Nikkor 17-55/2.8

[Kyle]

Hey guys

Planning to buy one of these suckers to pair up with a 70-200vr.

Would love to hear from others who have this lens or have used it a fair bit..

Were/are you happy with it?

Cheers!

[Alpha_7]

A little birdy told me a member might want to sell his, from all reports its a great lens and covers the range very nicely.

[Kyle]

A little birdy told me a member might want to sell his, from all reports its a great lens and covers the range very nicely.

Hmm.... Sounds interesting!

[Geoff]

Kyle - good question!
It has been raised quite a few times here on this forum, suggest you do a search.
I'm 95% happy with mine. It is a superb piece of glass, if I had my time would I buy it again? Probably not. I'd go with the 28-70 and not be worried with not being able to go so wide. The 17-55 will produce some excellent shots, but comparitively to the 28-70 it stands a significant 2nd. If you need/want the extra wideness (17mm end) then go go it. The 17-55 has some known flaring issues but these can be avoided with careful placement of your photographic subject. It's sweet spot I find is around F5.6 ish. Do a search I think Craig (JordanP) has done an extensive review on it some time ago.

[Kyle]

Thanks geoff!

I had the 28-70 on my list. Had a play with it for a while, actually. Covered a wedding with it on my d70s.
Was very happy with it. But i was hoping to go wider for automotive type stuff...


Perhaps I could go the 28-70 and 12-24 route or something like that...
12mm for interiors would be sweet.

Thanks for the advice Geoff, I need to speak to you soon about wedding stuff also

[Oz_Beachside]

I went the 28-70 because I wanted the lens for full length portraits. And naturally there are opportuntity costs for wide ranging zooms.

I gave the 17-55 due consideration, but 17mm end was not what I wanted from that lens at the time.

Stepping back though, ask this question with your kit (actual, and planned) layed out on the table. Depending on your usage, 12-24, 28-70, 70-200 is an awesome layout (add 200-400 after tattslotto).

Another influencing factor for me, was the DX. The 28-70 is a 15 year old lens, designed for "full frame" 35mm. I'm sure that will wash through, and nikon will get there, this year, this decade, dont know, but definitely within the life of the glass I was going to buy. the 17-55 I understand will not work on film, nor full frame if we ever get there. My lens investment is for 20+ years, so that weighed in heavy for me.

That said, I would still like at times, as you said, car shots, I miss the 17mm end if the 12-24 is not in the bag. Also, for model shoots, if I have a car, or some similar size prop, I would love the flaxibility without lens change, to go 17-55mm. So I have a second body with 12-24 on board.

DX was the clincher for me...

[MCWB]

the 17-55 I understand will not work on film, nor full frame if we ever get there.

This is incorrect, it works fine on FF cameras from 35-55 mm without vignetting.

I went with the 17-55 mm after shooting with the 24-120 VR for a year or so and often finding I was wanting more on the wide end. Sometimes I want more on the tele end, but I guess you'll have to weigh up how often you use the 17-28 mm end vs the 55-70 mm end. Having a second body with an 85 f/1.4 or something on it would take care of that anyway I suppose. Another consideration is the cost of the 17-55 DX (or 28-70) vs fast primes. If I had my time again I'd be tempted to go with $1700 worth of primes, but it's hard to say for sure, I'm pretty happy with the 17-55 DX as an 'all round' general shooting lens.

[Oz_Beachside]

the 17-55 I understand will not work on film, nor full frame if we ever get there.

This is incorrect, it works fine on FF cameras from 35-55 mm without vignetting.

35-55mm does not a fine 17-55mm make.

[Alex]

The other option is Nikkor 20-35 f2.8. There are a couple 2nd hand ones around> This is the one that was discontinued to give way for 17-35 f2.8. I have one (20-35) and cannot recommend it enough.

Alex

[Jeko70]

In my opinion, so it's my personal choice.....and peronnal experience....
I got the 17-35 FF and I think it's a lot better than 17-55 DX so

I'd buy without thinking 2times the 28-70 (one of the best lenses on the market) and with few more bucks replace the Idea of 17-55 nikon with the 17-50 Tamron.

I know Tamron it is not Nikon but I bought one for my 2nd body D200 and use as wlkAround lens and i can say it's not so bab.
At 2.8 is soft just close 1-2 stops and it's sharp enough, the vignetting and distortion at 17 is easy to control by software...but I paid 1/3 of the Nikon DX. (I'm not investing in Dx lenses)

Of course if I need the superb quality I'll use my 17-35/28-70 but are haevy and bulky and sometimes I sacrificing quality for confort.

Fab

[Onyx]

I had considered the 17-55, as its focal length coverage is equivalent to 28-70 on a 35mm - and hence ideal for events, short portraits, general walkaround and even suited for landscapes, etc.

It would replace my current 17-35 and 18-70 with 1 lens. However, I can't justify the cost of one, compared to the 18-70 - ignoring the range difference, it's a little but faster (I could definitely do with the f/2.8 speed) and a little bit better build, but at three times the price it seems ridiculous - especially with consumer expectations of "full rame" in the medium term future - thus perceptibly limiting its life.

If it dropped close to the current 18-200VR pricing, I would definitely be first in line for one.

[MHD]

but there is a world of difference between the 17-55 and 28-70...

the 28-70 is built like a tank... and given a choice, even given the price difference, the 28-70 is the one I want....
(the lust continues...)

[Kyle]

Thanks to all who contributed in this debate!

Decision is made. Once i have sufficient funds, I will get a 28-70 and a little later on either a nikkor 12-24 or sigma 10-20.

Thanks again

[Yi-P]

This really depends on what sort of job you are going to let the lens do.


The 17-55 is an excellent wedding/event lens, whereas the 28-70 is more tending to be outdoor, portrait or studio works.

They both are great lenses, just look at if you really need the 17mm wide without changing lenses, if your answer is no, then go for a 28-70... if yes, the 17-55...