Nice review, but I didn't really understand why you would point out the shortcomings of the lens when attached to a full-frame (FX) body, given that the lens is designed specifically for DX bodies and will vignette heavily on FX cameras. Were you doing so to illustrate some problems you might run into if using a body like a D300 or D7000 with an added grip? Even so, wouldn't those cameras still be somewhat smaller than something like a D2x?
@anaemik My D2x is a DX body and many folks use grips - both scenarios are a bit annoying with this lens. Regular cameras with added grip will often be a bit taller than the D2x. FX cameras will automatically crop their sensor area with this lens, but that can be overridden, as many DX lenses will produce a full image circle. I'm not suggesting people do that, but it's an option.
@TheSnapChick lol, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you! I'm definitely thinking long and hard about this lens, and I'm mainly curious about its sharpness. The sharpest lens I currently own would probably be the 50mm AF-D f1.8. I don't suppose you'd have a similar prime that you would be able to compare it to from a sharpness perspective?
@anaemik It's not quite as sharp as a prime, but it's darn close throughout the entire zoom range. I shoot it quite often at aperture priority f4. That's a good setting for this lens as it is still good in low light at f4 and is approaching the sweet spot in sharpness for this lens.
@TheSnapChick Oh, that's very encouraging! I didn't expect it to be quite as sharp as a prime, but anything close is definitely making this look more tempting by the minute. Thanks again for all your swift responses - really appreciated :)
@TheSnapChick Snap, I'd buy that D4, i know you said you were happy with your D2x but she's ancient :( I'm glad you're happy, that's all that matters really. However, some new camera gear is always good!
@TheSnapChick There's going to be a loss of quality though, for example the 12mp D700 drops down to less than half i think, because of the reduced usage of the sensor
I probably go 4 the 14-24 2.8, nice bokeh (think it's got 9blades), and 4 the middle range if got feets to zoom whit my nifty fifty (1.8g) ;-) on the upper end if got my 70-200 2.8 (sigma). So i can go FX as soon as I want whitout waisting monay on glass i've probably not had to.
@in2coming For me, I would not like 24 as the widest angle on a DX camera. The bokeh on the 17-55 looks fine to me. If it's something you are unsure about, head to a shop and try one out. :)
@sunlite585 Oops, sorry! I read you out of context. Didn't follow the whole thread of comments before yours. You'll have to forgive me - it's 5am over here and it's been a long night!
@Superketo Most of the pics on my site are with this lens, but if there is any type in particular you would like to see, I'd be happy to email you some :)
HELPPPP!!!!!. which one to buy? used nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or brand new sigma 17-50? it's about the same price but really not sure which one to buy. thanks!
Thanks for the video, sounds like you have a lot of confidence in this lens. I'm thinking about buying one soon for my D7000, my primary usages would be for scenery, landscape, and general "walk around".
Hm, i kind of would have liked some example pictures to see how sharp your model is. But other than that: Wonderful review and you are an absolutely gorgeous "chick". So kudos for the review and hope your pics are as good as your reviews :P!
I'm on a d7000 and i would get the 24-70 over this one a 100 times: yeah, i'm loosing a little bit of the wide end, but i have nano crystal coating and it being an fx lens it just sounds to me an overall better lens and more important i can still use it whenever i decide to drop a zero in my camera's name
I'll be shooting at New York Comic Con next month and I'm stuck between renting out this lens vs. the 24-70 f/2.8. I'm on a D300, but I have a little concern for light fall-off on the corners. 90% of the photographers I've talked to said it's best to use the FX lenses on DX bodies to avoid the problem. I know I'll be losing out on the wide end--- but what's a couple of steps back, you know?
What's your take on it, and have you personally had any issue with light fall-off on the 17-55?
@sonikku10 I've run into no issues in practical use (or impractical use) with this lens. Talk is cheap... rent for the range you will think you need and have a great time!
@RobertVelascoA Generally speaking, you should use the hood that is matched to the particular lens. The hood must be out of the field of view of a zoom lens at the widest angle.
@lepermessiah01 I just bought the tamaron 17-50. I shot an event with it & ~60% of my shots were out of focus. AF-Assist with SB-900 in low light made me lol as to how poorly the lens focused. On top of that the quality of the shot did not impress me nor my client. Returned the tamaron in exchange for the nikon.
Great review! I was looking for a good lens for an upcoming wedding and I think I found it now! I'm new to photography but learning more every day! I was surprised to learn from this video that a constant aperture is possible, that's awesome! Are you you on Facebook?
Also I was wondering, what do you use to clean your lens? I bought lint free clothes and a liquid from my local photo store but the liquid seems to leave a residue on the lens. Doesn't affect the picture but it's visible on glass.
@markmattix This is definitely a lens for weddings. It's good in low/natural light and has versatile range for a photojournalistic style. I do have a Facebook page - just search Facebook for 'SnapChick'
I use clear filters on most/all of my lenses, so I'm pretty sloppy about cleaning them. Sometimes a little bit of lens solution, and when they're really gunked up, I use methanol (Eclipse) solution and pec pads. Generally speaking, I like to clean the filters and keep the lens element untouched.
Nice Basic Explanation. Im puzzled however. If someone buys this lens, and spends the money on it they should ( in essence ) know what it is and to an extent what it can do. With respect, if you have to explain things such as the manual/auto manual switch ,anyone watching this and doesnt fully understand that then they would possibly be better using a disposable camera. I do understand your explaining the astethics as well. You are though, an Excellent example of self marketing. ( as many are)
@voiceinyourdream I can't speak for my audience, but I think a lot of people like to see the operations of something that they might buy. With online buying becoming a primary form of camera/lens purchases, videos are the next best thing to picking up and handling a lens in a camera shop.
Hi , my name wissam , i am not professional photographer but i like photograph and i bought my nikon D90 and i have the following lenses , please can you give me your opinion about this lenses, thanks
1-AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
2-AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
3-AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
4-AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED
planing for AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
Hi , my name wissam , i am not professional photographer but i like photograph and i bought my nikon D90 and i have the following lenses , please can you give me your opinion about this lenses, thanks
1-AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
2-AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
3-AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
4-AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED
planing for AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
@pottymaster98 They are very different cameras, both extremely capable. The D2x cannot hold a candle to more recent models for high ISO photography. The D2x shows high noise at and above ISO 400, with the highest official ISO available being ISO 800. The D300s has significantly better high ISO performance. Both are great for daylight and studio photography. The D300s has a clear advantage in low light.
@player1CR tamron isn't a plastic toy as you say coz there's a part in metal and a part is plaStic, but it's not of bad quality. It's probably true that the lens without VC is better, but the nikkor lens is like the tamron lens in quality and if I have to choose a lens I'll choose the most economic between these lenses especially when it is like the nikon lens!!!!
@Giannibike I had the same opinion 3 years ago. That's ok. When it comes to prize/performance, the Tamron is winner. No doubt about it. But in my Tamron there are after 3 years of shooting many dust dots, which is not ..lets say..nice:/ I also bought a new camera, D7000, so now I'm deciding which better build objectiv to choose. My final choice is the new Nikkor 16-35/4, which is optically better than 17-55/2,8 and cost less money. And it has VR, which somtetimes comes handy.
i have the tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and i tryied also the nikon version and i can confirm that tamron is much much better than nikon version. The price, the Vibration Compensation, the XR makes the tamron better than nikon. 350-400 euros against 1200 euros of the nikon: I bought the tamron lens in europe. your opinion?
@Giannibike Hi! I don't really get into "better," etc... use what works for you. The reasons why I typically opt for Nikon are the image quality and build quality of their lenses and the excellent support I have received from Nikon. In the comparison you describe, I have not used the Tamron 17-50, so I cannot compare from my own experience. Although a friend had a negative experience with her 3rd party 18-200, I do not interpret that to be representative of all 3rd party lenses.
@TheSnapChick yes you're right to opt for nikon, but nikon should make the prices of their lenses more affordable. however my flickr account is this: 'flickr'com photos giannicard
@Giannibike Tamron is like a plastic toy. Optically the old Tamron version is better than a new VC version and my 3 years old version of the Tamron is not unambiguously better then this Nikkor, so how you can say that the new Tamron VC, which is worse than its none VC version, is "much much better" tahn this Nikkro? It's much cheaper, yes. But optically definitely not and the build quality of Tamron is like a toy, like I said before.
Hey I know this is a noobish question but i have a new 17-55mm and i was wondering if i attached the hood wrongly as in the hb-31 marking on the hood is facing downwards instead of upwards will it damage my hood?
@9unslinger You can use it with the marking up or the marking down with no issues. You can disconnect and re-orient the hood at any time by pushing the button on the hood and twisting it off - it should twist off easily, with virtually no effort.
hi snap chick,happy new year! which camera do you use more of ten, the d300s or d2x?
i have the d300 and d2xs with 17-55m lens and 80-200 f2.8lens. i tryed the same settings for both cameras but often get differant results from both cameras. what setting do you have for the d2x?
@viperman73 When you say "different results," do you mean color and contrast? The D300 does have a downloadable "D2x mode" which will get the cameras to match output.
Hi thesnapchick - how do you cover the gap in focal length between this lens and the 70-200 f2.8 which is effectively 105mm on the shortest end for dx cameras. Theres a whole range of 55-105 that doesnt seems to be covered for dx cameras without having to buy the 24-70 which overlaps with the 17-55.
@chino1127 It doesn't bother me. I just spent the last few days doing casual photos of all different subjects with just my 50mm. Normally, it seems I'm shooting between about 20mm - 40mm or 125-175mm on DX
Great video. I have a question. I'm looking to step up to a pro lens I am debating on this lens and the 24-70 2.8. I can get the 17-55 for around $800-$900. The other is $1400 and up. Since I am using a dx camera and this is a dx lens does it still have the 1.6 distance to it? Would it be like having a 24-70? I know if it I get the 24-70 it's like have a 35-105 lens on a dx body. In your opinion how does it rate to the 24-70 2.8?
@echopark78 Hi! The 17-55 would behave about like a 24-70 typically would on 35mm/FX. I have not used the 24-70 2.8, so I cannot compare directly. What I do know is that I use the 17-55 at 17mm A LOT. So for me, I would not want a mid-range zoom that only started at 24mm on my DX cameras. I pretty much buy for the bodies I have now, so for a DX camera, I would buy the best lens for my purpose on the DX camera.
I guess that many people had ask this several times buuuut....
Im thinking of buying this lens but in the near future after I upgrade my camera from a D60 to a D7000. However, my type of photography is pretty much portrait and all around photography. I found this aperture and focal length ideal for what I usually do. Should I go for it or there is another lens that you could recommend? Thanks for reading!
@deadkrusty6 I am a BIG fan of the 17-55. Some people avoid it because they may go for an FX sensor in the future, but I'm more oriented toward using the best gear for the camera bodies that I have today. It's a great lens. Franky, with the 17-55 and the 70-200, there isn't much else you would need to "get the shot." I do love the 18-200 and the 35mm f1.8, but the flexibility of the 17-55 combined with the f2.8 throughout the zoom range make it a real winner.
@TheSnapChick one big question mate,does this lens and the nikon d7000 have weather sealing,cos i cant make up my mind between the nikon d700 and the nikon d7000 one being dx and the other fx i need diff lenses,i live in a rainy place so weather sealing on my gear is a must really,so now from 1 question i now came to 2 question so just to sum everything up QUESTION NR 1 DOES THIS LENS AND THE NIKON D7000 HAVE WEATHER SEALING
Question nr 2WHAT DO I GET IF I BUY A FX FORMAT BODY INSTEAD OF A DX?
@NAGULNR2 The D7000, the bigger brother of the D90, is not sealed as well as the D700. The 17-55 is well sealed for a zoom, but water can harm any lens. Sports photographers, etc... use plastic bags for their gear when the weather gets wet. FX format will give you better high ISO performance and wider angles on the same lenses.
@TheSnapChick thank u soo much for everything,subscribed and i do love your vids but just one more question,if it were your choise which camera would u get nikon d7000 or the nikon d700
@NAGULNR2 Personally, I would get the D7000 if given the choice between those two. Part of the reason is that I have many DX lenses which are better suited for the D7000 than the D700.
Hello I a TV & Film Producer, Director & Photographer. I bought the 17-55 and a 35mm f1.8 & the 50mm f1.8 lenses a few years ago with the S3Pro body and I'm in love with it. I have pro HD video cameras too but want to jump in DSLR HD video shooting to get more shallow depth of field. Do you have the new Nikon D7000 to test with the 17-55 f2.8 and your 35 or 50mm F1.8 lenses in both photos and video at 1080P 24fps ?
@magvek It should be! Note that I have not used a D7000, but the 17-55 is great on any of the bodies that I have used it on - D60, D70, D80, D90, D2x, D300s... I would bet it is stellar on the D7000!
@TheSnapChick mmm.... i just want to have it , but one of my friends tell me it might not be grabby in the hand with the d7000 .... so u recommend me to have it on d7000 ??!!!
I've heard a lot of pros using this, but what's the difference between this lens and the beginner, 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6 VR? Does the constant aperture really make that much of a difference?
@iSpinify In low light where you want to preserve a natural look, the f2.8 of the 17-55 can make the difference between having a shot and not having the shot. 90% of the time, I don't need the wider constant aperture. The 10% where I do need it is where it pays off :)
The D3 body she is using in this review has low enough noise at higher ISO levels and can so safely compensate for the slower 18-55mm lens without a problem.
Honestly, this lens costs a bomb, weighs a tonne and is so over-rated.
@Norv08 Yeah, you can almost get a 24-70 f2.8 with same price...and that fits to D3 and produces very sharp pics...IMO this lens too expensive, under 1000$ would be good price...
@sl1cktofu It depends what you are used to. Going from something like the 18-55 or 18-70, it is going to feel a lot heaver. But, the advantages of image quality and f2.8 throughout the zoom range are worth it to me. When I pack light, I take the 35mm f1.8
I need to get this lens....am just in luv with it...thank you so much for your responses to my questions, I want to create a photo studio at home, do you know where can I get some basic equipments online? and which basic equipments would I need to create a home photo studio? thanks again!
@studiomirs Search online for "Alien Bees." They have great, inexpensive packages to get started with. I had thought that I would "use up" my Alien Bees and move on to more expensive lighting. After YEARS, they are going strong after hundreds of shoots and plenty of time on the road. eBay can be a good source of inexpensive backdrops.
Hmmm, that's certainly a thought. I don't have too many customizations so I may do that. However, I have to make clear that this is occurring only in situations of very low light. I know your D300 is stepped up from my D90 but have you ever tried to use the AF on your 17-55 in a nearly dark room with the "manual mode" setting on your camera? If you find time, will you try it and let me know what happens? Thanks
Thank you for the review. There is no question that the 17-55 is an outstanding lens. Do you see much difference in color/contrast between the files you get with the 17-55 and the 18-200? What are differences that you see (if any) in your pictures taken with these two lenses?
Thank you for the review. There is no question that the 17-55 is an outstanding lens. Do you see much difference in color/contrast between the files you get with the 17-55 and the 18-200? What are differences that you see (if any) in your pictures taken with these two lenses?
@socalrun81 Both are very capable. If I wanted to be super-picky, I'd say that the 18-200 can be prone to color fringing in high-contrast, bright outdoor conditions. Both are capable of terrific images. I own and use both frequently. I purchased the 17-55 specifically for its durability and f2.8 throughout the zoom range.
No, I had it set on AF-A. However I tried AF-S and AF-C but to no avail. I'll keep working on it to see if I'm creating this challenge (user error) lol. Please share any other ideas you may come up with. Thanks
@hurcell1 It may be painful to consider if you've customized many options, but you could do a factory reset on the camera to make sure that one of your other settings is not taking priority... though few come to mind.
Thanks for the reply and idea. I tried a 105 2.8 and duplicated the same available light and got the same thing. The AF assist illuminator would not come on in any mode setting other that Auto. When I used auto, the illuminator was actived. The flash popped up and it took an acceptable photo in the low light area. This is a D90. Not sure of how this works with other models.
@hurcell1 Is your autofocus mode set at AF-C (continuous servo)? This may be why the illuminator is not working. On the Nikons that I have, it only works on AF-S (single servo).
Hi, enjoyed your vid. I have this lens and use on a D90. I have had some issues with it not doing an auto focus in some low light situations. I will do some research to determine what I'm doing wrong but thought you may know right off hand. Thanks
@hurcell1 Depending on how low the light is, the camera may "hunt" for focus. Some camera models will do this more than others. If you have other lenses that don't exhibit the problem in the same lighting then there may be an issue.
i recently had the opportunity to rent this lens and i LOVED IT!!!...man is it fast...plus the fact that its a constant f 2.8.....my other lens is the 18=200 vr.......in your opinion what is the DISADVANTAGE to a VR lens????
@aarmington I can't think of too many disadvantages to VR lenses. VR will consume some of the camera's battery life, but VR can be disabled if that is a concern.
Hi there ma'lady, will u pleez be kind enough to compare this lens with the 24-70mm f2.8. Also pleez share if this lens is corrected for full frame use or not? Also which one has better n faster autofocusing to photograph moving subjects, let's say as in sports photography? Which one will u recommend for sports photography out of these two lenses. I don't need a more powerful zoom than either of these two as I'm photographing my athletes in action from a very close distance, thanx for ur time...
@zeyshaan Although I don't have the 24-70 f2.8, I'll say this - 17-55 is great for an DX camera, like the D300s and 24-70 is great for FX cameras, like the D700/D3 series. Either would work fine for sports. On a DX camera, the 24-70 would get you a little bit closer on the long end of the zoom.
Hi Leigh, did you ever get a chance to compare it against a 18-105 ? I would be interested if there is a noticeable difference in optical performance (on a cropped sensor).
@guybrainstorm01 I am borrowing a Canon Powershot G10 and sx10 ( previous version Canon Powershot sx20is). The controls seem easier to use, and it takes great close up and far away pictures with built in fix lens.
I love my Nikon D3000 too, and it has advantages too. Interchangeable lens. Allot of tutorials on the Internet for Nikon beginners. Takes great pictures and not hard to figure it out how to use the controls.
Comment removed
shutterpillow 1 month ago
I've been accustomed to using my 35mm f1.8. How would you say the 17-55 handles with bokeh?
awadatashii 1 month ago
@awadatashii It always looks pretty good to me - the further the background is from the subject, as with most lenses, the better it looks.
TheSnapChick 1 month ago
nice intro!
TheKarimSupreme 1 month ago
Nice review, but I didn't really understand why you would point out the shortcomings of the lens when attached to a full-frame (FX) body, given that the lens is designed specifically for DX bodies and will vignette heavily on FX cameras. Were you doing so to illustrate some problems you might run into if using a body like a D300 or D7000 with an added grip? Even so, wouldn't those cameras still be somewhat smaller than something like a D2x?
anaemik 1 month ago
@anaemik My D2x is a DX body and many folks use grips - both scenarios are a bit annoying with this lens. Regular cameras with added grip will often be a bit taller than the D2x. FX cameras will automatically crop their sensor area with this lens, but that can be overridden, as many DX lenses will produce a full image circle. I'm not suggesting people do that, but it's an option.
TheSnapChick 1 month ago
@TheSnapChick Oh, sorry - I thought the D2X was an FX body! I'm an idiot :) Thanks for the quick clarification, and thanks again for the review :)
anaemik 1 month ago
@anaemik I pray every night that I will wake up in the morning and the D2x will be FX with good high ISO performance ;)
TheSnapChick 1 month ago 2
@TheSnapChick lol, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you! I'm definitely thinking long and hard about this lens, and I'm mainly curious about its sharpness. The sharpest lens I currently own would probably be the 50mm AF-D f1.8. I don't suppose you'd have a similar prime that you would be able to compare it to from a sharpness perspective?
anaemik 1 month ago
@anaemik It's not quite as sharp as a prime, but it's darn close throughout the entire zoom range. I shoot it quite often at aperture priority f4. That's a good setting for this lens as it is still good in low light at f4 and is approaching the sweet spot in sharpness for this lens.
TheSnapChick 1 month ago
@TheSnapChick Oh, that's very encouraging! I didn't expect it to be quite as sharp as a prime, but anything close is definitely making this look more tempting by the minute. Thanks again for all your swift responses - really appreciated :)
anaemik 1 month ago
@TheSnapChick Snap, I'd buy that D4, i know you said you were happy with your D2x but she's ancient :( I'm glad you're happy, that's all that matters really. However, some new camera gear is always good!
sunlite585 1 month ago
@TheSnapChick There's going to be a loss of quality though, for example the 12mp D700 drops down to less than half i think, because of the reduced usage of the sensor
sunlite585 1 month ago
Comment removed
HondaCrDrummer 1 month ago
Comment removed
daskeg 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrPacMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I need this lens to go with my 70-200 2.8
WakeUpDummies 2 months ago
Would this be a landscape lens also?
pjos111 2 months ago
@pjos111 Some people like to go a bit wider for landscapes, like 12-24, but for me, the 17-55 suits me fine for landscapes :)
TheSnapChick 2 months ago
In the video: the zoom ring is closest to the camera body not the focus ring. you say it twice, is confusing.
Great review. Thank you!
cata747 2 months ago
Comment removed
daskeg 1 month ago
i need to ask how can i take auto pics with my friends like if i need to the a pic but with out pressing it just i wanna it buy it self
! can u help me plz
janinedoha 2 months ago
@janinedoha It sounds like you are talking about the self timer
TheSnapChick 2 months ago
I probably go 4 the 14-24 2.8, nice bokeh (think it's got 9blades), and 4 the middle range if got feets to zoom whit my nifty fifty (1.8g) ;-) on the upper end if got my 70-200 2.8 (sigma). So i can go FX as soon as I want whitout waisting monay on glass i've probably not had to.
in2coming 3 months ago
Wath about the bokeh? heard it's not so creamy, and if i'll speend so muche money, i'll probably spend a view bugs more and get a 24-70 2.8 ... ?
in2coming 3 months ago
@in2coming For me, I would not like 24 as the widest angle on a DX camera. The bokeh on the 17-55 looks fine to me. If it's something you are unsure about, head to a shop and try one out. :)
TheSnapChick 3 months ago
@TheSnapChick Actually that lens would like 36mm on dx cameras because of the 1.5x crop. Even more useless as a wide angle :P
sunlite585 2 months ago
@sunlite585 17mm x 1.5 = 25.5mm. This is the 17-55 f2.8, not the 24-70 f2.8.
anaemik 1 month ago
@anaemik I was referring to the 24-70 that Snapchick was talking about. But yes, i'm not that bad at simple math, you're right :P
sunlite585 1 month ago
@sunlite585 Oops, sorry! I read you out of context. Didn't follow the whole thread of comments before yours. You'll have to forgive me - it's 5am over here and it's been a long night!
anaemik 1 month ago
@anaemik No problem! Youtube has too many flamers for me to join in, I'll just be a knowledge pit instead :) ps GO to beddd
sunlite585 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSnapChick Actually that lens would like 36mm on dx cameras because of the 1.5x crop. Even more useless as a wide angle :P
sunlite585 2 months ago
I would like to see some pics made by this lens
Superketo 3 months ago
@Superketo Most of the pics on my site are with this lens, but if there is any type in particular you would like to see, I'd be happy to email you some :)
TheSnapChick 3 months ago
@TheSnapChick there are a lot of pics on your site but I cant find made by this Lens can you mail them please' I've sent you my email on private :)
Thankyou again
Superketo 3 months ago
u r cute
apacer150 3 months ago
@apacer150 :)
TheSnapChick 3 months ago
HELPPPP!!!!!. which one to buy? used nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or brand new sigma 17-50? it's about the same price but really not sure which one to buy. thanks!
abybryan 3 months ago
@abybryan Sigma is OK. The Nikon is built like a tank.
TheSnapChick 3 months ago
Thanks for the video, sounds like you have a lot of confidence in this lens. I'm thinking about buying one soon for my D7000, my primary usages would be for scenery, landscape, and general "walk around".
RoadNasty 4 months ago
Hm, i kind of would have liked some example pictures to see how sharp your model is. But other than that: Wonderful review and you are an absolutely gorgeous "chick". So kudos for the review and hope your pics are as good as your reviews :P!
Metalshad0 4 months ago
@Metalshad0 Pics coming this week of Nicole on my site were done with this lens. Very easy to get sharp shots with this lens.
TheSnapChick 4 months ago
I wanted to buy this lens but couldn't afford it so I bought a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and i'm very happy with it... Maybe someday i'll get this lens too!
shintotz 5 months ago
would you recommend this or the 24-70?
cmgoskate 5 months ago
@cmgoskate Personally, I like the 17-55 f2.8 better for DX. I like having the wider angles available.
TheSnapChick 5 months ago
id Snap the snatch loledzeh
Mat397 5 months ago
I'm on a d7000 and i would get the 24-70 over this one a 100 times: yeah, i'm loosing a little bit of the wide end, but i have nano crystal coating and it being an fx lens it just sounds to me an overall better lens and more important i can still use it whenever i decide to drop a zero in my camera's name
TheMiszerak 5 months ago
@TheMiszerak It's all a matter of what you like to shoot. I use the wide end on this lens quite a bit, so it serves my needs well.
TheSnapChick 5 months ago
I'll be shooting at New York Comic Con next month and I'm stuck between renting out this lens vs. the 24-70 f/2.8. I'm on a D300, but I have a little concern for light fall-off on the corners. 90% of the photographers I've talked to said it's best to use the FX lenses on DX bodies to avoid the problem. I know I'll be losing out on the wide end--- but what's a couple of steps back, you know?
What's your take on it, and have you personally had any issue with light fall-off on the 17-55?
sonikku10 5 months ago
@sonikku10 I've run into no issues in practical use (or impractical use) with this lens. Talk is cheap... rent for the range you will think you need and have a great time!
TheSnapChick 5 months ago
i just got the 24-70 today...SO SO SO AMAZING !!!
khoaanhbui 5 months ago
@khoaanhbui Cool!
TheSnapChick 5 months ago
Does the lens hood move when you zoom it or does it stay stationary like on the Nikon 24-70?
h4xxx0Rz 5 months ago
@h4xxx0Rz Stationary
TheSnapChick 5 months ago
hi, i thinking to get this len for my D90 ? are they go well together ? thanks
khoaanhbui 6 months ago
@khoaanhbui They're a great match :)
TheSnapChick 6 months ago
@khoaanhbui I just got one for my D90. All I can say is I wish I saved up for this lens a LONG TIME AGO!!!
finalclutch 5 months ago
Question about HOODS, can you use any size hood on a lens?.
RobertVelascoA 7 months ago
@RobertVelascoA Generally speaking, you should use the hood that is matched to the particular lens. The hood must be out of the field of view of a zoom lens at the widest angle.
TheSnapChick 7 months ago
In your estimation is it worth the extra cost to buy the Nikon 17-55 mm 2.8 lens with VR?
corelmanjim 7 months ago
@corelmanjim As far as I know, this lens is not available with VR.
TheSnapChick 7 months ago
snapchick hello just one question how to you fill about the nikon d7000 that will be my next camera
photoopd1 7 months ago
@photoopd1 If the D7000 had been released before the D300s, I might own a D7000 today. It's a very capable camera.
TheSnapChick 7 months ago
@ny1fanta D2x is DX.
TheSnapChick 8 months ago
Wait you are putting a dx lens on a fx body? Doesn't it have black edges?
ny1fanta 8 months ago
@ny1fanta That is not an FX body.
TheSnapChick 8 months ago
@TheSnapChick I meant the D2x
ny1fanta 8 months ago
@ny1fanta The D2X is a DX format camera
zealand21 8 months ago
@ny1fanta
ny1fanta 8 months ago
tu eres la que sale en pinnacle?
leitopapito 8 months ago
If u r in UK, we could have a meet up and some class sessions what do u say ? [:_:]
88a 9 months ago
How would yo compare the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 vs the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50 2.8?
Thanks!
lepermessiah01 9 months ago
@lepermessiah01 I love the Nikon, but I have not used the Tamron.
TheSnapChick 9 months ago
@lepermessiah01 I just bought the tamaron 17-50. I shot an event with it & ~60% of my shots were out of focus. AF-Assist with SB-900 in low light made me lol as to how poorly the lens focused. On top of that the quality of the shot did not impress me nor my client. Returned the tamaron in exchange for the nikon.
didierlassus 8 months ago
Is the D2x a DX or FX body? And if its a FX body, how does it work with a DX lens? Thank you!
lepermessiah01 9 months ago
@lepermessiah01 DX body :)
TheSnapChick 9 months ago
i love the new Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 SP VC with Canon EOS 7D :-)
NordReportage 10 months ago
Great review! I was looking for a good lens for an upcoming wedding and I think I found it now! I'm new to photography but learning more every day! I was surprised to learn from this video that a constant aperture is possible, that's awesome! Are you you on Facebook?
Also I was wondering, what do you use to clean your lens? I bought lint free clothes and a liquid from my local photo store but the liquid seems to leave a residue on the lens. Doesn't affect the picture but it's visible on glass.
markmattix 10 months ago
@markmattix This is definitely a lens for weddings. It's good in low/natural light and has versatile range for a photojournalistic style. I do have a Facebook page - just search Facebook for 'SnapChick'
I use clear filters on most/all of my lenses, so I'm pretty sloppy about cleaning them. Sometimes a little bit of lens solution, and when they're really gunked up, I use methanol (Eclipse) solution and pec pads. Generally speaking, I like to clean the filters and keep the lens element untouched.
