than the 105mm, but maybe that's because of my photo business... I'm still going back and forth!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'm with fmw on this one. If you need a macro, get the macro, if you need a faster and optically better wide-angle zoom, than get that.

I don't know why you made a thread asking which one you should get because they're two completely different lenses for different purposes. I don't know about anyone else here on this forum, but I don't know what kind of photography you do, so I don't know your needs.