Is the Nikon 17-55 a good choice? Will there be a new model soon?

Dieter01 · Sep 29, 2006

I have just sold my Canon 350D with the 17-85 lens. It was OK, but I was never really 100% happy with it. I have decided to buy a Nikon D200 instead, and this time I want better performance - especially improved sharpness compared to my old combination. The Nikon 17-55 has a zoom range that fits me perfectly as an all-round lens but it is quite expensive.

I wouldn't have a problem justifying the price if the performance of the lens proved to be stellar. What worries me though is that even though reviews are OK, nobody seem to be blown away by it. It Some even compare it to the 18-70, saying this cheap lens provides almost as good images with only a minute difference...

How do you think a D200 with 18-70 would compare to my old combo? If I wasn't happy with the latter, will I be with this new?
How often does Nikon typically "upgrade" their lenses? Do you think there will/could be a VR version of this lens in the next year or two?

Thanks for your help!

JIP · Sep 30, 2006

I'm not sure on the "VR" version of any lens but yo need to clarify what lens you are talking about. If you are talking about the 17-55 2.8 DX I think this is an excellenlens and a good partner for the D200 I was a little hesitant at first about this lens because I have not had good experience with Nikons G lenses but I got to hold this lens recently and it is a beautiful piece of glass. Definately a lens that is in my near future. Just remember if you wait for the next big thing with digital when do you stop waiting? there is always something new coming out so theoretically any purchase you make will be trumped by the next big thing.

bitteraspects · Sep 30, 2006

you sold your xt for a nikon?????

*shakes head*

dsp921 · Sep 30, 2006

Kind of a short lens for VR in my opinion. The 17-55 is generally considered a very sharp lens. I went with the 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor over the 17-55DX myself, though. You'll be very happy with the D200. I think Nikon will be focusing (no pun intended) on other glass before the do anything with the 17-55mm.

JIP · Sep 30, 2006

dsp921 said:
Kind of a short lens for VR in my opinion. I went with the 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor over the 17-55DX myself The 17-55 is generally considered a very sharp lens., though. You'll be very happy with the D200. I think Nikon will be focusing (no pun intended) on other glass before the do anything with the 17-55mm.

Why is it too short, that doesn't make any sense why not have VR in the full range. You really can't compare the 2 they both have completely different purposes personally I would like to have both in my bag (and hopefully will soon) to round out mo focal length range.

dsp921 · Oct 1, 2006

JIP said:
Why is it too short, that doesn't make any sense why not have VR in the full range. You really can't compare the 2 they both have completely different purposes personally I would like to have both in my bag (and hopefully will soon) to round out mo focal length range.

Funny, I don't recall comparing them. I simply said I went with the 28-70, the focal length worked better for what I wanted, I didn't like the reports of sample variation and problems with the 17-55 and I'm not a DX fan since I still have a film camera collecting dust. If I want wider I'll be adding the 17-35 over the 17-55 for less overlap and some of the reasons already mentioned. If the 12-24 was a f/2.8 and not DX I'd get that.
As for the VR, unless you shoot in low light a lot VR is needed less on short lenses since shake is less of an issue. Nikon has several telephotos that could use VR before that lens, that's all I'm saying. I did say it was my opinion...

dsp921 · Oct 1, 2006

Dieter01 said:
I wouldn't have a problem justifying the price if the performance of the lens proved to be stellar. What worries me though is that even though reviews are OK, nobody seem to be blown away by it. It Some even compare it to the 18-70, saying this cheap lens provides almost as good images with only a minute difference...

Where did you hear that? The 17-55mm is a much better lens than the 18-70mm. Unless you happen to get a bad sample of the 17-55, it will provide much better images than the 18-70. Those comments you mention sound like they could have come from Rockwell's site. I wouldn't put too much weight behind the reviews you see on that site, just my opinion. While I'm not personally a fan of the 17-55, it's easily better than the consumer kit lenses.
Rent one and see for yourself, that's the best way to decide if it'll work for you or not. I've had the 18-70 and 70-300 consumer lenses, I went to the "pro" glass and I think they are worth the money.

