Nikon 17-55 F2.8

[Mitsu3000gt]

Does anyone here have this lens? I am fairly sure I want to buy one, but I was wondering if there is anything I perhaps haven't considered that may change my mind. It is very expensive but all reviews seem to like it. I have also looked at the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 Macro but I'm not a fan of the build quality or the screw-drive focus given the price.

I bought a 18-200VR and was very unimpressed with the 18mm performance even at F8. I could have just gotten a bad copy, too. I decided to return it (it was my second one, as the first one had a bunch of dust between the elements). I found it was very sharp in the middle of the zoom range, and seemed to perform well with flash in that range as well. I was not interested in sharpness tests such as putting it on a tripod, stopping it down and shootng a brick wall because that is not how I take pictures. I tested it based on how I was going to use it 99% of the time.

If anyone is interested, here are some of the better shots I got with it (they still are quite bad IMO) of my yard. The same shots with my 18-135 are significantly better:

Go to this link and click on the 18-200VR Test gallery. All pictures except the first one are 100% crops if you view the original. Hold your mouse over the pic to select the size. Exif should be available.

http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/Other


I looked at about 800 pictures taken with my 18-135 and noticed that almost every picture except a few was taken in the 18mm or slightly longer range. The rest were with the 70-300VR. This got me thinking if I take so many pictures in that range, why not get the best possible lens for that area?

I would be using the 17-55 lens for general walkaround, landscapes, and travel/touristy type pictures as well as whenever I had to take pictures of people.

Additionally, I can buy this lens for a little less than $1400 shipped to my door all costs in with a 3 year MACK warranty from B&H. It is $1539 at TCS, but I would have Canadian warranty, and easy exchange if it had any issues such as back focus or a bad copy or whatever. That definitely has some value to it as well. Also I would be able to buy one right away (next pay check anyways, haha), where as B&H is out of stock.

Any thoughts? Would MACK let me service the lens in Canada? Or would I have to send it to the states every time?

Thanks in advance for any comments, they are appreciated.

PS: I have my Lowepro Slingshot 200AW for sale in the marketplace, $60 firm, as new condition, $95 new.

[benyl]

Mack has facilities in Canada. I think they are in Ontario.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I've shot with a 17-55 a few times (borrowed from classmate with rich parents) and yes, it's an excellent lens. For the price, it had better fucking be. IMO, if you want a good wideangle, buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di and save yourself a good thousand dollars, maybe more. In all honesty, unless that pro lens is putting food on your table, don't bother. I love Nikkor glass as much as the next guy, but there's a limit to how much I'll drop on glass. The Sigma has great reviews as well, and I really wouldn't worry about the screwdriver AF on a wideangle. If you're shooting at 17mm, chances are your subject isn't moving very quickly and the DOF on a wideangle is huge anyway.

If you've got the cash to blow, I'd rather get the Tamron 17-50 and a 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for the money.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Thanks for the suggestions - definitely something to think about. It's also good that Mack will service lenses in Canada, because even the cheaper Tamron ($449 USD) and Sigma ($419 USD for the macro version of the 18-50) can also be had at B&H.

For the 80-200 2.8, it's a nice lens but I really need VR on the long end - I have especially shaky hands. I would also need to buy a teleconverter right away. Really the only lens that I would get rid of the 70-300VR for is the 70-200 2.8VR with 1.7 tele and thats way over $2000 for both. I'm really happy with the 70-300VR and never really need it in low light.

Something I was thinking about was perhaps the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro. That would be an interesting combination, costing me about $600 less than the 17-55 Nikon. The only thing that worries me about that is I always read on dpreview about people pissed off about their copies of various sigma lenses, and often have to go through 2 or 3 until happy.

Any thoughts on the above? Think that would be smarter than buying the 17-55? I have no problem treating myself to something around $1500 but I do want to be getting my monies worth either way. I also certainly am not making any money with the pictures I take

EDIT: What do you guys use to cover that range?

[msommers]

Mitsu, it honestly sounds like you had your mind set already and were looking for conformation. The 17-55 is a seriously sweet lens. Any Nikkor f/2.8 is worth the money but it depends how critical you are, and more importantly if you can actually spot the differences. Generally I have a decent eye but just posting pictures and doing small picture printing ie: not poster size, it's really really hard to tell. If you really want it, then go ahead you won't be disappointed. But I like Trevor's advice, why spend the money when you probably don't need to?

An excellent example is when I was debating about the Nikkor 12-24 or the Tokina 12-24. The differences visually are negligable on a small-medium size shot and the price was 2:1. It was an easy choice for me

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by msommers
Mitsu, it honestly sounds like you had your mind set already and were looking for conformation. The 17-55 is a seriously sweet lens. Any Nikkor f/2.8 is worth the money but it depends how critical you are, and more importantly if you can actually spot the differences. Generally I have a decent eye but just posting pictures and doing small picture printing ie: not poster size, it's really really hard to tell. If you really want it, then go ahead you won't be disappointed. But I like Trevor's advice, why spend the money when you probably don't need to?

An excellent example is when I was debating about the Nikkor 12-24 or the Tokina 12-24. The differences visually are negligable on a small-medium size shot and the price was 2:1. It was an easy choice for me

You definitely make some good points. There was no question my mind was almost made up, but it may not have been a smart decision. The fact that I can get 2 good lenses and still save money is nagging at me. Anyways, thanks for your reply, I am still going to be doing a lot more thinking.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I'll put my vote in for the Tamron 17-50, it's a great lens and is highly regarded. I've heard good reviews about the Sigma, but their QC can be spotty at times. The 10-20 is nice if you want an UWA but lacks the sheer build quality of the Nikon/Tokina 12-24's.

... but that's what everybody does. Here's an idea - do something wacky and interesting. Buy something crazy, like a tilt-shift lens and learn how to control DoF in more than one plane. Have some fun.

[mboldt]

Go for it, you will not regret it, this lens is easily one of Nikon's most well known lenses.
Any professional setup will require the 17-55 / 2.8 and the 70-200 / 2.8VR

I'll be picking mine up shortly... delayed since I just picked up d2x =P

[Mitsu3000gt]

Have a look at this....

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin...p?p_faqid=9677

Apparently Nikon's USA warranty works in Canada too, on lenses. Digital cameras are not listed. That makes things a little more interesting for me, as there is no longer a warranty disadvantage from buying outside Canada. I'm surprised B&H is unaware of this, as they told me the warranty is not valid and I had to buy a Mack warranty. Am I missing something here?

I guess the only gamble would reasonably be whether or not I get a good copy, and if not, I have to send it back to B&H.

I also have been reading more and more about the Tamron 17-50 and it seems to do very well, as eariler suggested. The made in Japan ones are apparently good, and the Made in China ones apparently aren't. I'd just be worried about making sure I got a Japan one. Camera Canada told me the only Tamron Canada supplier gives them lenses assembled in China, using Chinese and Japanese parts....I'm not really sure if that means its the Japanese one or not.

Additionally I've found the following comparions, not really sure how much merit they have in the real world but if your interested here they are:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=18754749

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=18799666

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=19047965

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=19049505

There's another pretty good one I'll have to get when I'm at home. It's in Czech but its still easy to tell whats going on.

Here is a further review of the lens in situations you will actually use it in (i.e. portraits, landscapes, streetscapes, tourist shots, etc.)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=11869943

EDIT: Here's a good review but in Czech:

http://www.makofoto.cz/nikon/objekti...mron_17_50.htm

Anyways, just thought some of you may find that warranty info interesting.

Here are the financial options, I checked them all out Today:

17-55 from B&H, $1400 CDN to my door, option not to pay for 6 months, hassle if I get a bad copy, must send the camera in myself for warranty work, not currently in stock

17-55 from TCS, $1600 CDN all in, support local business, easy swap if I get a bad copy, no potential warranty hassle.

Tamron 17-50, ~$400 CDN from Camera Canada or similar, questionable quality and sample variation, but $1000 savings.

Here's a really good 17-55 page:

http://ryanbrenizer.livejournal.com/438978.html

[clem24]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I'll put my vote in for the Tamron 17-50, it's a great lens and is highly regarded.

LOL I gave Mitsu the same advice over PM. My same advice was: unless you're making money on your photos, save yourself the $1000 and get the Tamron. The Tamron is sharp and produces beautiful colors and bokeh. AF is decent and usually dead on.

I have said lens and I think it's great. My copy is Made in China, but I have not had a single problem with it (thought it did occassionaly do funny things to the meter on my D70, but no issues with my D200). The lens is sharp, small and light. It's not bullet proof like the Nikon, but it doesn't need to be. Basically you can break 3 Tamrons for the price of 1 Nikon.

Quality is a no-brainer. Just buy one, test, and if no good, exchange it.

For the price of 1 Nikon 17-55, I was almost able to get the Tamron 17-50, Tokina 12-24, and Nikon 10.5. (maybe $100-200 more). Fantastic lens at fantastic price.

However, in the end, it's your money, and from a psychological stand point, you might never be satisfied with the Tamron. So in that case, probably just get the Nikon if that's what makes you happy. But.. Get the Tamron and it will forever change your mind about 3rd party lenses.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I still have not chosen a lens after reading through several lengthly threads of people debating whether or not the 17-55 was good at landscapes. Some people posted some pretty average pics from this $1600 lens.

A reasonable consensus seems to be that it works best wide open at f2.8, and is no better than other lenses at many other things. It's just a decent solid lens, that performs reasonably well for a super high price.

I might just get a sigma 10-20 and call it a day with $1000 still in my pocket. There isnt any lens that satisfies me in the 17-50ish range completely. A whole lot of people seem to have overexposure problems with the 17-50 tamron, except sharpness and colors seem to be outstanding. The Sigma 18-50 MACRO lens just seems to be average as well.

If only there was an 18-70 f2.8 lens, however it does not exist. Sigma makes a nice little 18-70 MACRO lens but it is not f2.8 constant and it's screw drive.

So, just like everything else I have ever wanted to buy, a month's time and hours of research later, I still have yet to make up my mind. Half the people tell me the 17-55 is the best decision I can make and won't regret it one bit, the other half says it's not nearly as good as it's price tag, which I am starting to believe.

[clem24]

LOL I totally understand what you're saying. When I am about to buy a lens, I become obsessed about it and research it like mad... It seems to take over my life until I actually go out and buy the stupid thing.

Anyway, you can always wait and see how the Tokina 16-50 will do, but I've read that it will be in the neighborhood of $1,000. Plus I don't understand why it's taking to long (it was announced something like 1 or 2 years ago).

Not sure why you have such a thing against screw drive. All of my lenses except for the 18-200VR is screw drive, and I have absolutely no issues with it. Sure it's slightly noisier but I find the Tamron can focus just as fast as the 18-200.

I've used the Sigma 10-20 and find it to be quite decent, but not sure if I'd actually want to own it. Just doesn't quite feel as good as the Tokina. But for landscapes, I am sure the 10-20mm would really come in handy.

On the 17-55 vs. the 17-50, I can sum it up in one question: is the extra 7% of the Nikkor worth the 350% price premium?

[Mitsu3000gt]

I don't like screw drive because my sigma 105 and my nikon 50mm are both screw drive and focus slow as hell. The sigma is bad because it goes all through the range (slowly) if you miss focus. This does not matter at all for that particular lens because it' a macro lens and its rarely a problem. I notice it with the 50mm, as trying to AF-C a moving target with it is pretty slow. I also enjoy silent focusing, and I'm guessing the screw drive wears down your battery faster too. So, the other lenses with screw drives might be a lot better than the two I have had experience with but that's all I have to go on.

Where did you buy your Tokina 12-24? B&H? Or maybe there is a Canadian dealer that sells them. What I like about the sigma is that is is HSM and is 2mm wider than any of the other landscape lenses. I have heard mixed things about quality control, but I've read the same about the Tokina with people going through 3 lenses, etc. etc. I think their pretty similar in edge to edge sharpness and al the other stuff that matters for landscapes.

Maybe I'll end up just keeping my 18-135 and saving up for whatever comes first: The rumored 100-500mm, or a replacement to the current 80-400VR (VR II and SWM). Until then, more research I guess

[KKY]

I use the sigma 10-20 on my canon and love it!

[Mitsu3000gt]

Now I'm leaning towards the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5. Apparently the AF is still really fast for a screw drive. It isn't an EX lens, but also apparently outperforms the 18-50 f2.8 EX. It appears to be a reasonable replacement to my 18-135 kit lens with the bonus of a macro mode making for an extra versatile walk around lens. I saw a lot of tests of this lens up against Canon primes and it was no different in every test (concluded by the tester, and from what I could see). As you can tell, I still don't know what the hell I want. Stay tuned lol.

[muse017]

17-70 is an excellent lens for sure!!
I have PK mount one for my Ds...haha...I just love it..

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I would be really surprised if it consistently outperformed the 18-50, non-EX lenses can have some wicked sample variation. f/4.5 at 70mm is a bit slow - but, then again, I'm an aperture whore.

[muse017]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I would be really surprised if it consistently outperformed the 18-50, non-EX lenses can have some wicked sample variation. f/4.5 at 70mm is a bit slow - but, then again, I'm an aperture whore.

You should get some of these lenses

http://www.abex.co.uk/sales/optical/...5f075/item.htm
http://www.abex.co.uk/sales/optical/...0f075/item.htm

60mm 0.75
50mm 0.75

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Those are wickedly fast, but they seem to be TV lenses, which are unusually fast. I suspect there's a design difference from SLR.

I'd grab me a Repro-Nikkor f/1.0 Macro if they didn't go for $4,000.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroo...repro1pon.html

[Mitsu3000gt]

haha those lenses are ridiculous. Wouldn't they almost have useless DOF?

Anyways, I'd love a 17-70 f2.8 constant lens but they don't make one to my knowledge. A perfect 16/17/18-50 f2.8 doesn't even exist either that I know of. So, I have to comprimise and what I need to do now is decide on the best comprimise I guess. I might just pick whichever one does the best for landscapes.

For the 17-70, I was looking at some of the following sites:

http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/1850vs1770

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

This one vs the Canon prime:
http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report