Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G in 2025

Hi all. Apologies if this has been asked a thousand times, but it can be hard to search for specific questions/topics in the forums.

While I have a D810 with an assortment of FX lenses, I still use my D500 for sports and (very average) wildlife photography. As such, I've been considering a mid-range DX zoom to have when I'm out with my D500 and fancy some landscape stuff.

I'm considering the 17-55mm f/2.8. I know it's old and will likely be worse than lenses produced in the latter days of the DSLR era (let alone recently Z lenses), but I was wondering if folk had a view on how much worse it is? How does it compare to the Nikkor 16-80mm, for example?

Anyone out there still using this lens?

At the-digital-picture you can compare them. Honestly the 17-55 from both Nikon and Canon are some of the finest DX/EFs lenses made.

.

In 2005 I purchased a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 lens from a private party.

I've used this lens every day, if not every other day for 20yrs now.

Started on a Nikon D50, few months later it landed on a Nikon D300.

Want to mention I live and work in the jungles of S.E. Asia. In Thailand.

The post just before yours titled "Welcome 2 My World", D300,17-55 2.8.

A couple of years ago a friend gifted a D500 and it does real well this lens.

My flickr site is full photos done with both cameras and lens. This morning

I was out with my dogs in the mud cobra field using the D500, Nikkor 17-55.

On more than one occasion, this lens has been used as a defensive weapon!

And as of right now, like August 2nd, 2025 kind of right now it keeps on tickin.

Please note** all my gear is cleaned and stored in a dry box every single time.

.

D300 Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR.



Heading home this morning - D500 Nikkor 17-55 2.8 -



.

.

Thanks Jon. I always enjoy seeing your pictures from your adventures in the Jungle.

Thankfully I don't have to deal with such extreme conditions where I live!

Bielers said:

Anyone out there still using this lens?

Click to expand...

I bought one for silly money a couple of years ago, but I’ve only used it on a 12mp D300 and an IR-converted D7200. So I may not be the best person to ask about so-called “IQ.”

The 17-55mm was designed for professional events and studio sessions photography and was successful in meeting those needs. It was built and priced accordingly. What it wasn’t designed to do was set records in test chart resolution. It’s very sharp in the center of the frame, but presents light falloff and corner softness at wider apertures.

It also wasn’t designed for “free style” use such as travel. Not only does ir lack VR, but it feels unbalanced on my D7200.

Is it a good fit for me? Not really, because I use my FX gear when I get drafted to do events. But that doesn’t mean you won’t enjoy using it.

.

Nikon D500, Nikkor 17-55 2.8 lens.

Mr. Monkey a jungle rescue who

has lived with us for years ---



..

I got one along with a D200 way back in 2006. Then I moved on to a D500 in 2016. I still use that lens, in and out of the studio, and when I go on vacation. I love that lens.

I suggest that you form your own opinion by using it and not by reading graphs and charts.

On paper it sucks. In real world, it's a whole another story.

Keep in mind that it's a hefty lens.

I bought my 17-55mm f/2.8 lens about 13 years ago. Used it on a D5100 and then on my D500. It has given me great service and, in my opinion is a very good lens. I've since gone to mirrorless and bought the Z 24-70 f/2.8 which is also an excellent lens. Probably going to donate my old kit to the local high school photography program.

Replied in wrong bit! Please ignore!

I sold all my DX gear a couple of years ago.

However, what i can tell you is that the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 was one of my favorites (on a D7100, D2Xs and D300s). I used the Tamron 17-50 original and VC versions before that. Those are also very good lenses, but not as sharp or durable. The only poor lens like these I had was a Tokina 16-50 -- it wasn't terrible, just softer than it should have been. I sold it after one wedding season.

I didn't know what I was missing until I got the Nikkor. Some say the 16-80 is better, and the bigger range might be more useful, but I did a lot more portraits at that time, so I appreciated f2.8 at the long end, and corner sharpness was noticeably better. If those aren't the main issues, you'd probably be satisfied with any of these lenses.

Keep in mind these are all general-purpose "normal" lenses. Other lenses do a better job depending on their use. That's why my 24-70G is still my most-used lens for my full-frame cameras.

