Please convince me to NOT buy the 17-55

Started Sep 17, 2010 | Discussions thread
NikonJunkieGirl
Regular MemberPosts: 456
Like?
Re: Garbage?????
In reply to Leonard Shepherd, Sep 18, 2010

When I sold my DX kit, the 17-55 was the hardest to let go. That lens did well by me. I could always count on it, and I knew in a pinch I could use it as a weapon to protect myself.

And I agree, now that I have a bunch of f/2.8 zooms, by comparison that 17-55 seemed light and not too big--though I remember at the time feeling like it was my heaviest lens. In my DX kit the only f/2.8s I had were the 17-55, the 10.5 fisheye and the 105 VR. My others were f/3.6 and f/4 and higher. So back then my most useful lens was truly the 17-55. I never wished it was longer. When I upgraded to FX I bought wide first. (Plus the 50 G to get me through a pinch.)

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

There are two reasons not to buy it, it's very heavy and it doesn't have VR, and if you are in a low light environment and shooting below hand-held shutter speed conditions, it will matter. A VR lens would be better.

Any f2.8 is big and heavy - only the 17-35 is lighter.

No comparable f2.8 lens has VR - I regard the VR comment as at best naive - there are many ways of shooting at slow shutter speeds without VR.

When introduced the 17-55 was widely accepted as the best mid range zoom - from any manufacturer.
At under $1,000 second hand it is very good value.
I own the 24-70 - but still will not part with my 17-55

-- hide signature --

Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
easyNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow