Nikon 17-55 f2.8 price... Is it a good price?

kardo

kardo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
441
Name
Kardo Ayoub
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there,
I have just been offered a mint 17-55 f2.8 Nikon lens, complete, with 6 months guarantee for £700. I know it is an amazing lens but is it really worth it? or can I get it cheaper?
I have to let them know ASAP so please a quick reply would be great.
Many Thanks
 
You are missing a bit of crucial info - we can't say if you can get it any cheaper if you don't tell us your price :)
 
Would help if we knew how much they were asking.
 
Doesn't seem an amazing bargain to me. Play are / were doing them new for £799.
 
Todays prices is an average price

you maybe able tog et it cheaper looking around though
 
kardo said:
I'm so sorry it's £700
Thanks
Click to expand...

yep high end of a fair price - not amazing bu tnot ripping you of either. Depends alot on condition and if you look round you'll be able to get cheaper

H
 
Also bear in mind you could get these brand new for £539 about a year ago...

IMHO thats about all the lens is "worth" given how goos the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is for half that...
 
puddleduck said:
Also bear in mind you could get these brand new for £539 about a year ago...

IMHO thats about all the lens is "worth" given how goos the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is for half that...
Click to expand...

Well I have the dilema of choosing between that or the 16-85mm but if I pay £450 for a 16-85 I might as well spend a bit more and get a pro lens. unless you guys know where I can get the 16-85 cheeper.
 
Different lenses - you either need the constant f/2.8 or you don't.

I prefer the 16-85 VR personally...

Don't buy a "Pro" lens unless you need one.. don't be sucked in by labels :)

PS: A lot of "Pros" don't use Pro lenses :)
 
The 16-85 has a better range, but without constant f2.8.

A pro lens does not automatically take professional photographs.
 
puddleduck said:
Different lenses - you either need the constant f/2.8 or you don't.

I prefer the 16-85 VR personally...

Don't buy a "Pro" lens unless you need one.. don't be sucked in by labels :)

PS: A lot of "Pros" don't use Pro lenses :)
Click to expand...

I would rather have the reach of 16-85 as well but I think the £450 price tag on it is a bit high for a slow lens like that. personally I dont need the f2.8 I have my 50mm 1.8 tohelp me in low light situations and I mainly shoot out door street stuff.
I know you have a lot of knowledge about lenses so if you recommend any other alternative please advice me.
Many thanks
 
I agree about the high price tag on the 16-85 VR, £350 is about right for it.

If I shot weddings Professionally, I'd get a 17-55 f/2.8 DX
If I shot travel photography, I'd get a 16-85 VR

Its hard to recommend an alternative, as I don't know what you want to shoot!

Being candid, as you are asking these questions, I'm inclined to suggest you definitely do not need a 17-55 f/2.8 DX...
 
I'm after one of these myself (17-55). I missed one on another forum that had just been sold for £450.
 
puddleduck said:
I agree about the high price tag on the 16-85 VR, £350 is about right for it.

If I shot weddings Professionally, I'd get a 17-55 f/2.8 DX
If I shot travel photography, I'd get a 16-85 VR

Its hard to recommend an alternative, as I don't know what you want to shoot!

Being candid, as you are asking these questions, I'm inclined to suggest you definitely do not need a 17-55 f/2.8 DX...
Click to expand...

Well I mainly shoot street and abit of landscape, I know none of them are wide enough for landscape but I'm affraid I can only buy one at the moment,I also shoot the casual family and friends stuff.
 
16-85 VR is a better lens for landscape.

In fact for landscape, the 17-55 f/2.8 is just about the last lens I'd recommend. (I'd recommend a 18-55 kit lens over it for that application, less field curvature)
 
Why do you say they aren't wide enough for landscapes? I use a sigma 24-60mm often and occasionally my nifty fifty for landscapes. If they aren't wide enough I stich a few together, doddle.

Andy
 
puddleduck said:
16-85 VR is a better lens for landscape.

In fact for landscape, the 17-55 f/2.8 is just about the last lens I'd recommend. (I'd recommend a 18-55 kit lens over it for that application, less field curvature)
Click to expand...

Well I think I should wait till I find a cheap 16-85mm. I think it will be more usefull. I just need to keep looking.
 
I know Puddleduck, great lens a that price! I would still think about £525 is an ok price......
 
Andysnap said:
Why do you say they aren't wide enough for landscapes? I use a sigma 24-60mm often and occasionally my nifty fifty for landscapes. If they aren't wide enough I stich a few together, doddle.

Andy
Click to expand...

Well I dont know most poeple use 12-24 or similar for landscapes.
up till now I have been using my 50mm as well.
 
Kardo a quick scan of ebay shows completed sales at about £600 with the odd buy it now of £525....
 
kardo said:
Well I dont know most poeple use 12-24 or similar for landscapes.
up till now I have been using my 50mm as well.
Click to expand...

I have got a 12-24mm and I do use it for landscapes but don't limit yourself I even use a 70-300mm sometimes.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top