I have the 17-55 and use it as my standard range lens for the most part. It is quite decent optically. I also have the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Art, which is optically superior, but I find the range limiting. If you would feel at home with the Sigma range, I would recommend it over the 17-55 in a heartbeat. But, if that's not quite enough reach for your purposes, I'd have no hesitation getting the 17-55. I used to use the Nikon 18-140 as my walking around lens. I liked the range of focal lengths, but the aperture is just too slow and variable for my tastes. The 16-80 is a variable aperture lens. It's not as slow as the 18-140, but it doesn't have the reach, either. For my money, 80mm is too close to 55mm for the 16-80 to entice me, but you may feel differently. Both the 16-80 and the 18-140 have a fair amount of distortion at the focal range ends, but that can be corrected in post if you need to.

tl;dr If straight-up optical quality is your driving force, get the shockingly good Sigma 18-35. If focal range is your driving force, get the Nikon 18-140. If you are balancing optical quality, aperture, and focal range, either the Nikon 17-55 or Nikon 16-80 would be good choices, depending on the precise balance that floats your boat.

tclune said:

If straight-up optical quality is your driving force, get the shockingly good Sigma 18-35.

Click to expand...

If I might add, only buy the Sigma 18-35 1.8 if you can test it, take a few dozens photos at various distances from the subject, check the photos at 1:1 magnification on your computer and, if they are in focus, buy that very same copy of the lens. Not another one.
I have had two of them, two different lenses bought a couple of years apart one another, both of them suffered from unreliable autofocus. Even calibrating them with the USB dock (which is a royal PITA of a procedure btw) the problem never went away. If you focused three times on the same subject from the same distance, it would randomly front/back focus on 2 of the 3 shots.

This, of course, if you used central focus point. If you used any peripheral focus point, it would consistently front/back focus wildly, like half a meter to meters.

Tested on D7100 and D7200.

This same behaviour is reported in many reviews online but it seems that not all the copies suffered from it.

Thanks for everyone's views and experiences. Its been very helpful and definitely food for thought! I think I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm or 16-80mm, depending on whether I can find an ok copy at a decent price.

Just happened to see this. I had a copy of the 17-55 F2.8 that I used with my D2x. It is a great lens except for one thing. At least my copy had quite a bit of field curvature. That was a problem when you needed to have an image both sharp on the edges and in the center. My work around was to focus at a point off of the center to get a good compromise. Traded that lens for a 24 - 70 when I moved to a full frame D800. Interestingly the 24-55 did work on full frame in the range from 35-55.

I have and use that lens frequently on my D500. In fact I currently have a job covering the goings-on at a haunted house park during October and that is the only lens I use. It's fast and very sharp but doesn't have VR. But with a mono pod and the high ISO abilities of the D500 my images are excellent.

Bielers said:

I'm considering the 17-55mm f/2.8. I know it's old and will likely be worse than lenses produced in the latter days of the DSLR era (let alone recently Z lenses), but I was wondering if folk had a view on how much worse it is? How does it compare to the Nikkor 16-80mm, for example?

Anyone out there still using this lens?

Click to expand...

Hi, just came across this so since I'm still using one with a D7500, here;

Against the 16-80:

-better built,

-better autofocus, and silent, as well,

-2.8 all through,

-Actually covers the FX circle from 24mm on (the 16-80 does not at any focal length),

-And up to snuff on the 20/24Mp sensors,

So I'd say it pretty much holds its own for an "old" lens. So no, unless you really need VR or gotta have the latest since I'm pretty sure someone will come up with the virtues of the 16-80, that one isn't worth it. It is still quite expensive used, 17-55s are very cheap these days, and I'd even go as far as say that in good light, the 16-85mm will do most of what the 16-80 does, at a much lower price.

I had this lens on my D200 for probably about 90% of their time I used it. When I moved to full frame I sold the lens. However, I later bought a D500 and there was only one lens I could match it to - the 17-55. It helps to have a heavy camera body to balance it out - and it has no in-lens vibration reduction, but in terms of the images it produces it’s a superb lens.