how r different between15-85 vs 17-85?? I wanna buy 17-85 but seems like 15-85 more cheaper and i just wanna know how those lens r different??
1114923
The 17-85mm f/4-5.6 is usm lens doesn't have a special piece of glass inside it called "UD" which the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is usm does have. The wide angle difference between the two does really mean something once you consider the crop sensor multiplication factor of 1.6X, so the 15mm end equals 24mm in full frame, 35mm film camera terms. For many people who take snap shots of friends, places, and stuff, the 17-85mm is fine for their needs and can be purchased used on EBay for $200-$250. Keep in mind the 17-85mm isn't built quite as sturdy/durable (so I've learned from reading many reviews) as the newer 15-85mm lens is. If you don't need to print 8"x10" sized pictures for framing(or larger), then you should be happy with the 17-85mm is usm. I have both lenses now and will decide which one to keep within a few months of shooting pictures. Do a Google search on both lenses, there are plenty of reviews/comparisons on the two.
1114924
I have both the 17-85 and the 15-85. The 15-85 is vastly superior. The 17-85 is a dust magnate.
1114925
The 15-85 is a BETTER lens for optical quality and IQ. The fact that it is wider is a bonus.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
597329
Sounds good! I'm buying my first digital camera for my daughter and her family. I've locked in on the t1i and 15-85. I really like my 24-105 lens and think that the 15-85 should be a great match for the camera.
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
790657
Mainly price. The Rokinon lenses are very good. I own a 35 and 24 Rokinon as well as some Canons. I think they perform extremely well.
1873695
These lens are totally different. With the 18-200 you are covering a large range of view. You easily can use it in your living room and take a family portrait and in a few seconds later go to your backyard and get a quickly close up of a bird without changing lens or exposing the camera and your lens to moist. So, if you a plan to shoot wildlife or subjects located far away you need the 75-300. Otherwise, i would recommend the 18-200. I hope this help ; )
1200245
I'm going to suggest a different question. Do you really want a newer version? I recently bought a used 300mm F4 for 950. Its sells new for around 1300. This lens has been due for replacement for quite some time. So i had to ask myself the same question you have, when will a replacement come out, because it is certainly overdue. Problem is, when it does come out, it will be of lesser build quality, it will remove the aperature ring(G lens), add VR, and cost well over 2000. While I would like the VR on this lens, is it worth the huge proce difference, and the reduced build quality. I also used the same logic on a 17-35 i just bought. So what I would suggest, is to judge the current lens on its merits. The only gripe I would have with this lens is that it is AF and not AF-s. It will be much cheaper than a new one, probably much better build quality, and who knows when a replacement might arrive.
1235805
This appears that there is a couple of ideas to why such a price difference. 1 this could be a refurbished lens. 2 this could be a gray market lens that you will not be able to get the US Warranty for the lens. 3 could be sold by an unauthorized dealer. My experience, is to find an authorize dealer that you will get the proper support for warranty and technical support.
464452
I have both lenses and use them differently. The 23mm I mainly use when street shooting. But since I got the 23mm, I've don't use my 18-55 as much.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
528653
Does that lack of image stabilization in the 20 mm lens factor in against choosing it over the 14-45 lens? I think I'm all set to get the 20 mm lens after doing my research and reading these comments, but that was one area I was still questioning.
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
597334
thanks tom. took your advise bought the 15-85. all i can say the image the quality is superb for a non l lense. thank you for recommending this lens.
681554
If I were you, I would sell the kit lens and the 28-135mm is usm, the latter of which I had and sold because I purchased the 17-85mm is usm and then the 15-85mm is usm. If you figure out the perfect size and type of camera bag, the 15-85mm & 70-300 together give you plenty of range. Plus carrying a lens like the 85mm f/1.8 for low light, if it will fit in the bag, makes for a very useful combination.
773131
I would say get the 18-55 and use the $150 difference toward a 55-250 while you are starting out. You will probably want something longer than 135mm regardless, and depending on how far you go with your photography, there may come a point where none of the three lenses mentioned in this post is "good enough" anymore. ;)
659562
The 85mm lense is a DX lense and the 105mm is a regular (FX) lense. The DX is not suited for full frame cameras. Also the 105mm is faster at 2.8f and has the nano coating to reduce glare. Myself having a D700 went with the 105mm.