Ockham's Razor wrote:
> I have a D50. I have a chance to get a Nikon 17-55 2.8 for a
> reasonable price. I have read two reviews where it was advised not to
> put such a heavy lens on a D50 because the combo is "unbalanced" and
> this plus no VR makes it difficult to get good pictures.
>
> Now I am torn with saving more and getting a 70-200 2,8 later or buying
> the 17-55.
>
> any advice?
>
Both of these are great lenses. Your shooting environment and choice of
subject are going to dictate your choice of lens.
As far as VR is concerned, you do not need it in the relatively "wide"
range of the 17-55 as camera shake is barely noticeable in the shorter
range. This is is only a real benefit with longer lenses where shake can
fuzz up your shot. A 17-55 2.8 is going to give you great results and
will make it easy, not difficult to get good pictures. Good pictures can
be taken with a Brownie Box, where the only VR is in your hands.
For my opinion, spend your first $1100-$1200 on the 17-55 and collect
the $1450-$1600 for the 70-200 for your next lens and you will have a
photo tool box with a good camera and two great lenses your photographic
skills can grow with.
Good luck,
'Duck
>> Stay informed about: Nikon Lens choics