Has anyone had any hands on experience with the Nikon AFS DX 17-55 f2.8?

Marco

I've been following a thread concerning the AF problems with this lens and am just wondering if anyone has had any similar issues with this lens in particular - soft focusing. It's an awfully big expense for a lens that hope performs to the level that it's specked out to.:scratch

spider-t

Marco wrote:

I've been following a thread concerning the AF problems with this lens and am just wondering if anyone has had any similar issues with this lens in particular - soft focusing. It's an awfully big expense for a lens that hope performs to the level that it's specked out to.

I use this lens all the time. I think it's fantastic. I use it for all my events. Perhaps event shooting doesn't really have the same kind of sharp focus requirements as some applications, but it's still my right hand lens.

(My left hand lens, the 70-200 2.8 VR is noticeably sharper, but that one is legendary.)

cheers,
Trish

39mm, TTL flash, manual: 1/25sec, F/4.0

Marco

Nice shot spider

I had the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5 and I wasn't impressed with the raw images, that's actually one of my main driving points for purchasing the better lenses. Eventually, I will buy the 70-200 vr but for the moment I would like to have a primary lens with crystal clear raw images.

I love hiking and most of the shots I do take do not require a large zoom such as the 70-200 at all. Battling the variances in lighting at many of my forested locations is difficult at times - ideally I would just lug around a cart full of primes but would rather have one that can cover many of my basis.

For instances, the wonderful picture you took would be considered to be 70% of the shots that I would take and demand the sharpness that this price point should intale.

spider-t

Marco wrote:

Nice shot spider

I had the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5 and I wasn't impressed with the raw images, that's actually one of my main driving points for purchasing the better lenses. Eventually, I will buy the 70-200 vr but for the moment I would like to have a primary lens with crystal clear raw images.

I love hiking and most of the shots I do take do not require a large zoom such as the 70-200 at all. Battling the variances in lighting at many of my forested locations is difficult at times - ideally I would just lug around a cart full of primes but would rather have one that can cover many of my basis.

For instances, the wonderful picture you took would be considered to be 70% of the shots that I would take and demand the sharpness that this price point should intale.

If it's hiking and super sharp you want, you should maybe consider the 50mm/1.4. The 17-55 is still a big heavy lens. When I put the 50mm on my d2x, I feel like I have a compact pocket camera. And that lens is so sharp it gets the guys at the print lab to ask me about my gear. Print guys are nuts about sharp too.

It's cheap compared to the 17-55mm.

50mm, 1/8000 sec, f/1.4


cheers,
Trish

Marco

So Trish, then what should I be getting?

50mm 1.4 only? Then the VR 70 -200? and throw in a macro to boot?

Then why did you buy the 17-55 if you don't mind me asking?

Thank you

DoctorIt

Marco wrote:

So Trish, then what should I be getting?

50mm 1.4 only? Then the VR 70 -200? and throw in a macro to boot?

Then why did you buy the 17-55 if you don't mind me asking?

Thank you

Seems most of T's work is event type photog - that is why she got the competent 17-55 zoom, for versatility. In fact, she already answered you in her previous post:

spider-t wrote:

If it's hiking and super sharp you want, you should maybe consider the 50mm/1.4.

Her point was that the 50/1.8 is MUCH cheaper and sharper than the 17-55 zoom (and lighter in your hiking bag too). So for you, who wants it for landscapes, it might be a good choice. Your mountain isn't going to move while you take two steps forward or back to recompose, T's dancing subjects will.

Get it?

And finally, no one can tell you exactly what is best for you. Different strokes for different folks.

Marco

DoctorIt wrote:

Seems most of T's work is event type photog - that is why she got the competent 17-55 zoom, for versatility. In fact, she already answered you in her previous post:

Her point was that the 50/1.8 is MUCH cheaper and sharper than the 17-55 zoom (and lighter in your hiking bag too). So for you, who wants it for landscapes, it might be a good choice. Your mountain isn't going to move while you take two steps forward or back to recompose, T's dancing subjects will.

Get it?

And finally, no one can tell you exactly what is best for you. Different strokes for different folks.

Yeah, I got it. But I do think you folks have better strokes then I do;)

I'll stick with the 17-55mm and probably pick up a 5 D f1.8D for the price.

Thanks alot people. Really appreciate all the help:)

DoctorIt

Marco wrote:

Would that be the Nikon AF 50 /1.4D??

The 1.4 might be overkill. A really great piece of glass, but for about 1/3 the price, the 1.8 is only very slightly slower, and I'd say, every bit as sharp.

I think the 50/1.8 is something any shooter should have - great optics, low price. The 50/1.4 is more for someone who has a true special use for it, maybe studio work? Save the money for the 70-200VR you want, get the 1.8


edit: uh, you changed your post on me!

Marco

DoctorIt wrote:

edit: uh, you changed your post on me!

Yeah...gotcha;)

spider-t

DoctorIt wrote:

Seems most of T's work is event type photog - that is why she got the competent 17-55 zoom, for versatility. In fact, she already answered you in her previous post:

Her point was that the 50/1.8 is MUCH cheaper and sharper than the 17-55 zoom (and lighter in your hiking bag too). So for you, who wants it for landscapes, it might be a good choice. Your mountain isn't going to move while you take two steps forward or back to recompose, T's dancing subjects will.

Get it?

And finally, no one can tell you exactly what is best for you. Different strokes for different folks.

Yep, that's pretty much it. I got the 17-55 to shoot events. I needed something that would focus well in a dark room and had a good set of focal lengths for crowds and groups. For that application, this lens is unbeatable.

You can always rent the lens for a weekend and take it out in the woods. Thats usually what I do when I'm thinking about owning a lens that costs more than $1000. Rent them a few times. Have some fun. See if it's right for you.

cheers,
Trish

Marco

Well, I bought the 17-55f2.8 and the Nikkor 50mm/1.4. I'm finding that most of my shots are with the fixed lens so I'm returning the 17-55mm. Nice lens but unless you do this for a living, I don't think it's worth the money.

I'll wait until someone sells a used version of it;).