17-55 2.8 DX AF-S

[JordanP]

Well I have had this lens now for some time and it has, to date, done a remarkable job for a zoom lens.

The lens in question looks like this.......




First impressions when I got the lens - quite thick and quite heavy. I liked this. As the build for a DX lens, this one seemed very solid and built last. When mounted on the D70, everything balanced up nicely, appearance however, it seemed to overpower the camera body.

Focusing - quiet and lightning quick as we now expect from AF-S lenses. For protrait and wedding work this lens has no fear of hunting or missing that quick candid opportunity.

Now where it really shines..... It's colour renditon, sharpness wide open and contrast - straight from the camera rivals the 70-200vr. I was extremely happy at the lack of post processing I needed to do after my first wedding with this lens. I could post many samples but it would be way too slow to load for dial up so just two to give you an idea. The two images below are the same - the first is the full frame straight out of the camera with only a slight USM, the second is the same cropped 100% to show the lenses capability. Shot was 1/100sec natural window lighting and a lamp f2.8, zoomed to 38mm....





This lens is almost too sharpe for portrait work, I found it necessary to apply filters to some images just to soften it up. You could easily not bother with any sharpening techniques.

If using this lens with flash - watch out! with the inbuilt flash, I wouldn't even bother - the size of the lens gets in the way particularly with when you are shooting wide towards the 17mm end. If the lens hood is attached you have no chance at all of getting a clean shot. With the SB800 it goes well and quite safe without the lens hood on, but when attached you still need to be careful with wide angle shots. Bounce the flash where appropriate to avoid distinct annoying shadows. learnt this lesson the hard way

I have also used this lens succesfully for some landscape work - although not often. The lightning pics I posted a week or two ago were taken with this lens.
http://www.pixspot.com/thumbnails.php?album=188

Complaints: Aside from having to be very carful with this lens when using flash, I also wish it was free and was f1.4 throughout the zoom instead of f2.8. Quite an expensive piece of glass but producess outstanding results for a zoom lens. It was a bargin to me (and I paid retail).

If you could use a zoom that performs as well as most primes in its range it won't let you down. For wedding work I find it invaluable particularly when time is of the essence. Don't get me wrong, I love my 85mm and covet the 50mm 1.4 - but this is a very flexible lens. If you can afford it or if you could use it as a working lens then snap one up at birddogs ridiculous prices, it would be a steal!

....but if you don't have that sort of budget, don't want a weighty lens and you need one that won't get in the way of your on board flash - this lens is too expensive.


Oh! just remebered. Geoff's Avatar was also taken with this lens .... hmmm and I also have Nnnnsic's eye somewhere in my files too !!
Cheers,

[MHD]

Wow.... That example sells it alone!!! and wide open to...

[birddog114]

In comparison to the 17-55Dx and the 17-35, all are AF-S, they have the same quality of glasses, the 17-35 is the one, most I like to have on my camera most of the time, thus the 17-55Dx has more range, but again I have other glasses as 50/1.4 + 85/1.4.
The 17-35 can be played on non DSLR and the 17-55Dx can be only used on the DSLR.
On another side:
Think about what the focal lengths usually are when you're composing from a single position. If you need to be able to reach into the normal range more often than not, then the 17-55 makes more sense than the 17-35 for a travel WA zoom. Otherwise, the 17-35 outperforms the 17-55 where it counts (except at f/2.8, where the 17-55 absolutely destroys the 17-35).

And this is a quote from Ron Reznick:

"It's large and obtrusive, intimidating to some subjects, and it attracts a lot of attention ("What newspaper do YOU work for?"), thus making candids difficult;

The focal length range is less useful to me than wider and longer lenses (except in certain situations such as short-range action or other situations where you need fast focusing and medium aperture work in the normal range, such as fashion, weddings or PJ, where it's perfect);

It's heavy, doesn't work all that well at apertures wider than f/5, and flares/ghosts pretty significantly when shooting into a bright light source.

Those are my main reasons. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good lens, without a doubt the class act in a middle-focal-length zoom, and it's perfect for PJ, short-range well-lit sports, weddings, fashion, and some sorts of modeling.
In my case, I'd rather use the 28/1.4, 45P and 85/1.4 (or the 17-35 and 85/1.4) to cover the short work. I've had three of them at different times, and I've used them for various sorts of things where they were perfect, but after that it generally sat here until I got sick of seeing it gathering dust and sold it. "

[Glen]

Thanks Craig for a great and comprehensive review, also Birddog for his inputs. Another lens to covet

[the foto fanatic]

Thanx for a very good review.
Gee, there are some excellent lenses around now!

[kipper]

For a minute I was sitting there thinking "Why do I need another lense that covers roughly what the kit lense covers". Then I read F2.8 across the whole focal length range. Sounds very nice.

Ok so now my lense lust is as follows:

Nikkor 17-55DX
Nikkor 24-120VR
Nikkor/Sigma 105 Macro
Nikkor 85 Prime

Then I think my lense selection will be complete.

[kipper]

Btw, those lightning shots. Got any exif data on those. Sorry, don't have a program to check myself.

[dooda]

I got sick of seeing it gathering dust and sold it. "

...ummm...anything you're looking at gathering dust that you want to sell right now birdie? I'm dreaming again.

[kipper]

Yeah like a 200-400VR. I have a fiver in my pocket.

[JordanP]

Btw, those lightning shots. Got any exif data on those. Sorry, don't have a program to check myself.

bit of an explaination on how the lightning pics were taken towards the bottom of this thred.

http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=2664&highlight=

Cheers,

[Onyx]

Boy, gaining that extra stop to f/2.8 in a wide-medium zoom sure does cost the earth!

Looks like the DSLR equivalent to film's venerable 28-70/2.8.

This has be rethinking my lust strategies. I was very impressed by this lens when you brought it along to the Sydney xmas meet. I was previously coveting the 70-200; but now I'm thinking, make do with my current 80-200 and get this to replace the 18-70DX, as I would probably use a zoom of this range more than a tele zoom. In which case I can subject my kit lens to many more gravity tests.

[MCWB]

This has be rethinking my lust strategies.

Mine too, hmmph. Thanks for the review and anecdotes guys.

[Link]

Thanks for the detailed review... It sounds like a great lens to me, I love the fact it seemed to work falwlessly at f/2.8. If it was slightly wider (equivalent 24mm), it would certainly be number one on my list of lens to buy!

Link.

[shutterbug]

My next lens

[shutterbug]

Just pick it up from birddog yesterday

Will give it a good work out this weekend

[Glen]

Congrats Vince, will be nice to see some of your excellent work combined with this lens

[JordanP]

look forward to seeing your results - have a blast.

Feels like a real lens doesn't it

[shutterbug]

Sure does feel like a real lens very heavy compare to my primes.

Got 3 weddings coming up in March, will post some pics.

[birddog114]

Sure does feel like a real lens very heavy compare to my primes.

Got 3 weddings coming up in March, will post some pics.

It will be paid off by then!

[shutterbug]

Sure will and a little extra left for my boss.