Customer Reviews

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

5 star:		(78)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Reviewers below have already described how great this lens is -- I add my voice to the choir but wanted to write here about the decision process that led to 17-55. As others have also said, choosing the camera is relatively easy but choosing the lens (or lenses) is mind boggling. I spent the better part of two weeks researching online and going to photo stores. The 17-55 was barely in my peripheral vision when I started. Of course the first thing I considered was the 18-200VR. All the reviewers like it -- Rockwell was practically orgasmic -- and softly bashed the 17-55 as a heavy, expensive and overkill for most. I looked at many options and kept coming back to the 18-200 as the best all round but something wouldn't let me pull the trigger. And it's this: I like natural light. Many of my photos are references for painting, and I do a lot of portraits and some landscape. Getting the best color, in natural light is my highest priority. In amongst the 18-200 reviews there were a few hints about it being a bit dark at the 200 end (even with VR allowing slower shutter) and about "creep" of the lens when held vertically. I liked the possibility of a one-lens for all situations but began to wonder if I would get my use out of the 200 end without flash or tripod. Came to the 17-55 and dismissed it several times until finally tried it in a photo store. In retrospect, the reviewers suggest focusing on your priorities and for me the 17-55 made the most sense. I admit that I am partial to the simple feel of the lens -- phrases like "built like a tank" carry a lot of weight with me. I'm careful but do use the stuff. I also got an 85 1.8 for portraits so for the two lenses spent double the price of the 18-200VR -- not what I had planned on. But this selection focused the dollars to the heartland priorities and perhaps eventually I will bracket these with a 12-24 (third party) and a longer Tamron. The value of SLR, it seems to me, is to choose the options that match your needs.

I have been using Nikon cameras for 30 years, and their digital SLR's for the past 5 or so...this is far and away one of the best Nikon lenses I have ever used - amazingly well built, excellent image quality, fast focusing, wonderful glass. The downside is primarily the price -- it's as expensive as a full camera, and the weight -- this is a two pound lens. If your budget can accomodate this lens, get it, you will be thrilled. If your budget can not, get the Tamron 17-50 which has similar image quality, weighs less than a pound, and sells for 1/3 the price of this lens. But wow...once you try this lens, you will kick yourself for getting anything lesser....Warning: filter size is 77, so most of your existing filters probably won't work, and do your self a favor and get yourself an UV filter/lens protector out of the box before you put your fingers on your 1300.00 lens.

This is a great lens for photojournalism, weddings and general photography. I've not had the opportunity to shoot landscapes with mine yet but I expect it to excel in that aspect as well. Wide open, the lens is very sharp - When opening images in Adobe photoshop, there is often no need for sharpening.

The lens balances well on my Nikon D70, and is very comfortable to use - the zoom and focus rings are adquately sized and have a nice consistent resistance throughout their respective ranges. Additionally, the lens focuses very close (about a foot from the subject), allowing a lot of creative flexibility.

I purchased this lens as an upgrade to the D70 kit lens (18-70 f/3.5-4.5) and can honestly say it was worth it. I shot a low light wedding (my first) with this lens and an 85 1.8 and found the 17-55 indispensible. The fast 2.8 aperture is great for low light while the 17mm end (appears similar to a 27mm on film) allows for a much wider angle than comparable 28-7x lenses. I've heard of sample variation, but have had no problems with mine. Highly recommended.

After one year with my trusty D80 I finally jumped and got this lens.
I have to tell you that probably some of you will argue that for less money people can get a f/2.8 Tamron (click here:Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood for Nikon-D DSLR Cameras) or a f/2.8 Sigma (click here: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro Lens for Nikon DSLR), but such comparisons are completely off track.

First of all, a $800 difference it's not just marketing. It is reflected by a totally different image quality, a better build (metal and sealing), the speed of the AF system and the overall feeling of holding a real pro lens.

Secondly, the Tamrons I was contemplating into buying all had some problems with flash overexposure on TTL and TTL BL modes on my SB800 + D80 combo. I am not quite sure why it happened with the Tamron, but I have no such problems with the DX 17-55. Moreover, Tamron has inferior AF speed and this can be observed especially in lowlight. Try focusing with the 17-55 in ambiental light from a 60W light bulb and you will have no problem. Then try the same with a Tamron and you will.

Another thing that is annoying is the CA I've noticed with the Tammy, even when the lens was stopped down. I personally hate strong CA because it makes my photos look very P&S-like.

However, the 17-50 Tamron is a good contender and may be an option for anyone on a tight budget. Please keep in mind that I saved for the Nikkor and I got it actually one year after my first decision, but I believe the waiting was worth every penny.

Now back to the 17-55DX:
My experience with it is connected to a D80 camera.
The lens is very, very, very sharp, even wide open at 2.8. It is almost too sharp at f5.6 which should make you never use the in-camera sharpening at other setting than normal and this may create some problems for portraiture work if you will like, for example, to soften a bit some undesirable details on your model's face... The sharpness is due mainly to the superb optics of the lens but also to the excellent microcontrast this lens is able to render. The overall microcontrast translates into very natural-looking images and excellent rendition of difficult hues and tones as skin tones have (for example).

