Short DX lens for fast action (motorsport) - 17-55 2.8?

B

bildo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
606
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening chaps,
I had been considering FF, but for the moment decided to stick with crop.

I am frequently shooting at a motorsports track at the moment, it has a hairpin which can make for some really good close up shots.

I have a 35mm prime, but it's a bit too close, my 16-85 is perfect but I feel like something a little sharper could be had.

Nikon's 17-55mm 2.8 seems perfect as I could then use it as a camera for walking about the pit area too without having to change lenses. Would this be a good lens for quick focusing on motorsport though? Or is there better out there for the job?

Alternatives will be considered if anyone has any better ideas?
 
The 17-55 will be perfect for paddock / pits but maybe a tad short for the hairpin unless you can get in close. It's still what I'd choose anyway as it's so flexible and it focusses so fast

Nick Froome
 
theres a tamron 17-50 f2.8 thats good too, I have a sony 16-50 2.8, its a really solid workhorse.
and theres sigma's new 18-35 1.8
 
My understanding is that the Tamron is a cheaper alternative to the Nikon and that the AF is quite a bit slower? I'd rather spend a bit more and get exactly what I need if that is the case.

Have seen Sigma's 18-35 1.8 but my issue there is that I'd really like the extra reach for now. Definitely going to keep my eye on that lens though, as it may well be worth a purchase in the future. I'd rather see if it has any niggles rather than be the guinea pig though!
 
i have both the Tamron 17-50 AND the Nikkor 17-55 & for anything moving you definitely want the 17-55. the focus is amazingly fast in comparison & the lens produces really nice images.
for some reason my 17-55 wasn't great on my D2Xs but has been outstanding on every other body i've tried it on including the mrs D90.
yes its a bit expensive new but its a bargain second hand compared to the 24-70 & some of the other fast zooms :thumbs:
 
Tirpitz said:
i have both the Tamron 17-50 AND the Nikkor 17-55 & for anything moving you definitely want the 17-55. the focus is amazingly fast in comparison & the lens produces really nice images.
for some reason my 17-55 wasn't great on my D2Xs but has been outstanding on every other body i've tried it on including the mrs D90.
yes its a bit expensive new but its a bargain second hand compared to the 24-70 & some of the other fast zooms :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, pretty much what I wanted to hear.

Did get that impression from the Tamron/Nikkor comparison, sounds like the 17-55 is the winner then.

I'll be using it on my D7000 so hopefully it produces nice shots on that!

As for the price, definitely seems to be a much better deal for the second hand rather than brand new. 24-70 would be a really useful range on FF for me, but not so much so on crop.

Thanks for the advice :)
 
Tirpitz said:
i have both the Tamron 17-50 AND the Nikkor 17-55 & for anything moving you definitely want the 17-55. the focus is amazingly fast in comparison & the lens produces really nice images.
Click to expand...

+1 - the Tamron is a fine optic, and for a budget f/2.8 it really does deliver in spades, but the focusing definitely isn't as fast as the Nikon lens. In conjunction with a higher end APS-C body, the focus is accurate and rapid with the Nikon.
 
Hi,

I have the Nikon D7000 and my Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is my favourite lens ever.
I friend has recently bought one too having tried mine.
Fast AF and sharp images.
Any downsides? I would say the cost and weight.

Riz :)
 
Foolishly i bought my 17-55 brand new around 6 weeks before i went full frame & subsequently its now pretty much redundant :bang:
i would have sold it ages ago but the awful low price they go for used has seen me keep hold of it rather than taking a major hit money wise. :bang:
its unfortunate as the lack of use its had versus money spent makes it my worst lens value wise which is a real shame considering how good it is.:thinking::shrug:

prob not taken more than 400 shots with it :cuckoo::shake:
 
bildo said:
My understanding is that the Tamron is a cheaper alternative to the Nikon and that the AF is quite a bit slower? I'd rather spend a bit more and get exactly what I need if that is the case.

Have seen Sigma's 18-35 1.8 but my issue there is that I'd really like the extra reach for now. Definitely going to keep my eye on that lens though, as it may well be worth a purchase in the future. I'd rather see if it has any niggles rather than be the guinea pig though!
Click to expand...
Having had and used both the Nikkor is noticeably faster at AF.
 
Thanks for all the responses guys, sounds like it's a no-brainer to go with the 17-55. I'll be keeping my eye out on the classifieds and eBay! :)
 
Thanks for all the responses guys, sounds like it's a no-brainer to go with the 17-55. I'll be keeping my eye out on the classifieds and eBay! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top