My 17-55mm f2.8G review

Windancer said:

ShooterNikon said:

the 17-55 is one of the true Nikon legends, IMO

Click to expand...

Windancer said:

even though I am on FX now I will never ever sell the 17-55

Click to expand...

This is how I feel also....... ;-)

Click to expand...

Interesting, I just changed to FX and have the same feeling about not selling the 17-55. that lens has been stuck on my old D70 for years and has always given good service. Feels like an old friend everytime I pick it up...

But it has to go to a new home....

Nice review, but honestly, overly positive.

People always write glowing reviews of their expensive lenses of course - to admit it isn't perfect would be admitting that ... maybe you wasted some money.

It is worth mentioning in your review that this lens has a LOT of shortcomings, especially when compared to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS.

The Nikon has great build quality, a non-rotating focus ring with MF override, and 55mm on the long end. In all other aspects, the Sigma 17-50 outperforms it - especially on a high-MP camera like the D7000.

The Sigma has

• Half the cost
• Higher maximum resolution
• Optical stabilization
• Less field curvature - this is nightmarish for landscapes at 17mm on the Nikon
• Less CA's - although not that noticeable in practice
• Same vignetting, distortion, light transmission.
• Better balanced corners - IMPORTANT. The Sigma has the best corners at 50mm f/2.8, worst corners at 17mm f/2.8. Which are you more likely to use at f/2.8? 50mm for portraits. At 17mm, you're not likely to use f/2.8 - you'll be shooting landscapes so you'll stop down anyway. The Nikon is the opposite - best corners at 17mm f/2.8, worst at 50mm f/2.8 WTF.
• Better balanced focus distance - IMPORTANT. The Nikon is a lot better performer close up - it is practically a macro lens. At infinity focus, it's not so great. The Sigma is pretty balanced for all focus distances.

Nikon needs to update their design. If they came out with a 17-55 f/2.8 DX AF-S VRII Nano with a smarter optical performance balance, I'd get one in a heartbeat, even if it was $2500.

Currently, I own both of these lenses. I rarely use the Nikon anymore, but I don't want to sell it cause on the used market it's worth about 75% of what I paid for it.... wonder why that is?

Reference material, one of the only sites out there that compares both lenses on the same camera:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/377/%28brand%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/680/%28lens2%29/173/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/680

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Looking-for-a-luminous-lens-kit-Choose-Tamron-or-Sigma

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Sigma-17-50mm-F2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-test-and-review

I agree, i have read many complaints about the internal focus issues with the hardware on this especific lens, which kind of suck because i was looking into this lens. Some dude offered me one for $500 but It cost an arm and a leg just to fix them. I am sure some people are lucky and got a really good one, me i don't have $1500 to throw for one of this when there are other options. If i did it would have to be on a used one and i am VERY scared to do that.

motobloat said:

I rarely use the Nikon anymore, but I don't want to sell it cause on the used market it's worth about 75% of what I paid for it.... wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

And what's your Sigma worth?

motobloat said:

• Higher maximum resolution

Click to expand...

I don't know just how you figure that out.

motobloat said:

Currently, I own both of these lenses. I rarely use the Nikon anymore, but I don't want to sell it cause on the used market it's worth about 75% of what I paid for it.... wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

The Nikon 17-55 F2.8 cost $1500 today. You can probably buy a decent used one for $1000. That is 66% of new price. However, I paid $1150 five years ago. I can still sell it for $1000. Not bad at all.

--

based on my own findings i have always been massively disappointed with any third party lens i ever bought & have ended up buying the real deal Nikkor lens anyway.

it really has been a case of buy cheap, buy twice. (this includes changing them straight away for better copies that still aren't quite right!)
maybe you got lucky with your purchases?
maybe everyone else is wrong?
in my experience you get what you pay for

motobloat said:

Nice review, but honestly, overly positive.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you or saying you're wrong, that is your opinion which you are certainly entitled to.

Personally I really like my 17-55/2.8, yes it has some shortcomings such as size and weight, no VR, but overall IMO the Nikon is a a better lens albeit much more exspensive but is much more valuable on the resale market if that makes a difference to you.

Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)

Windancer said:

motobloat said:

Nice review, but honestly, overly positive.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you or saying you're wrong, that is your opinion which you are certainly entitled to.

Personally I really like my 17-55/2.8, yes it has some shortcomings such as size and weight, no VR, but overall IMO the Nikon is a a better lens albeit much more exspensive but is much more valuable on the resale market if that makes a difference to you.

Click to expand...

I apologize for being so negative about your purchase, which I'm sure you don't want to second-guess (no one likes to do that, hurts the brain). But I really do think your review is very biased ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias )

I like my 17-55 too, and it still takes great pictures. But it mostly sits on the shelf these days. The build quality is rarely enough to make me give up stabilization and better optics.

Nikon needs to update the 17-55 big time -- the design is 10 years old -- but really I question whether Nikon will remain committed to DX equipment at ALL, much less high end DX gear.

