Nikon 17-55 f2.8

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by danir, May 15, 2007.

  1. danir

    danir No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I was playing with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 that a friend has and it seems like an amazing lense. The problem ofcourse is it's price (1200$).
    There is Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (420$), and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (450$).
    Are they any good? Is the Nikon lense worth the difference?

    Dani.
     
  2. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,822
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I haven't heard to much about this lens (being a Canon shooter) but I know that Canon has a similar lens at a similar (high) price. These lenses are meant to be pro level lenses, which is one reason they cost so much.

    The Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 are very good lenses. I can personally vouch for the Tamron, I have that one. They may be a small step down from the brand name lenses...but at less than half the cost, they are a great value.
     
  3. Patrice

    Patrice No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    381
    Location:
    Campbellton, New Brunswick, Canada
    The Nikon 17-55 2.8 and the canon equivalent are expensive for a reason. They are both incredibly sharp at large apertures, are mechanically flawless and are built like tanks. Really good glass does cost a bit more.
     
  4. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Like Patrice, I also shoot with the 17-55 DX. I paid $1000 for mine becuase I sold my 35-70 f/2.8 and 18-35 f/3.5-4.5. The reason it's $1200-$1400 and not $400 like the Tamron's and the Sigma's is because it's metal, sealed, and is COMPLETELY compatible with past, present, and future Nikon digital cameras. The only problem I've run into with it on my D70s is that it's too sharp (go figure), I sometimes get aliasing. It is a pro-level lens that lives on my camera and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I've never seen any lens (aside form primes) that are this sharp at f/2.8. I haven't printed larger than 12x18 yet, but I know I won't be disappointed.
     
  5. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    This is the next lens I plan to purchase I think it is an excellent lens.
     
  6. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    137
    I use the 17-55 f2.8. It is the lens I use the most. It is one of the best zoom lenses Nikon has ever designed. I see no meaningful distortion at any focal length and very crisp corners. The only zoom that I have tested that competes with it optically is the 70-200 VR lens. I have no experience with the off brand but the price difference should tell you about all you need to know.

    On the downside it is large and heavy for a "normal" lens. We always seem to need to pay a price, I guess.
     
  7. danir

    danir No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks for the information.

    Dani.
     

Share This Page