Replacing my 18-55 Kit lens with 17-55 2.8 is this a good switch??

[Nikanon]

I bought my D7000 about a month ago and I wasn't sure what lens to buy for it since I am new to photography. At the time I wasn't sure if I wanted a nice prime lens like the 35mm or 50mm so I bought a used 18-55 to see what range I used most. After a months use with the 18-55 I really liked the zoom range on it and found myself using all focal lengths on and was a handy walk around lens except for low light conditions where I had to use a flash to help out. So now I think I'm ready to upgrade this lens for a better one that will take better pictures than the 18-55.

Since I like the 18-55 kit lens I was looking for another lens around the same focal length and I was looking into getting the 17-55 2.8 but I noticed that it doesn't have VR on it. I mainly take portrait pictures of my kids so I don't really think the VR will be an issue for what I want to take photographs of. Right now I currently have a 55-200 zoom lens besides my 18-55 in my bag. I don't have a single prime lens so I was wondering if the 17-55 2.8 will suit my needs without having say a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8/1.4 prime lens?? Also if anybody here has the 17-55 2.8 how fast does this lens focus and is it worth the $$$??

Also, I am not interested in buying any 3rd party lenses since I am very skeptical about IQ performance being a hit and miss with certain brands.

 

[Markw]

Nikon 17-55 is the top-of-the-line Nikon-branded DX lens. It will give you the best results of any DX zoom. It will be heavier and much larger than your 18-55. You can't go wrong with it, though.

As for zoom vs prime, the primes will both work better in low light. But, won't offer you the convenience of the zoom.

Mark

 

[COLTSFANATIC1]

It sounds as if the 17 - 55 is way better than the 18 - 55, I have yhe 18 - 55 kit lens and have zero expirance with any other lens. just by looking at the name of the lens says to me that there would not be much diff from 18 to 17, So please explain to me what the big diff is. Sorry to ask such a noob question, but its something that I need to start learning about.a lead to a link that will help me understand exactly what all the numbers on the lenses are would be nice to.

 

[Mach0]

It sounds as if the 17 - 55 is way better than the 18 - 55, I have yhe 18 - 55 kit lens and have zero expirance with any other lens. just by looking at the name of the lens says to me that there would not be much diff from 18 to 17, So please explain to me what the big diff is. Sorry to ask such a noob question, but its something that I need to start learning about.a lead to a link that will help me understand exactly what all the numbers on the lenses are would be nice to.

The range is practically the same. You'd get sharper pics at larger apertures plus its a constant aperture.

 

[COLTSFANATIC1]

The range is practically the same. You'd get sharper pics at larger apertures plus its a constant aperture

constant aperture?? not sure what that is could you pleas explain,
Sorry OP not trying to hijack the thread, Last question

 

[Nikanon]

The range is practically the same. You'd get sharper pics at larger apertures plus its a constant aperture

constant aperture?? not sure what that is could you pleas explain,
Sorry OP not trying to hijack the thread, Last question

18-55 kit lens is a 3.5-5.6 aperture meaning 18mm is at 3.5 and 55mm is at 5.6

Being the 17-55 is at 2.8 fixed aperture this lens is really sharp.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

18-55 kit lens is a 3.5-5.6 aperture meaning 18mm is at 3.5 and 55mm is at 5.6

Being the 17-55 is at 2.8 fixed aperture this lens is really sharp.

That's not always true. It is true that the lens is much better, as it has good glass. However, This lens will probably shoot a sharper image at f/4 than f/2.8, the same as the 18-55 3.5-5.6 will shoot a sharper image at f/9 or so.

The 17-55 is a low light fast lens. It gives you great opportunity to catch images that would be entirely impossible with the 18-55mm, because the focal range is pretty much the exact same.

 

[Big Mike]

Certainly not an inexpensive upgrade, but it would indeed be quite an upgrade.

 

[greybeard]

In my opinion the 17-55 mm f/2.8 is a truly professional piece of gear. Its' image quality is better but the real advantage it has over the 18-55 is in low light. At 18mm it is 2/3rds of a stop faster and at 55mm it is a full 2 stops faster. Mechanically there is no comparison. The 18-55 is plastic mount entry level lens while the 17-55 precision metal construction.
Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED DX - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - Review / Test Report

 

[Bukitimah]

TS has got his basic right. I agree at 55 mm, VR is not that important. For general walk about with a DX camera, 17 - 55 is a good range. I have a 50 mm f1.8 but find it too tight when you need the wide angle and you not always has the luxury to move back.

The big difference between your kit lens and the f2.8 lens is that you are able to shoot under low light without having to boost up ISO. Not every occasions you can use flash.

 

[orb9220]

"I mainly take portrait pictures of my kids so I don't really think the VR will be an issue for what I want to take photographs of."

You might do better then taking a massive jump in the pocketbook. As the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 achieves 90%-95% in Image IQ of the 3x times the price Nikon. And many recommend it. Was the first lens upgrade I did like 4 years ago. Replacing my 18-55 kit lens.



Baby Riley for a Visit 2 of 3 by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Smaller,Lighter and Lesser build than the Nikon but mine has held over the years and still clicking great.
And then you can afford to add a prime or two and still only be into half the price of the nikon. If you were getting into the Pro end of the business then would recommend the Nikon without hesitation.

As many or the majority of viewers would be hard pressed to see the differences in images taken between the two lens. And would fail most of the time guessing which pic with what lens.
.