Nikon hasn't released any "gold ring" pro DX lenses since 2003 (when their pro-level D2 series was a DX sensor), and there aren't many to choose from - just these:

• Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 DX (2003)
• Nikon 12-24mm f/4.0 DX (2003)
• Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX (2003)

They never released a DX 70-200 equivalent (a DX 50-150 f/2.8 or a DX 50-135 f/2.8), nor any high-end DX primes (and only 3 DX-specific primes so far, two of which are macro's).

Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina wouldn't be selling their DX-only lenses like hotcakes if Nikon supported their DX lineup. Good thing the third-party manufacturers are there though, because they're the only ones pushing the envelope on innovation. Nikon is probably going to let DX die off until it's just the D3200-series and a bunch of cheap 18-to-X and 55-to-X zooms.

mistermejia said:

I agree, i have read many complaints about the internal focus issues with the hardware on this especific lens, which kind of suck because i was looking into this lens. Some dude offered me one for $500 but It cost an arm and a leg just to fix them. I am sure some people are lucky and got a really good one, me i don't have $1500 to throw for one of this when there are other options. If i did it would have to be on a used one and i am VERY scared to do that.

Click to expand...

Til now, i haven't found a third party lens i am going to be HAPPY with, not just "pleased" or "satisfied". Bottom line, the Nikon is the best, i will just have to start saving for it, for a pre-owned one, i will just have to test it thoroughly to make sure is working good. For $900 bucks you can't go wrong with it.

I had both the 18-200 and 17-55 and loved the latter of the two. I gave up on the 18-200.
Images with the 17-55 always seem more 3D and lifelike.

I am moving to FX and sadly selling my 17-55. It is listed in the for sale forum.

motobloat said:

Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina wouldn't be selling their DX-only lenses like hotcakes

Click to expand...

Proof?

motobloat said:

Good thing the third-party manufacturers are there though, because they're the only ones pushing the envelope on innovation.

Click to expand...

Examples of this innovation?

I'm not saying third party lenses are bad but you are making some grand claims about them that I'm just not seeing.

Can some of you folks that say that this Nikon 17-55 is the "best" post some jpeg photos to get an idea of what this lens produces at 2.8? After a while it does get very anoying when people just talk and talk and talk and talk, but never deliver some facts. Is a waste of time and i am interested in this lens.

thanks.

mistermejia,

you are posting in 3 or 4 threads to inquire about this one lens and the competition.

You should just buy the lens and try it. If you don't like it, you can easily sell it for about the same price.

Here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/110911194855

Randy Benter said:

mistermejia,

you are posting in 3 or 4 threads to inquire about this one lens and the competition.

You should just buy the lens and try it. If you don't like it, you can easily sell it for about the same price.

Here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/110911194855

Click to expand...

Yeah, i know. Is called research. I figure some people are not interested in one certain subject, i guess if you change the subject a little i might get what i am looking for, too bad there is just too much talking and no proof.

I have pretty much narrowed down to two brands, it will be a future nikon or tokina

Here's a shot I took with my Nikon 17-55, at 55mm and F2.8 of a pony peeking at me through fence slats.

Oh, and here's my non-technical review of the Nikon 17-55 with an image as it compares to my other 2 Nikon lenses: The Kit 18-105 and my 35mm F1.8.

http://kyleroot.com/blog/?p=371

Enjoy!

An old old expensive lense. Nikon milking amortization out of it to the max. Since it was designed for Kodachrome slides I have noticed a lot of pro complaints regarding corner sharpness.

A dog whose time to be put down was years ago. But I hear a Leica M3 or Hasselblad 500C takes excellent pictures.

Write me a victim's impact statement as to why this optic doesn't need to be updated and improved.
--

Sold the (old) half-frame from Thailand. Bought a 700 under my own personal stimulus
plan.

Mr Fartleberry said:

An old old expensive lense. Nikon milking amortization out of it to the max. Since it was designed for Kodachrome slides I have noticed a lot of pro complaints regarding corner sharpness.

Click to expand...

Sorry, not following you. You can't be talking about the 17-55 since it was designed for digital from the outset. To what lens are you referring (or are you being clever)?

Here are a few samples taken with the Nikon 17-55.
1/60, f2.8



1/25, f8



1/60, f6.3,-1ev



1/50, f2.8, -1/2ev



1/100, f8, -1/3ev



1/125, f8, -1/3ev



1/800, f9, -2/3ev



1/4000, f3.5, -2/3 ev



All images shot at ISO 200

I don't usually post on this forum. I'm by no means a pro, just examples of some images taken with this lens.
Carol

Carol

mistermejia said:

Can some of you folks that say that this Nikon 17-55 is the "best" post some jpeg photos to get an idea of what this lens produces at 2.8?

Click to expand...

Personally I NEVER shoot jpgs, only RAW but that's me and another thread entirely.. ;-)

mistermejia said:

After a while it does get very anoying when people just talk and talk and talk and talk, but never deliver some facts.

Click to expand...

I hear you and wish I could help you out. See above

mistermejia said:

i am interested in this lens.

Click to expand...

IMO, for what it may be worth, this is a very good lens. Sure it is big, heavy and expensive and make lack the VR of newer lenses but the IQ is very good IMO.

Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer

Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)