Under direct bright sun, it tends to exhibit a slight magenta cast but this is easily correctable either with a filter or by postprocessing (pp) when using raw (NEF) files. I'm not sure if this is due to the lens alone or - more probable - the lens + antialising filter + sensor of the D80, so results may be different with other nikon cameras. The lens is quite obviously coated for neutral gray rendition on a 6000K color temperature, the one you will get with flash, for example. BTW, it is a good ideea to use manual white balance on 6000K when using D80 + 17-55DX + SB800 and A mode on the flash. I got best results with these settings.

Also about camera settings, the 17-55DX is a very contrasty lens so this may give you some hard times when shooting jpegs on a bright sunny day with huge image dynamics. My advice is to set your camera tone settings on low or lowest (-1 or -2) and mode I or III sRGB. No problem on raw as dynamics could be corrected in Capture NX. These issues are nonexistent with filtered or diffuse light (cloudy, diffusers etc).

Overall, this lens makes for each penny you spend with it. It has a superb build quality which will impress you from the first moment you'll hold it in your hands, excellent sharpness, color rendition and image quality that equals the actual scene characteristics in naturalness and color. It is environmentally sealed (internal and at the flange with a rubber ring), the AF runs extremely fast and it is a good investment in a superb optical system.

With all the FX talk and full frame sensor thrashing, you need to focus on objectives and purpose for your needs. This lens is constant 2.8 through the entire focal range. That affords a profound differenece for me, shooting in shade, under objects, on my kneepads in the early morning, walking through urban alleys before sunrise. This is a DX lens you can trust, solid, well built like a tank--if you could choose only one lense, this is it. The "walk around" zooms are fine, but my first 10 years of BW photography utilized a single 50mm prime lense. And these shots remain the most graphic and satisfying. I compose by using my legs and eyes, get your body in position. For me, this lens offers the ability to lock in 35 mm or 50mm (and its prime sharp), plus wide angle for those intermitant shots when I desire to capture a wider composition. Each photographer has their own preferences, but for my purposes, this is an invaluable lense, and the constant 2.8 delivers in so many ways. With my 70-300 VR, 60mm micro and 50 1.8, this completes an amazing foursome that I am thrilled to travel with or handle inside my studio.

The lenses I've owned in similar ranges are the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Comparing this lens to the 18-70mm is probably a bit unfair, so I won't mention it again. However, there are many people looking for alternatives and the Tamron 17-50mm is as close as it gets so I'll base this review as a comparison to the Tamron. Having owned the Tamron for a few weeks before offing it, I can tell you this. If you're looking for a lens that equally matches or even exceeds the 17-55mm in terms of image quality, then by all means, go for the Tamron. Equality pretty much ends there.

The advantages of the Nikon 17-55mm are the following:
BUILD QUALITY - You immediately notice the build quality as soon as you handle and inspect the 17-55mm. It's encased in metal and nicely sealed so dust, moisture (which leads to fungus) will hopefully be minimized. "Built like a tank" is a good cliche.
FAST FOCUS - The Silent Wave Motor is not only fast, but extremely quiet.
SHARP WIDE OPEN - Using an aperture of f/2.8, this lens is very usable. Another advantage is that is focuses more accurately in low light. This is an aspect that was inferior in the Tamron.
COLOR RENDITION - I've found colors out of the lens are very satisfying with little need to "tweak" during post processing. The Tamron had a warmer color, but this may vary among copies.
MINIMAL CA - CA didn't bother me much in the Tamron, but it's much more controlled on the 17-55mm, especially wide open.
BETTER QUALITY CONTROL - This was the deal breaker with the Tamron. I received a copy that overexposed which is in line with the experiences of many people with that particular lens. Although sample variance exists with Nikon, it's much more controlled.
SIZE/WEIGHT/BALANCE - Some people mention this lens is too bulky and heavy. I find the size and weight actually helpful and helps balance and control on the majority of camera bodies.

The 17-55mm doesn't have any major flaws for me. I'm not a professional nor am I a pixel peeper. I'm just an enthusiast that likes good image quality. However, if I were to knit pick, here are the flaws:
SMALL ZOOM RING - It's annoyingly small at first, but you get used to it.
FLARES EASILY - Point it at a light source directly or even indirectly and this lens has a propensity to flare. You can certainly use the massive hood to mitigate flare.
DISTORTION AT WIDE END - Some say the distortion at the wide end makes this lens unusable for landscape/architecture work. If you're looking for a lens specifically for that task, you may want to consider a true wide angle lens like the 12-24mm or 14-24mm or go Sigma 10-20mm. However, I find this lens quite usable at the wide end.

