Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX used for $800, good price?

[rjackh]

I found this lens for sale from a local photographer. It has one slight cosmetic scuff mark on the side, but other than that, in perfect working condition. Glass is supposedly perfect and everything works. It was bought in late 2011. Is this a good price for this lens? I know it retails new for about $1400, but I don't know how a lens like this depreciates because I am new to photography. Thanks for the help.

 

[D-B-J]

That lens has held its value pretty well over the years and has been known to be sharp and a solid performer. If you can do it, I'd go for it.

Jake

 

[xj0hnx]

What body do you have? If it's a crop then yes, it's a good deal, if FX get the 17-35mm 2.8

 

[rjackh]

I have a new D7000 body coming in the mail Friday.

 

[Tailgunner]

I have a new D7000 body coming in the mail Friday.

This is shameless advertising but you may wanna check out the for sale section: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/351764-fs-nikon-17-55mm-2-8-a.html

 

[PaulWog]

What body do you have? If it's a crop then yes, it's a good deal, if FX get the 17-35mm 2.8

Uhmmm... What???

If he's on FX, he obviously wouldn't want the lens. That's good to mention.

However, the 17-55 on dx has an equivalent fov focal range of 25.5-82.5mm. If he wants that focal range, why would he go with the 17-35 on fx???

Maybe be there's confusion all around.

 

[jaomul]

I am not sure about how good value this is now. The tamron and sigma equivalents seem to get as good reviews in everything but build. I can't vouch as to which is better in images but I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 that can be bought for about 1/3rd of the price. The sigma 17-50mm f2.8 with OS is supposedly even better. The Nikon holds its value and is built like a tank so if you need that it is worth the money. If you don't need that there may be better value elsewhere.

 

[goodguy]

Personally I would rather get a 24-70mm 2.8 by Sigma then this lens but if you need very wide lens then its a good lens to have.
On ebay it looks like there are better deals on this lens.
Here I found one and right now it looks like much cheaper deal and there are 16hr to go.
Of course I dont know the seller or the actualy lens so its your risk if you go for it, I am just showing what I found in a quick search

Nikon Zoom Nikkor 17 55 MM F 2 8 SWM M A AF S DX ED G IF Lens 0018208021475 | eBay

 

[xj0hnx]

What body do you have? If it's a crop then yes, it's a good deal, if FX get the 17-35mm 2.8

Uhmmm... What???

If he's on FX, he obviously wouldn't want the lens. That's good to mention.

However, the 17-55 on dx has an equivalent fov focal range of 25.5-82.5mm. If he wants that focal range, why would he go with the 17-35 on fx???

Maybe be there's confusion all around.

What do you mean "uhmmmm... What?" The 17-55mm DX is specifically made for crop, the 17-35 is made for FX, it pretty simple. Yea the 17-35 will work fine on a crop, but not really the other way around.

 

[TheLost]

I've tried the Nikon 17-55 and its a nice lens.. However it is WAY over priced. IMHO i would never spend that amount of cash on a DX lens.

A much better option is to get the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 (google the reviews) for $560 new then spend the left over money on a prime or two (50mm 1.8D and a 35mm 1.8G).

In my area the going rate for a used Nikon 17-55 is ~$800-900ish.. they are a hard sell because nobody wants to spend that amount on a DX lens. You can find a good used Sigma 17-50mm for ~$450.

 

[yioties]

The tamron 17-50 non VC is around 250-300 used and that is a great lens too

 

[robbins.photo]

What body do you have? If it's a crop then yes, it's a good deal, if FX get the 17-35mm 2.8

Uhmmm... What???

If he's on FX, he obviously wouldn't want the lens. That's good to mention.

However, the 17-55 on dx has an equivalent fov focal range of 25.5-82.5mm. If he wants that focal range, why would he go with the 17-35 on fx???

Maybe be there's confusion all around.

What do you mean "uhmmmm... What?" The 17-55mm DX is specifically made for crop, the 17-35 is made for FX, it pretty simple. Yea the 17-35 will work fine on a crop, but not really the other way around.

Ok, so could you go over that middle part again? Do we have a chart? I like charts.. lol

 

[Braineack]

[$800] Is this a good price for this lens?

Noo when you get easily get the same for $100 less

 

[xj0hnx]

I've tried the Nikon 17-55 and its a nice lens.. However it is WAY over priced. IMHO i would never spend that amount of cash on a DX lens.

Why? Just because it's made for a crop? It's good glass made for a large majority of cameras out there, just because it says DX doesn't mean it's not a good lens. I agree though that it's retail price is high, but the market has sorted it out, and it is going for what it's worth nowadays.

 

[xj0hnx]

Uhmmm... What???

If he's on FX, he obviously wouldn't want the lens. That's good to mention.

However, the 17-55 on dx has an equivalent fov focal range of 25.5-82.5mm. If he wants that focal range, why would he go with the 17-35 on fx???

Maybe be there's confusion all around.

What do you mean "uhmmmm... What?" The 17-55mm DX is specifically made for crop, the 17-35 is made for FX, it pretty simple. Yea the 17-35 will work fine on a crop, but not really the other way around.

Ok, so could you go over that middle part again? Do we have a chart? I like charts.. lol

Charts are pretty, I like pie charts.