JIP · Oct 1, 2006

dsp921 said:
Funny, I don't recall comparing them. I simply said I went with the 28-70, the focal length worked better for what I wanted, I didn't like the reports of sample variation and problems with the 17-55 and I'm not a DX fan since I still have a film camera collecting dust. If I want wider I'll be adding the 17-35 over the 17-55 for less overlap and some of the reasons already mentioned. If the 12-24 was a f/2.8 and not DX I'd get that.
As for the VR, unless you shoot in low light a lot VR is needed less on short lenses since shake is less of an issue. Nikon has several telephotos that could use VR before that lens, that's all I'm saying. I did say it was my opinion...

No but you did say "I went with the 28-70 over the 17-55" and thats not a good option the 17 is an ultra-wide and the 28 is alot less wide (obviously). So when the original poster asks about the 17-55 compared to the 18-70 and you say that it doesn't make sense especially if the guy is talking about digital. the 28-70 and the 17-55 actually would be a nice combo to have in your bag along with mabye the 70-200 2.8VR to cover a wide focal range.

dsp921 · Oct 1, 2006

JIP said:
No but you did say "I went with the 28-70 over the 17-55" and thats not a good option the 17 is an ultra-wide and the 28 is alot less wide (obviously). So when the original poster asks about the 17-55 compared to the 18-70 and you say that it doesn't make sense especially if the guy is talking about digital. the 28-70 and the 17-55 actually would be a nice combo to have in your bag along with mabye the 70-200 2.8VR to cover a wide focal range.

Exactly where did I say it wasn't a good option?? I think you should read what I wrote, I have no clue where you're getting this from. You really need to show me where I said this stuff. Please show me where I wrote it didn't make sense.
I said I thought the range was too short for VR (first sentence).
I said the 17-55 is a sharp lens (second sentence)
Where's the "not a good option"? Where is the "it doesn't make sense especially if he's talking digital"?
Here's the post:

dsp921 said:
Kind of a short lens for VR in my opinion. The 17-55 is generally considered a very sharp lens. I went with the 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor over the 17-55DX myself, though. You'll be very happy with the D200. I think Nikon will be focusing (no pun intended) on other glass before the do anything with the 17-55mm.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or text in my post or whatever.
By simply saying I went with another lens you detemined everything else. Actually, if the guy is going purely digital the DX lens would obviously be a good choice.

fmw · Oct 1, 2006

I think the 17-55 is quite good for a fast zoom. There is a little light fall off in the corners like any zoom and a slight loss of sharpness in the corners at maximum aperture. But you can close down 1 stop and outperform the standard zoom with a wider aperture at the longer end of the zoom range. With f2.8 you have a lot of options for using depth of field and the lens doesn't get slower as you move to longer focal lengths. Also this lens is contrastier than the standard zoom.

I use this lens for tabletop product photography and it provides everything I need. My macro lens is collecting dust at the moment. I bought it when it was released to replace the 18-55 standard zoom. No comparison.

Tiberius · Oct 1, 2006

If you get the 17-55, be sure you get it from a store you can return it to. Most samples are absolutely stunning but there have been reports in the last few months of a few occasional soft samples.

The lens is absolutely stunning and fast enough that it doesn't need VR. I highly reccomend it.

Dieter01 · Oct 1, 2006

dsp921 said:
Where did you hear that? The 17-55mm is a much better lens than the 18-70mm. Unless you happen to get a bad sample of the 17-55, it will provide much better images than the 18-70. Those comments you mention sound like they could have come from Rockwell's site. I wouldn't put too much weight behind the reviews you see on that site, just my opinion. While I'm not personally a fan of the 17-55, it's easily better than the consumer kit lenses.
Rent one and see for yourself, that's the best way to decide if it'll work for you or not. I've had the 18-70 and 70-300 consumer lenses, I went to the "pro" glass and I think they are worth the money.

Hehe! Funny you should ask that. I think I remember the Rockwell site even saying that it is more comparable to the 18-55 plastic thingy...

Rockwell writes a ton of reviews, but they always seem to conclude the opposite of what I read elsewhere. That goes for lenses, filters, tripods, cameras and technique. Seems like the guy who runs it does a lot of photography though, so I wonder why they differ so much.

To all: thanks for the comments! The best buy I can find atm is actually from a store in town, not online (same price). I am now convinced / assured and will be making the buy on Thursday once I return home.

Appreciate the help!