Comments on: Anthony at the Park with my Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398 Not a photo blog, but sometimes I play one on TV Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:04:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: susumu http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-13228 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:48:38 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-13228 Hi Jeffrey, Thank you for your nice reviews. I also have 18-200 with my D40x and considering 17-55 with exactly the same reason you have. I've been studying reviews in web and it seems the reputation of 17-55 is amazingly polarized. At least it seems to have quite variation among lenses. One of the reported issues is sharpness. Your pictures taken by 70-200 is just stanningly sharp (albeit the focus problem), while those by 17-55 seem softer. I wonder if you did the same test you did for your 70-200. What is your opinion about overall picture quality of 17-55? Is brightness the only advantage over 18-200? Hi Jeffrey,

Thank you for your nice reviews. I also have 18-200 with my D40x and considering 17-55 with exactly the same reason you have. I’ve been studying reviews in web and it seems the reputation of 17-55 is amazingly polarized. At least it seems to have quite variation among lenses. One of the reported issues is sharpness. Your pictures taken by 70-200 is just stanningly sharp (albeit the focus problem), while those by 17-55 seem softer. I wonder if you did the same test you did for your 70-200. What is your opinion about overall picture quality of 17-55? Is brightness the only advantage over 18-200?

]]> by: daniel http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-11708 Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:22:51 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-11708 of course 18-55 doesn't have 2.8. my point is those pictures are not that good, especially under the bright light. 18-55 can take the same picture with no problem(different f of course). the purpose is taking a good picture. if just for big f, f/1.8 or f/1.4 50mm would do better job than "your proud super" 17-55. it's outdoor and under the sun light. <span class='jfriedl'> I'm searching for a reason why you'd want to come and put words onto my post (I never said "proud" or otherwise hyped the lens or the pictures I posted), then <i>attack me</i> for them. Perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder and are taking it out on me? Perhaps feel a bit inferior? I dunno. . All I did is post some pictures of my kid — pictures that I happened to have taken the first time I used a new lens — and posted them for my family to see. You've got a real problem. Try a vacation, or something. —Jeffrey</span> of course 18-55 doesn’t have 2.8. my point is those pictures are not that good, especially under the bright light. 18-55 can take the same picture with no problem(different f of course). the purpose is taking a good picture. if just for big f, f/1.8 or f/1.4 50mm would do better job than “your proud super” 17-55. it’s outdoor and under the sun light.

I’m searching for a reason why you’d want to come and put words onto my post (I never said “proud” or otherwise hyped the lens or the pictures I posted), then attack me for them. Perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder and are taking it out on me? Perhaps feel a bit inferior? I dunno. . All I did is post some pictures of my kid — pictures that I happened to have taken the first time I used a new lens — and posted them for my family to see. You’ve got a real problem. Try a vacation, or something. —Jeffrey

]]> by: daniel http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-11669 Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:53:12 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-11669 I don't understand, actually the picture is not sharp. What's proud about 17-55? I can take the same picture with 18-55. <span class='jfriedl'>At f/2.8? That would be a trick. —Jeffrey</span> I don’t understand, actually the picture is not sharp. What’s proud about 17-55?
I can take the same picture with 18-55.

At f/2.8? That would be a trick. —Jeffrey

]]> by: Dave Story http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-8806 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:08:11 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-8806 Hi Jeffrey, Great blog, love the care and attention you pay on the images! Thanks! I'm in love with the 70-200VR and am ordering it to complement my 18-200. I was intrigued by your comment that you use the 17-55 f2.8 instead of the 18-200 on a daily basis...can you say more, why? I would think the longer zoom would be better to crop out background, even on a fast-moving kid. <span class='jfriedl'>I would have never thought I'd abandon the 18-200, but the extra aperture (<a href='http://regex.info/blog/2006-10-05/263' rel="nofollow">2/3rd of a stop at 18mm, and 4/3rd stop at 55mm</a>) and better build quality are just too good to pass up. I do hate to change lenses, which is a bummer, but if I want to go to 200mm, I almost certainly don't want to give up even more max aperture, so I would likely switch to the 70-200 anyway.</span> Have you looked at the new 14-24 f2.8? <span class='jfriedl'>Mildly, but unless I get a <a href='http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3/index.htm' class='quiet' rel="nofollow">D3</a> it appears to offer little over the 17-55. However, since the 17-55 is DX, the 14-24 makes a lot of sense for the D3. —Jeffrey</span> Dave Hi Jeffrey,

Great blog, love the care and attention you pay on the images! Thanks!

I’m in love with the 70-200VR and am ordering it to complement my 18-200.

I was intrigued by your comment that you use the 17-55 f2.8 instead of the 18-200 on a daily basis…can you say more, why? I would think the longer zoom would be better to crop out background, even on a fast-moving kid.

I would have never thought I’d abandon the 18-200, but the extra aperture (2/3rd of a stop at 18mm, and 4/3rd stop at 55mm) and better build quality are just too good to pass up. I do hate to change lenses, which is a bummer, but if I want to go to 200mm, I almost certainly don’t want to give up even more max aperture, so I would likely switch to the 70-200 anyway.

Have you looked at the new 14-24 f2.8?

Mildly, but unless I get a D3 it appears to offer little over the 17-55. However, since the 17-55 is DX, the 14-24 makes a lot of sense for the D3. —Jeffrey

Dave

]]> by: kevin http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3788 Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:12:45 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3788 Would you like to sell your 18-200? <span class='jfriedl'>No, because it's an excellent one-lens solution when you need to travel light and value the zoom range over max aperture. I'm sure it'll come in quite handy some day. —Jeffrey</span> Would you like to sell your 18-200?

No, because it’s an excellent one-lens solution when you need to travel light and value the zoom range over max aperture. I’m sure it’ll come in quite handy some day. —Jeffrey

]]> by: Nils http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3748 Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:29:31 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3748 Hey, you're right. That tree disappeared! Hey, you’re right. That tree disappeared!

]]> by: Madhu http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3745 Thu, 22 Mar 2007 06:38:20 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3745 J. Just in the off chance that you hadn't seen this: http://lwn.net/Articles/225652/ Some of your already amazing pictures might get even more complex :) J.

Just in the off chance that you hadn’t seen this:

http://lwn.net/Articles/225652/

Some of your already amazing pictures might get even more complex :)

]]> by: Grandma Friedl http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3698 Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:56:59 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-18/398#comment-3698 I,too,noticed the inside-out shirt and knew he'd probably dressed himself. And indeed it is "O.K. He is such a beautiful uninhibited child, so genuine. He seems like he never met a stanger or someone he dislikes. And in nearly every pictire of him with other children, the girls are always smiling at him. This may give you and Fumie some anxiety when he becomes a teenager. Your mother is speaking from experience. I,too,noticed the inside-out shirt and knew he’d probably dressed himself. And indeed it is “O.K. He is such a beautiful uninhibited child, so genuine. He seems like he never met a stanger or someone he dislikes. And in nearly every pictire of him with other children, the girls are always smiling at him. This may give you and Fumie some anxiety when he becomes a teenager. Your mother is speaking from experience.

]]>