17-55 question

Started Apr 21, 2012 | Discussions
liquidmonkey1
Regular MemberPosts: 149
Like?
17-55 question
Apr 21, 2012

i've decided to pull the trigger on the nikon 17-55 f2.8 in a few weeks but have 2 remaining questions...

1) have there been any rumors about an eventual upgrade for this lens or the release of a similar lens? i'd hate to buy it and then a newer version gets released in a month.

2) i'd need a filter for protecting the lens. should i get a clear filter to screw on or a UV filter? r maybe there is another type of protecting filter i'm not aware of?

thanks!

-- hide signature --

own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

SmittenHobbyist
Regular MemberPosts: 240
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to liquidmonkey1, Apr 21, 2012

question one -
doubtful
i dont think we are going to see any more pro DX lenses
and even if one came out,
the current 17-55mm would still be the all star that it is

question two -
if you are going to use a filter get a b+w xs-pro clear nano (007)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=756818&is=REG&A=details&Q=
it has a nice anti-glare coating that the 17-55 is somewhat sorely missing (imo)

congrats on the new glass
i love love my 17-55

i owned and returned 2 sigma 17-50s, and a tamron 17-50
both lenses were nice
but 600-700 is still a lot to spend on a cheap generic lens
no matter how sharp in the center stopped down!
lol

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,927Gear list
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to liquidmonkey1, Apr 21, 2012

As a 24 MP DX D400 is more likely following the D3200 announcement a 17-55 upgrade to nano coating could come at the same time.
There are plenty of second hand 17-55's available.

If you are going to use a filter for "protection" there is no point in a UV as digital sensors and lens cements filter this out. Nikon make the clear NC.

The substantial lens hood which comes for free is likely to provide much more protection than a filter, with no possibility of an image quality reduction.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Photography could be easier - if cameras and lenses came with an increase in skill button.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SmittenHobbyist
Regular MemberPosts: 240
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to Leonard Shepherd, Apr 21, 2012

you gotta wonder why such a huge hood comes with this lens

it has flare issues
it benefits from an extreme quality filter like the once I posted

but I will admit
I hate lens hoods
so take my points from the bias

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_cheese
Senior MemberPosts: 1,362
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to liquidmonkey1, Apr 21, 2012

I too have been eyeing that lens and rented it for a week to see if it is all it is cut out to be. I shot about 600 pics over 6 days only with it.

At that price point you would think it needs to get with the times, it sorely needs nano-coating, must have hood on on a sunny day. I also missed the VR, despite what all others say about those focal lengths, you dont always want to shoot wide open and you dont carry a tripod at all times, VR is handy for slower shutter shots of relatively still subjects. With all that, I really doubt that there will be lenses of this calibre for DX, Nikon is unlikely to refresh this lens for the handfull of D400 users who can just as well use this older lens or use the newer FX lenses. (the price difference between the 17-55 and the 24-70 is about $300 and the latter comes with nonocrystal coating)

When I first put it on, i thought dam this big thing and not much noticeable over the kit 18-55. When I took it off and put the 18-55, I realized the difference. The 17-55 is sharper and does have better contrast but thats not where its strenght lies IMO, the fast accurate focus is indispensible. If you get two accurately focused pics in similar light between the 18-55 and the 17-55 you would be hard pressed to justify the price difference, the difference comes from the fact that the 17-55 nails the focus 99% of the time even in low lighting (think indoors at night with acouple of floor lamps), by the time the 18-55 squeaks around and if you are lucky guesses where the focus is you would have burst out 10 or so focused shots with the better lens.

If you dont mind the price and weight, then there is nothing to dislike about the 17-55 It does have some CA/finging, but thats an easy fix in post.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2005magnum
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,473
Like?
Before you pull the trigger
In reply to blue_cheese, Apr 21, 2012

I had the Nikon. Good lens, but to big and bulky. Not as impressive as I liked for the price point. Luckily, I was able to recoup my investment and just decided to live with my other lenses.

I decided to compare the Tamron and Sigma versions. Don't get me wrong, I love Nikon glass, but for the size, weight and money, I decided on the Sigma. Although the review on photozone is on a Canon body, the results are the same for the Nikon:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os

I like the color, color, contrast, sharpness and general IQ

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reivilos
Regular MemberPosts: 224Gear list
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to liquidmonkey1, Apr 21, 2012

liquidmonkey1 wrote:

1) have there been any rumors about an eventual upgrade for this lens or the release of a similar lens? i'd hate to buy it and then a newer version gets released in a month.