TheSnapChick 10 months ago
Nice Basic Explanation. Im puzzled however. If someone buys this lens, and spends the money on it they should ( in essence ) know what it is and to an extent what it can do. With respect, if you have to explain things such as the manual/auto manual switch ,anyone watching this and doesnt fully understand that then they would possibly be better using a disposable camera. I do understand your explaining the astethics as well. You are though, an Excellent example of self marketing. ( as many are)
voiceinyourdream 10 months ago
@voiceinyourdream I can't speak for my audience, but I think a lot of people like to see the operations of something that they might buy. With online buying becoming a primary form of camera/lens purchases, videos are the next best thing to picking up and handling a lens in a camera shop.
TheSnapChick 10 months ago
18-55 VR kit lens is almost as good, and only will cost you about 150 bucks second hand
ranagill 10 months ago
@ranagill Depending on the aperture needed, it can be "almost as good" or "world of difference."
TheSnapChick 10 months ago
would have been nice with some test photos :/
SebastianBergenwall 10 months ago
@SebastianBergenwall Hi! Most of the recent shots on my site (Including the "Hepburn" shots) were with this lens.
TheSnapChick 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi , my name wissam , i am not professional photographer but i like photograph and i bought my nikon D90 and i have the following lenses , please can you give me your opinion about this lenses, thanks
1-AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
2-AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
3-AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
4-AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED
planing for AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
& AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED
mewissam 11 months ago
Hi , my name wissam , i am not professional photographer but i like photograph and i bought my nikon D90 and i have the following lenses , please can you give me your opinion about this lenses, thanks
1-AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
2-AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
3-AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
4-AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED
planing for AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
& AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED
mewissam 11 months ago
the 3rd disadvantage is that if you use it on a FX-body... it's more worse than the af-s 24-70mm 2.8 (e.g.)...
StationZeroOne 11 months ago
hey does it make a difrence on the pic quality if its vr or not and u havent reply my other comments
inwoodboy1 11 months ago
hey so this lense is not vr correct
inwoodboy1 11 months ago
@inwoodboy1 Correct. Not VR.
TheSnapChick 11 months ago
snapchick is this lens dust and water proof? kind of like the canon L-spec lenses
rkorczeniewski 11 months ago
@rkorczeniewski It holds up fairly well in harsh conditions, but with this lens and L-lenses, you want to keep them from getting soaked.
TheSnapChick 11 months ago
hey snapchick, do you like the d2x better than th d300s? does it take better shots?
pottymaster98 1 year ago
@pottymaster98 They are very different cameras, both extremely capable. The D2x cannot hold a candle to more recent models for high ISO photography. The D2x shows high noise at and above ISO 400, with the highest official ISO available being ISO 800. The D300s has significantly better high ISO performance. Both are great for daylight and studio photography. The D300s has a clear advantage in low light.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
i rather have this than the 24-70...
theiPhone4Videos 1 year ago
@theiPhone4Videos Unless you are on a full frame camera
jmstew0319 11 months ago
@player1CR tamron isn't a plastic toy as you say coz there's a part in metal and a part is plaStic, but it's not of bad quality. It's probably true that the lens without VC is better, but the nikkor lens is like the tamron lens in quality and if I have to choose a lens I'll choose the most economic between these lenses especially when it is like the nikon lens!!!!
Giannibike 1 year ago
@Giannibike I had the same opinion 3 years ago. That's ok. When it comes to prize/performance, the Tamron is winner. No doubt about it. But in my Tamron there are after 3 years of shooting many dust dots, which is not ..lets say..nice:/ I also bought a new camera, D7000, so now I'm deciding which better build objectiv to choose. My final choice is the new Nikkor 16-35/4, which is optically better than 17-55/2,8 and cost less money. And it has VR, which somtetimes comes handy.
player1CR 1 year ago
@player1CR probably you're right
Giannibike 1 year ago
Comment removed
Giannibike 1 year ago
All of snapchicks videos have nothing to do with cameras it's just about making guys hard keep them coming snapchick!!!
nikonguy102 1 year ago
@nikonguy102 I knew there was a reason you keep watching ;)
TheSnapChick 1 year ago 5
@nikonguy102 You got hard?! Im guessing you have never really been with a girl then?
jmstew0319 11 months ago
i have the tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and i tryied also the nikon version and i can confirm that tamron is much much better than nikon version. The price, the Vibration Compensation, the XR makes the tamron better than nikon. 350-400 euros against 1200 euros of the nikon: I bought the tamron lens in europe. your opinion?
Giannibike 1 year ago
@Giannibike Hi! I don't really get into "better," etc... use what works for you. The reasons why I typically opt for Nikon are the image quality and build quality of their lenses and the excellent support I have received from Nikon. In the comparison you describe, I have not used the Tamron 17-50, so I cannot compare from my own experience. Although a friend had a negative experience with her 3rd party 18-200, I do not interpret that to be representative of all 3rd party lenses.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick yes you're right to opt for nikon, but nikon should make the prices of their lenses more affordable. however my flickr account is this: 'flickr'com photos giannicard
Giannibike 1 year ago
@Giannibike Tamron is like a plastic toy. Optically the old Tamron version is better than a new VC version and my 3 years old version of the Tamron is not unambiguously better then this Nikkor, so how you can say that the new Tamron VC, which is worse than its none VC version, is "much much better" tahn this Nikkro? It's much cheaper, yes. But optically definitely not and the build quality of Tamron is like a toy, like I said before.
player1CR 1 year ago
Stupid video this loser knows nothing about nikon
nikonguy102 1 year ago
@nikonguy102 Hi! Welcome back! :)
TheSnapChick 1 year ago 5
Hey I know this is a noobish question but i have a new 17-55mm and i was wondering if i attached the hood wrongly as in the hb-31 marking on the hood is facing downwards instead of upwards will it damage my hood?
9unslinger 1 year ago
@9unslinger You can use it with the marking up or the marking down with no issues. You can disconnect and re-orient the hood at any time by pushing the button on the hood and twisting it off - it should twist off easily, with virtually no effort.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
tell me the truth,,which is the best for a DX camera 17-55 or 24-70??
chixfm 1 year ago
@chixfm Truth? There's no truth... only opinions :) For DX, I'd pick the 17-55 every time :)
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
hi snap chick,happy new year! which camera do you use more of ten, the d300s or d2x?
i have the d300 and d2xs with 17-55m lens and 80-200 f2.8lens. i tryed the same settings for both cameras but often get differant results from both cameras. what setting do you have for the d2x?
viperman73 1 year ago
@viperman73 When you say "different results," do you mean color and contrast? The D300 does have a downloadable "D2x mode" which will get the cameras to match output.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hi thesnapchick - how do you cover the gap in focal length between this lens and the 70-200 f2.8 which is effectively 105mm on the shortest end for dx cameras. Theres a whole range of 55-105 that doesnt seems to be covered for dx cameras without having to buy the 24-70 which overlaps with the 17-55.
chino1127 1 year ago
@chino1127 It doesn't bother me. I just spent the last few days doing casual photos of all different subjects with just my 50mm. Normally, it seems I'm shooting between about 20mm - 40mm or 125-175mm on DX
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Great video. I have a question. I'm looking to step up to a pro lens I am debating on this lens and the 24-70 2.8. I can get the 17-55 for around $800-$900. The other is $1400 and up. Since I am using a dx camera and this is a dx lens does it still have the 1.6 distance to it? Would it be like having a 24-70? I know if it I get the 24-70 it's like have a 35-105 lens on a dx body. In your opinion how does it rate to the 24-70 2.8?
Thanks
echopark78 1 year ago
@echopark78 Hi! The 17-55 would behave about like a 24-70 typically would on 35mm/FX. I have not used the 24-70 2.8, so I cannot compare directly. What I do know is that I use the 17-55 at 17mm A LOT. So for me, I would not want a mid-range zoom that only started at 24mm on my DX cameras. I pretty much buy for the bodies I have now, so for a DX camera, I would buy the best lens for my purpose on the DX camera.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hi SnapChick, Big fan here!
I guess that many people had ask this several times buuuut....
Im thinking of buying this lens but in the near future after I upgrade my camera from a D60 to a D7000. However, my type of photography is pretty much portrait and all around photography. I found this aperture and focal length ideal for what I usually do. Should I go for it or there is another lens that you could recommend? Thanks for reading!
deadkrusty6 1 year ago
@deadkrusty6 I am a BIG fan of the 17-55. Some people avoid it because they may go for an FX sensor in the future, but I'm more oriented toward using the best gear for the camera bodies that I have today. It's a great lens. Franky, with the 17-55 and the 70-200, there isn't much else you would need to "get the shot." I do love the 18-200 and the 35mm f1.8, but the flexibility of the 17-55 combined with the f2.8 throughout the zoom range make it a real winner.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick one big question mate,does this lens and the nikon d7000 have weather sealing,cos i cant make up my mind between the nikon d700 and the nikon d7000 one being dx and the other fx i need diff lenses,i live in a rainy place so weather sealing on my gear is a must really,so now from 1 question i now came to 2 question so just to sum everything up QUESTION NR 1 DOES THIS LENS AND THE NIKON D7000 HAVE WEATHER SEALING
Question nr 2WHAT DO I GET IF I BUY A FX FORMAT BODY INSTEAD OF A DX?
NAGULNR2 1 year ago
@NAGULNR2 The D7000, the bigger brother of the D90, is not sealed as well as the D700. The 17-55 is well sealed for a zoom, but water can harm any lens. Sports photographers, etc... use plastic bags for their gear when the weather gets wet. FX format will give you better high ISO performance and wider angles on the same lenses.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick thank u soo much for everything,subscribed and i do love your vids but just one more question,if it were your choise which camera would u get nikon d7000 or the nikon d700
NAGULNR2 1 year ago
@NAGULNR2 Personally, I would get the D7000 if given the choice between those two. Part of the reason is that I have many DX lenses which are better suited for the D7000 than the D700.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hello I a TV & Film Producer, Director & Photographer. I bought the 17-55 and a 35mm f1.8 & the 50mm f1.8 lenses a few years ago with the S3Pro body and I'm in love with it. I have pro HD video cameras too but want to jump in DSLR HD video shooting to get more shallow depth of field. Do you have the new Nikon D7000 to test with the 17-55 f2.8 and your 35 or 50mm F1.8 lenses in both photos and video at 1080P 24fps ?
AEDigitalProduction 1 year ago
@AEDigitalProduction No D7000 for me :(
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick just want to know is 17-55mm a good lens for d7000 ??? pls replay :)
magvek 1 year ago
@magvek It should be! Note that I have not used a D7000, but the 17-55 is great on any of the bodies that I have used it on - D60, D70, D80, D90, D2x, D300s... I would bet it is stellar on the D7000!
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick mmm.... i just want to have it , but one of my friends tell me it might not be grabby in the hand with the d7000 .... so u recommend me to have it on d7000 ??!!!
magvek 1 year ago
I've heard a lot of pros using this, but what's the difference between this lens and the beginner, 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6 VR? Does the constant aperture really make that much of a difference?
iSpinify 1 year ago
@iSpinify In low light where you want to preserve a natural look, the f2.8 of the 17-55 can make the difference between having a shot and not having the shot. 90% of the time, I don't need the wider constant aperture. The 10% where I do need it is where it pays off :)
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
The D3 body she is using in this review has low enough noise at higher ISO levels and can so safely compensate for the slower 18-55mm lens without a problem.
Honestly, this lens costs a bomb, weighs a tonne and is so over-rated.
Norv08 1 year ago
@Norv08 Yeah, you can almost get a 24-70 f2.8 with same price...and that fits to D3 and produces very sharp pics...IMO this lens too expensive, under 1000$ would be good price...
FinlandApollo 1 year ago
hot
chunkysister666 1 year ago
thanks for the good review!
i take photos outdoors alot, and i've heard the size and the weight of this lens can be a problem.. what do you think?
sl1cktofu 1 year ago
@sl1cktofu It depends what you are used to. Going from something like the 18-55 or 18-70, it is going to feel a lot heaver. But, the advantages of image quality and f2.8 throughout the zoom range are worth it to me. When I pack light, I take the 35mm f1.8
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
I need to get this lens....am just in luv with it...thank you so much for your responses to my questions, I want to create a photo studio at home, do you know where can I get some basic equipments online? and which basic equipments would I need to create a home photo studio? thanks again!
studiomirs 1 year ago
@studiomirs Search online for "Alien Bees." They have great, inexpensive packages to get started with. I had thought that I would "use up" my Alien Bees and move on to more expensive lighting. After YEARS, they are going strong after hundreds of shoots and plenty of time on the road. eBay can be a good source of inexpensive backdrops.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hmmm, that's certainly a thought. I don't have too many customizations so I may do that. However, I have to make clear that this is occurring only in situations of very low light. I know your D300 is stepped up from my D90 but have you ever tried to use the AF on your 17-55 in a nearly dark room with the "manual mode" setting on your camera? If you find time, will you try it and let me know what happens? Thanks
hurcell1 1 year ago
@hurcell1 I was thinking the reset might get the AF Illuminator working in more than just Auto.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Thank you for the review. There is no question that the 17-55 is an outstanding lens. Do you see much difference in color/contrast between the files you get with the 17-55 and the 18-200? What are differences that you see (if any) in your pictures taken with these two lenses?
socalrun81 1 year ago
Thank you for the review. There is no question that the 17-55 is an outstanding lens. Do you see much difference in color/contrast between the files you get with the 17-55 and the 18-200? What are differences that you see (if any) in your pictures taken with these two lenses?
socalrun81 1 year ago
@socalrun81 Both are very capable. If I wanted to be super-picky, I'd say that the 18-200 can be prone to color fringing in high-contrast, bright outdoor conditions. Both are capable of terrific images. I own and use both frequently. I purchased the 17-55 specifically for its durability and f2.8 throughout the zoom range.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
No, I had it set on AF-A. However I tried AF-S and AF-C but to no avail. I'll keep working on it to see if I'm creating this challenge (user error) lol. Please share any other ideas you may come up with. Thanks
hurcell1 1 year ago
@hurcell1 It may be painful to consider if you've customized many options, but you could do a factory reset on the camera to make sure that one of your other settings is not taking priority... though few come to mind.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Thanks for the reply and idea. I tried a 105 2.8 and duplicated the same available light and got the same thing. The AF assist illuminator would not come on in any mode setting other that Auto. When I used auto, the illuminator was actived. The flash popped up and it took an acceptable photo in the low light area. This is a D90. Not sure of how this works with other models.
hurcell1 1 year ago
@hurcell1 Is your autofocus mode set at AF-C (continuous servo)? This may be why the illuminator is not working. On the Nikons that I have, it only works on AF-S (single servo).
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hi, enjoyed your vid. I have this lens and use on a D90. I have had some issues with it not doing an auto focus in some low light situations. I will do some research to determine what I'm doing wrong but thought you may know right off hand. Thanks
hurcell1 1 year ago
@hurcell1 Depending on how low the light is, the camera may "hunt" for focus. Some camera models will do this more than others. If you have other lenses that don't exhibit the problem in the same lighting then there may be an issue.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
I havent seen this kind of lens before,its very interesting.
laurence521 1 year ago
@laurence521 It's one of the best!
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
i recently had the opportunity to rent this lens and i LOVED IT!!!...man is it fast...plus the fact that its a constant f 2.8.....my other lens is the 18=200 vr.......in your opinion what is the DISADVANTAGE to a VR lens????
aarmington 1 year ago
@aarmington I can't think of too many disadvantages to VR lenses. VR will consume some of the camera's battery life, but VR can be disabled if that is a concern.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Comment removed
erikb1129 1 year ago
What a loser
nikonguy102 1 year ago
Lenses that are so-called heavy for people, wake up people!! They have GLASS inside and NOT plastic.
I live by the saying : QUALITY DOESN'T COME CHEAP! So those who are whining about the price, go buy a Canon with Sigma lenses only............
HARMONICA777 1 year ago
Hi there ma'lady, will u pleez be kind enough to compare this lens with the 24-70mm f2.8. Also pleez share if this lens is corrected for full frame use or not? Also which one has better n faster autofocusing to photograph moving subjects, let's say as in sports photography? Which one will u recommend for sports photography out of these two lenses. I don't need a more powerful zoom than either of these two as I'm photographing my athletes in action from a very close distance, thanx for ur time...
zeyshaan 1 year ago
@zeyshaan Although I don't have the 24-70 f2.8, I'll say this - 17-55 is great for an DX camera, like the D300s and 24-70 is great for FX cameras, like the D700/D3 series. Either would work fine for sports. On a DX camera, the 24-70 would get you a little bit closer on the long end of the zoom.
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hi Leigh, did you ever get a chance to compare it against a 18-105 ? I would be interested if there is a noticeable difference in optical performance (on a cropped sensor).
geckocraze 1 year ago
@geckocraze Sorry, no 18-105 on my shelf to make a comparison :(
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick Thank you for taking the time to answer.
geckocraze 1 year ago
@TheSnapChick I'm willing to trade my 18-105 for your 17-55 so you can compare it :-)
asafkkk 1 year ago
I love this kit! It will be next mine!
cnbergamo 1 year ago
@cnbergamo Awesome :)
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
Hi leigh. How about review on Canon camera if you use one. Both are equally good.
chow
guybrainstorm01 1 year ago
@guybrainstorm01 I sold my last canon a couple of months ago. I'd love to hear your opinions, though!
TheSnapChick 1 year ago
@guybrainstorm01 I am borrowing a Canon Powershot G10 and sx10 ( previous version Canon Powershot sx20is). The controls seem easier to use, and it takes great close up and far away pictures with built in fix lens.
I love my Nikon D3000 too, and it has advantages too. Interchangeable lens. Allot of tutorials on the Internet for Nikon beginners. Takes great pictures and not hard to figure it out how to use the controls.
guybrainstorm01 1 year ago
very nice!!
jordimikado