One peculiarity with the 17-55mm is that it's at its shortest length almost fully zoomed at around 45mm and longest and fully extended at 17mm. I found this amusing since I haven't experienced other lenses with this characteristic.

In my research, I also considered the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. This lens should definitely be on your list because it offers the latest technology and it's a full frame (FX) lens. I ruled it out because it's not only $500 more than the 17-55mm, but also because it's not wide enough for my purposes. Also, I happen to be under the opinion that DX has at least a few more years before it becomes obsoleted/deprecated by FX. People are beginning to recommend against investing in DX lenses, but IMHO, affordable full frame bodies are years away.

Ultimately, I selected the Nikkor 17-55mm over the Tamron 17-50mm because of its superior usability wide open. The hit on my pocketbook was rather significant, but I have no regrets of getting such a excellent lens with a great usable range. If Nikon ever added VR to this lens, then it would be a dream come true. I state this because I often need to use a shutter speed of 1/30 or slower when shooting in low light and I rarely use a tripod. VR would come in extremely handy in this situation to prevent camera shake.

I highly recommend this lens. It's on my camera 9 times out of 10. Okay, I'll stop now.

I bought my 17-55 last month with my D200 - I had intended to get a 18-200 but they were out of stock in Indonesia. I had previously had a F3 and also a F90X and more recently also a D70 all of which were stolen. I used prime lenses with the F3 and lightweight zooms with the F90X.

At first I was shocked by the weight and considered trading it straight back in ... but my wife pointed out that the photos it took were simply stunning ... and compared to my 18-70 on my old D70 the results are wonderful - with superb definition amazing colours and contrast. It's fast too which means that the viewfinder is bright - this really helps composition in low light - and it's sharp all the way to 2.8. Remember kit lens are only really sharp from f8..

It helps me take better photos more than any camera body could. I love the lens now and would trade it for nothing else.

Now there are reviews out there implying this is a very expensive lens offering no real improvement over the excellent Nikon kit lens costing far less. As far as I can see they are unsupported by tests and should be read with extreme caution.

The 17-55 a piece of beautiful engineering and is a joy to handle and on reflection not so heavy . But the real beauty is inside where Nikon have done something almost magical........

I am a photojournalist and bought this lens to use with my Nikon D200 digital SLR. It has the best combination of focal length range, speed and quality of any lens available for the job. Yes, it is certainly a whole lot more expensive than the typical kit lenses sold with some of the other Nikon D-SLRs but to have an effective aperture of f2.8 across the entire zoom range is a tremendous plus especially in my line of work. This lens is also considerably larger and heavier than the slower kit lenses but it's a perfectly acceptable tradeoff for the speed and quality of build you get with it. Granted, this lens is not for everyone but it oftens makes the difference between getting the shot or not getting the shot. I am very pleased with this lens and highly recommend it.

I hate zoom lenses, I always feel they are soft. I have used dozens and there are few that I like (1 or 2). This is the best zoom lens I have used, IMHO it is heads, shoulders and knees above the performance of the 18-70mm kit lens (which I used for about 1 month) and the 18-200mm vr (which I rented for a weekend and thought it was garbage, it could have been a bad copy I suppose). Speaking of sharpness... I have the 50 f/1.4 and the Tamron macro 90mm f/2.8 which I consider to be my 2 sharpest lenses. If you are as picky as I am about softness then this lens is for you. It is as sharp as the fixed fifty (1.4) and the macro and both of those are known for being RAZOR sharp. I typically shot between 30 and 55mm with this lens and I am rarely disappointed. I suggest renting it for a weekend, that is what I did, shot a few hundred exposures, if you do not like it, don't buy it. Consequently if you get mugged while holding this lens it could be used to defend yourself, it is ridiculously well built and solid. In my opinion this is the best zoom lens for the nikon D series, good choice for those who are picky about sharpness.

I've had this lens since Nov of 2006. At first the weight and feel let you know this is not any kit lens. The dampening of the zoom ring is perfect, not too tight not too loose, again you feel the quality.

Then you put it on a D200 and you squeeze the shutter button to activate the auto focus. You start to wonder if it even responded because you didn't hear anything, so you start putting it to the test by quickly jumping between objects near and far. Soon you realize that the AF truly is silent and faster than anything you've used before.

Then you bring the pictures into PhotoShop and like another reviewer here stated, you realize the image doesn't need any USM (sharpening). It came right out of the camera razor sharp.

Then you try it in low light conditions and realize how fast it is. Then you get creative with the aperture wide open and it delivers beautiful creamy blurred backgrounds while your subjects are in perfect detail.

I could go on and on, but as the folks in California would say...it's all good.

If you can afford it, don't worry about the cost. IMHO it is worth every penny. Best lens I own. Of course I just ordered the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 ED IF AF-S VR zoom. It's due here this Friday, I have heard nothing but excellent reports on that lens too. This one may have to take second place when the 70-200 gets here.

Paul
Hendersonville, TN