DSLRUsers.com

I was speaking to a bloke at European Cameras today regarding the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. He mentioned that they sent their recent batch back to Maxwells because of focus problems. Has anyone else had problems with this lens as I am (was) keen on purchasing one soon?

Peter Mc

Hi Peter,
I've had this lens for about 12 months now and love it - no focus issue problems here.

Good luck with your endeavour in getting one

Problems of focusing on 17-55Dx are wellknown issues with Maxwell + Nikon.
It may work on one body but not other and it's not the one I have in my bag.

I have customers sent both the 17-55Dx and D2x back to Maxwell for calibration, end up Maxwell had to swap another 17-55Dx for them but not quite working perfectly as they wished.

get the 17-35, more stability and perfect gems.

Thanks Geoff

You must admit its a bit disconcerting forking out @$2K on a softie. I have read a few cases of quality probs and have also read about this being a beautifully sharp piece of kit.

Peter Mc

Birdy

You know the 17-35 was another I was thinking of but the 17-55 just seemed to have that little bit more range and a bit lighter. I have a Nik 12-24 already. I believe the 17-35 is as sharp as... They had one at EC's 2nd hand for $1999. Seem to hold second hand value pretty well.

Peter Mc

petermmc wrote:Birdy

You know the 17-35 was another I was thinking of but the 17-55 just seemed to have that little bit more range and a bit lighter. I have a Nik 12-24 already. I believe the 17-35 is as sharp as... They had one at EC's 2nd hand for $1999. Seem to hold second hand value pretty well.

Peter Mc

17-35 is the perfect glass, I don't care much about 20mm difference.
You have:
12-24, next should be 17-35, next 28-70 and 70-200
Don't game with the 17-55Dx at this stage, even it's giving you extra range of 20mm.
Yes, resale value of the 17-35 is much higher than the 17-55Dx, coz its problems and it was never fixed by Nikon, mixed reports in one product.

Interesting too, on a few ebay sites the 17-35 is actually cheaper than the 17-55...

Geoff wrote:Interesting too, on a few ebay sites the 17-35 is actually cheaper than the 17-55...

I'm talking about resale value in Australia and in Australia stores.

birddog114 wrote:

Geoff wrote:Interesting too, on a few ebay sites the 17-35 is actually cheaper than the 17-55...

I'm talking about resale value in Australia and in Australia stores.

Yeah I realise that Birdy, I just thought it was interesting as from time to time I take a look at new/ebay stock for these lenses and it's always the 17-35 lens that's more expensive.

I like your thinking Birdy. I may need a shoulder reconstruction if I carry them all at the same time. In all the 25million reviews I have read on these lenses other than the 12-24 they say:

Pros: Sharp as a tack...

Cons: Heavy as a...heavy thing

Peter Mc

petermmc wrote:I like your thinking Birdy. I may need a shoulder reconstruction if I carry them all at the same time. In all the 25million reviews I have read on these lenses other than the 12-24 they say:

Pros: Sharp as a tack...

Cons: Heavy as a...heavy thing

Peter Mc

Peter,
Check both specs on these lenses, the weights are not big difference.
Then again, if you would like to have a top set of tool in your bag, it's the way to go.

Guess it just comes down to opinion. I have the 17-55 and it is one of my gems. I did a review on the lens a long time ago, you might be able to dig it up. I have had no problems with focusing at all. The 17-55, 70-200 and the 85 are my key wedding lenses (in that order). If I went the 17-35 my missing range would be 35-70. Too much of a loss and I have no issues with the 17-55.

If the 17-35 is good enough for the range you require then it is also an outstanding lens. You can see both lenses reviewed and rated at

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html

Both great lenses so bottom line is, you know best what fits your requirements.

Cheers,

JordanP wrote:Guess it just comes down to opinion. I have the 17-55 and it is one of my gems. I did a review on the lens a long time ago, you might be able to dig it up. I have had no problems with focusing at all. The 17-55, 70-200 and the 85 are my key wedding lenses (in that order). If I went the 17-35 my missing range would be 35-70. Too much of a loss and I have no issues with the 17-55.

If the 17-35 is good enough for the range you require then it is also an outstanding lens. You can see both lenses reviewed and rated at

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html

Both great lenses so bottom line is, you know best what fits your requirements.

Cheers,

Craig,
They are both gems! your sample is good but other sample of the 17-55Dx are not good as I experienced with, wait till you upgrade your body to D200 or D2 series, it may not work as it used to on the D70.
Perhaps, there will be a need for calibration of both lens and body.

The 17-55Dx problems are not consistent and did not produce on all bodies, AF and softies are the main and welknown issues on the 17-55Dx, on the other hand, the 17-35 are well stable and no bad report found with its focussing or softies same as incompatibility of calibration with difference of camera bodies.

One day in the near future, Nikon will have full frame and it's the day the 17-35 will shine.

birddog114 wrote:One day in the near future, Nikon will have full frame and it's the day the 17-35 will shine.

Thats why I am not purchasing DX lens. Just in case this scenario plays true.

I think that this thread has made me more confused than ever as to which of the 28-70 or the 17-35 I'd next purchase. I certainly need something wider than my 50mmF/1.8 but have yet to work out just HOW wide I am going to need for a lens while continuing to shoot weddings in low light.

dammit... both sound good.

Mark - not to ad confusion, all I will say (again) is that I have owned the 17-55DX for a while now, and it shon both on the D70 and my new D200.

The decision is of course up to you but you can't really go wrong with either of these lenses.

Good luck

Let us know how u get on when the decision is final!?

I've got a 50mm and it wasn't wide enough so I got a 28mm off Steffen - its a great difference to the angle of view.

I have the 17-55 DX and I think it is excellent. I have had no issues with build quality or focus issues.

However, more to the point, at a wedding I was at on the Gold Coast in April, the wedding photographer was Chris Hall, and his images were first class.

He had Nikon and Fuji bodies, and his lenses were:
12-24 DX
17-55 DX
70-200 VR

I think for weddings the 17-35 and your 50 would be a great combo. You might consider an 85 as well. You're getting the reliability and reputation of the 17-35 and the sharpness and speed of the 50. You may have to walk around a bit more but that makes it look like you're doing your job.

Peter Mc

>>One day in the near future, Nikon will have full frame and it's the day the 17-35 will shine.<<

Birddog: is that an intelligent guess, or do you have something more?

I'm tossing up between the 17-35 and 17 - 55

thanks

Dan, without doubt Nikon will have a full frame, if for no other reason than keeping up with Canon (there are some technical reasons that Nikon favour DX for digital, mostly sensors dont react like film and prefer there light straight on). Some have rumoured this year. The question is when will you change your camera and at what price? That will give you an idea wether a DX lens will last wioth you. The Canon full frame is $5k for reference.

>>The Canon full frame is $5k for reference<<

Wise words Glen. I won't be swapping the D200 in a hurry! Hardly know how to use the thing properly yet.

So I guess I should just have a bex and a lie down as far as more lenses are concerned.

After a decade away from photography and a darkroom, I've given myself enough to cope with in my spare time; getting up to speed with digital and publishing to the web and checking out where I left off with film.

I resurrected my long-forgotten (as in 15 years!) Rolleiflex TLR on the weekend. It has an original 2.8D instruction manual. I figured out from information on the net that it is indeed a 2.8D from 1955 with the Schneider Xenotar lens. I am flipping from the D200 to the FE and F801 and Rollei manuals and shooting in all of them just to get a feel again for the 35mm and DX and 6x6 "look".

You'd think a bloke had better things to do. Although I get the impression that there are many like me coming back into it and wrestling with all these things. My wife suspects the male menopause has taken hold, and that I'll soon come down with an advanced case of schizophrenia. She reckons I should stick with the Canon Ixus!

Dan

Dan, I have wrestled with this one to for a year or two now, so much so I have done nothing There is no straight forward solution.

Your wife only now thinks you have male menopause, she didn't think that when you had two 356? Good wife

I have the 17-55 DX used on both a D70 and D200 body with no issues.... for what its worth

Interesting that their have been (numerous?) quality issues with a very expensive pro lens.

Mark

I had the same dilemma recently. I already had 12-24, 24-120 and 70-200 and wanted a lens to become my walk around lens replacing the 24-120. I ultimately decided on the 28-70 f2.8 and couldn't be happier. Razor sharp, not OVERLY heavy.

Glen wrote:Dan, I have wrestled with this one to for a year or two now, so much so I have done nothing There is no straight forward solution.

... I have taken the same path - total indecision leading to inaction... lol

Rae, that is so easy to do. I used Stubbsy's 28-70 at the AA and would consider that my primary choice though the lack at the wide angle still worries me on the DX bodies. I am going to look at a car on Wednesday and will only take one lens, even if I had a 28-70 I would take the kit for the wide end. The kit is a fine lens for the money.

I use the Sigma 10-20 on my D70 and the Tamron 28-75 2.8. on my D200 for weddings I don't really miss the 8mm of difference, and seriously doubt that you'd miss the 4mm between the 24 and the 28 if you were to go with a 28-70/75. The nice thing about that is it gives you something a little more usable on the portrait side (70mm) and the ultra wide for the bigger stuff. If you're not pro, there'd be nothing to worry about, just switch lenses as needed.

I guess it sort of depends on where you're at with photography. Whether or not you make money, or are a hobbyist. If you didn't have anything on the ultrawide, then I'd probably say the 17-55 is the right choice, but since you have that focal length covered, I'd totally go for the 28-70 or 75.