The 17-55 was the pro PJ lens made for times when Nikon's pro DSLRs were DX. Since the apparition of FX, Nikon have not issued any new pro-grade DX lenses. I wouldn't bet on a upgrade soon. You can always buy second-hand to hedge that bet. 17-55s are built like tanks.

2) i'd need a filter for protecting the lens. should i get a clear filter to screw on or a UV filter? r maybe there is another type of protecting filter i'm not aware of?

UV is not needed with digital, go for the clear if you need it. Me, I just put the hood on mine. It's huge, and the front element is well recessed in the hood.

 Reivilos's gear list:Reivilos's gear list
Nikon D300S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Big One
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,360Gear list
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to liquidmonkey1, Apr 21, 2012

If you need f/2.8 then I think you are probably safe to look at that lens, I have not heard of any rumours of updated versions... however I have my eye on the rumoured 16-85/4. IMHO the range is more useful, and f/4 at the long end is generally fine for my purposes (if I need faster then I go to a fast prime, of which I have a few); f/1.4 is two stops faster than f/2.8, whereas f/2.8 is only one stop faster than f/4. Just something to think about...

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

 The Big One's gear list:The Big One's gear list
Nikon D60 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,927Gear list
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to SmittenHobbyist, Apr 22, 2012

but I will admit I hate lens hoods

That is personal choice - but lens hoods often increase image contrast and apparent image sharpness.

As a rule of thumb fast wide angle zooms have about 1 stop less contrast than longer focal lengths.
I would not use a fast wide angle from choice without the lens hood attached.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Photography could be easier - if cameras and lenses came with an increase in skill button.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cipsaz
New MemberPosts: 15
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to Leonard Shepherd, Apr 23, 2012

Superb lens. Have used all kinds of Nikkor VR lenses, but sold them all for the 17-55. Once you step up to a higher glass grade, it is very hard to step back.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
InTheMist
Senior MemberPosts: 2,020Gear list
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to liquidmonkey1, Apr 23, 2012

liquidmonkey1 wrote:

...have 2 remaining questions...

1) have there been any rumors about an eventual upgrade for this lens or the release of a similar lens? i'd hate to buy it and then a newer version gets released in a month.

2) i'd need a filter for protecting the lens. should i get a clear filter to screw on or a UV filter? r maybe there is another type of protecting filter i'm not aware of?

1) Haven't heard anything.

2) I would go with the best you can get - Hoya or equivalent. I have a Hoya on both my 2.8 zooms. I know people say that it degrades image quality, I can't confirm.

Here is one of my 17-55 pics, taken with a D5100.

 InTheMist's gear list:InTheMist's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ScottRH
Senior MemberPosts: 1,546
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to InTheMist, Apr 23, 2012

I had the Tamron and the Nikon both for a while. There is no comparison as far I am concerned - the Nikon has better image quality, nicely balanced, and mine has no distortion. I got rid of the Tamron. You clearly get what you pay for in this range on DX. The Nikon 17-55 DX is one of the best and does not need anything upgraded on it IMO.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Soares
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,064Gear list
Like?
Agreed +1! nt
In reply to ScottRH, Apr 23, 2012
-- hide signature --

Ray Soares

See my pictures at http://www.pbase.com/raysoares

 Ray Soares's gear list:Ray Soares's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JaronRH
Contributing MemberPosts: 529
Like?
Re: 17-55 question
In reply to blue_cheese, Apr 23, 2012

Go for the Nikon 17-55 if you can afford it - you wont regret it! It's built like a tank, takes great pictures, and has lightning fast AF.

I used to rent the Nikon 17-55 for weddings myself (I prefer prime lens usually but they just don't cut it for weddings!). I personally went for a Sigma 17-50 OS and lucked out with a really good copy. While the OS is extremely nice to have (works just as good as the VRII on my 70-200!) and was a big selling point for me, the Nikon does still [barely] edge out the Sigma in AF speed and corner sharpness wide open. I just personally didn't find the Nikon's differences worth another $1200 for me like I did when comparing the Sigma 70-200 OS to the Nikon 70-200 VRII.

Sigma:
+ Lighter (but still very good build quality)
+ OS
+ Almost no CA's

  • Slightly softer corners (then Nikon) @ 2.8

  • Slightly slower AF (then Nikon) and no AF/M mode.

o Canon zoom ring

Nikon:
+ Build Quality
+ Weather Sealing

  • No VR

  • $1200 more!

Congrats on the new lens!

-- hide signature --

-Jaron

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads