Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 - Has anyone used it?

HckySo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 9, 2006
402
0
turn around
Does anyone have experience with this lens? I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 on my Fuji S2 Pro. I find my current lens isn't exactly as sharp as I would like it to be and it's too slow (not to mention it feels really cheap). I've always loved using the Nikon 17-55mm at work but I'm wondering if there is any reason I should not spend $1200 on one?
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,379
110
Location Location Location
Because the Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 (or was it 17-55 mm??) is supposed to be fantastic as well, and cheaper.

If you have the money, then go for the Nikon. I'm sure it's great. However, if you want to save money (and I can't tell if this is your main concern from your post), go to Photozone.de or slrgear.com and look for reviews of the Sigma 18-50 mm or Tamron 17-50 mm.
 

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,753
142
While I find reviews to be helpful, I also find real life shots from real life people useful. Check this site for your lenses to see if there are any real user sample shots, not reviewer shots. Camera/Lens Database
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
Have a look at third-party lenses which are a lot more affordable. If you want to have lenses that have a `quality-feel' to them, definitely go for Tokina lenses, they are built like tanks (typically full-metal lenses). They offer a 2.8/16-50 lens. There are alternatives by Tamron and Sigma that are cheaper and more plasticky.
 

HckySo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 9, 2006
402
0
turn around
I'm not too concerned about price (as long as it's under $1400 or so) and I'm not necessarily looking for something that can survive a war. I want the fastest, best performing, most bang for my buck lens that provides the same general zoom range. My boss had this lens as his main lens before he switched to Canon, I loved it, I'm just having second thoughts before I buy this and I really want to make sure I'm perfectly sure this is the right one for me.
 

Kamera RAWr

macrumors 65816
May 15, 2007
1,022
0
Sitting on a rig somewhere
I have the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX and its a fantastic lens. Built like a tank, feels solid. There's nothing I can really say thats negative about this lens, except the price ;). I had considered the 18-70mm lens when looking.. I know, totally different prices... but was debating whether I needed the 2.8 or not. The quality of the pictures that it produces is exactly what you'd expect for the price you pay... they are fantastic. Perhaps I'll get to post a pic or two later :)
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,641
406
Redondo Beach, California
Does anyone have experience with this lens? I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 on my Fuji S2 Pro. I find my current lens isn't exactly as sharp as I would like it to be and it's too slow (not to mention it feels really cheap). I've always loved using the Nikon 17-55mm at work but I'm wondering if there is any reason I should not spend $1200 on one?
These show up on the used market now and then for a lot less than $1,200. The 17-55 is not a light weight lens it's earned it's nick name "The Beast" because it is one. But if you like this range and the f/2.8 speed it's the one to get. But primes are f/1.4 that's a full TWO stops faster for half the bulk and 1/4 the price. Two stops is a lot but then wthout a zoom you have to use your feet. But then two tops means 4x faster shutter speeds and more shots become hand holdable
 

HckySo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 9, 2006
402
0
turn around
These show up on the used market now and then for a lot less than $1,200. The 17-55 is not a light weight lens it's earned it's nick name "The Beast" because it is one. But if you like this range and the f/2.8 speed it's the one to get. But primes are f/1.4 that's a full TWO stops faster for half the bulk and 1/4 the price. Two stops is a lot but then wthout a zoom you have to use your feet. But then two tops means 4x faster shutter speeds and more shots become hand holdable
I understand the advantages of prime lenses however for the type of photography I do I'm much better off with a wide angle lens plus I hear the 17-55 is comparably sharp to a prime and I like f/2.8. I think later on if I get longer zoom lenses I'll get a prime to fill the gap.

Anyway, where do you see these cheaper used prices? Do you have any suggestions on websites to buy used equipment from? And is it smart to buy used glass?
 

gogojuice

macrumors member
Jan 20, 2007
43
0
Just browsing the forums and thought I would add my 2 cents.
f course this depends totally on your budget, but since your looking at this lens/price range I will put this forward as a suggestion.

2 Lens System.

For our business we use 17-55's and 70-200 vr

This covers most of the common ground you will need to cover and gives you the best lenses out there, at a price.

If you want a bit more, grab a macro, and if you need longer add a tele converter to the 70-200.

The 17-55 produces nice brokeh (creamy backgrounds) at 2.8.

I am sure you can find nice examples. If not PM and I'll send you some from our site.

Cheers
 

libertyterran

macrumors member
Apr 12, 2007
40
0
Just browsing the forums and thought I would add my 2 cents.
f course this depends totally on your budget, but since your looking at this lens/price range I will put this forward as a suggestion.

2 Lens System.

For our business we use 17-55's and 70-200 vr

This covers most of the common ground you will need to cover and gives you the best lenses out there, at a price.

If you want a bit more, grab a macro, and if you need longer add a tele converter to the 70-200.

The 17-55 produces nice brokeh (creamy backgrounds) at 2.8.

I am sure you can find nice examples. If not PM and I'll send you some from our site.

Cheers
I just wish I had the money to buy a 70-200VR lens :(. It costs 2500 AUD over here :(... The 17-55 is about 2000 AUD ...
 

hanschien

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2006
338
13
Houston, TX
These show up on the used market now and then for a lot less than $1,200. The 17-55 is not a light weight lens it's earned it's nick name "The Beast" because it is one. But if you like this range and the f/2.8 speed it's the one to get. But primes are f/1.4 that's a full TWO stops faster for half the bulk and 1/4 the price. Two stops is a lot but then wthout a zoom you have to use your feet. But then two tops means 4x faster shutter speeds and more shots become hand holdable
Actually the 28-70f2.8 from what I've read is considered more of a beast between the two.
 

Mike Teezie

macrumors 68020
Nov 20, 2002
2,206
1
I know Nate and Jaclyn from Image is Found used that lens, and only that lens on their D2Xs cameras for a long while. They just switched to Canon, but their best work was done with that lens.
 

HckySo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 9, 2006
402
0
turn around
Wow! All these amazing photographers are switching to Canon! Even you! Is it because the 5D is full frame or something?

And thanks for the sample RAWr!

UPDATE: I ordered it. Two months for shipping, interesting.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
Compared to the offerings from Tokina, the Sigma and Tamron lenses do not have the "heft" that Tokina has. For my 12-24, the Tokina justs feels more solid than the Nikon 12-24....
Seconded, Tokina lenses are built like tanks and easily surpass all Nikon and Canon glass in its price-class, too.