|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
23
|
146027
|
November 4, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$1,262.22
|
|
|
Construction Quality
|
Image Quality
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.43
|
8.70
|
8.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ddt332
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: November 4, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
sample variation is too big!
|
|
My copy of this lens was bad, zoom ring is so tight that very difficult move. It is very soft all the range and I quickly figured out it has very bad back focus issue. Got a second copy still not sharp enough. There is no way this DX lens anywhere NEAR 24-70, 17-35, and 14-24. Forget it!
|
|
spuelijah
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: August 5, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $950.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
superior build quality, fast auto focus
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom & focus rings are a bit too narrow
|
|
The difference between 2.8 and 1.4 is quite substantial, but the convenience of a zoom is really nice. What really stood out to me after I purchased the 17-55mm was that pictures of the 17-55mm don't really do justice for how amazingly well its built. No picture can capture the soft touch but rugged feel of it. It inspires confidence in its durability. I love the finish of the Sigma EX line, but it doesn't quite compare to Nikon's pro lenses.
|
|
lextalionis
Registered: October 2007
Posts: 74
|
|
SETI
Registered: April 2007
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: December 30, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,650.00| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
All but picture
|
|
Cons:
|
picture is dull, price
|
|
Too much said about that lens, so I just wanna say that I don't like it's dull picture. It's not a portrait lens for me. But ideal for journalists.
|
|
shojin
Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: December 15, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at all focal lengths
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I've been shooting with this lens for about a month. I am very happy with image quality. This lens also has fantastic light gathering ability.
The previous reviewer complained about softness at the shorter focal end of the lens... Maybe I have a particularly good copy or his is particularly soft, but mine is pretty shart across it's focal range.
My only complaint is when shooting people in casual settings, this lens attracts attention.
|
|
wupeide
Registered: November 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: November 6, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, 2.8 allows for great AF in low light, solid build, the chicks dig it
|
|
Cons:
|
Quite soft around the edges at 17mm
|
|
My main complaint about this lens is that it is soft around the edges when shooting at 17-20mm. It doesn't matter if you stop down to f/8 - the problem still persists. Its does just about everything else very very well - but this is a major weakness. The 18-70mm Nikkor is significantly sharper on the edges at 18mm. I have used two copies, both brand new and had the same problem.
|
|
nexus
Registered: June 2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: July 10, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,190.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Exceptional image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None if you know what you are buying in the 1st place!
|
|
First of all let me clear some things which people may not understand and feel that is a con with the 17-55mm lens. I will rate this lens the way I feel it deserves to be rated, not according to disadvantages that is simply not applicable to Professional users. Any new amateur user should read this before making the step in buying this lens. I am trying to warn you what this lens is, and what you can expect out of it.
1. Weight
This lens weighs 755g, you can say it is heavy compared to the 18-55mm, 18-70mm, and 18-135mm But what exactly is considered heavy? To be honest, I am shocked at people’s comments regarding this factor as a con. As it was stated right from the start under specifications its weight. On websites the weight of this lens is stated. You go to a shop you can physically see the size and weight as well. It is a very lousy excuse to make weight as a con factor or act surprise by it. Besides the way people made this lens sound so heavy is over exaggerated especially to those who own good lenses like 70-300mm VR which is just 10g less!
This lens may be more suited towards the D70/80 and above series as the body and lens balance pretty well. Yes it is heavy, but not as if it can’t be hand held. In fact I would be absolutely disappointed if this lens wasn’t that heavy, it will be like a rip off. People should understand that Nikon put in good optics and which is why we have a good F2.8 lens. This isn’t the first time a Nikon Wide Angle F2.8 lens is heavy you know? People should get a slap on their head to wake up their idea, as we can see lenses such as 17-35mm, 28-70mm F2.8 all in the heavy weight category in Pro Nikon lens range.
2. Size
This lens is also been blamed for its size, which I find it over board! Anyone especially Pros will know F2.8 zooms is using big 77mm filter size. When Nikon make the quality less, people still complain! This should not be an issue, if it is then don’t buy it as the first two reasons kicks you out of this category.
3. Price
Its kind of strange to say is expensive and yet we have 16 reviews before me. For those who think “Why so expensive?” What are you thinking! Is a Nikon Pro lens! If the lens is so in the comfort zone, everyone won’t need the kit lens! The lens is about $100-200 more than Canon’s same range and it has always been like this. People in Australia and Asia can really complain as the retail price is way above the mark! Same goes for Ebay, prices have been way over the retail price. When I refer as way above the mark, they are like US$1500->US$1800. I bought my copy from BHP and even when included the tax I paid is less than the local shops where I save about $500.00? I wonder if Nikon price controlled this locally as it is disappointing. Cost of this lens was expected from the start that it will be probably $200 more than the 17-35mm F2.8
Real cons to be considered?
Shadow when using on board flash. This cant be avoided when using range 17-30mm of this lens, anything from 30mm onwards, on board flash works fine! If you think you will get away using 18-135mm using the on board flash at 18mm, you be in for a surprise to see the same result of the shadow. Solution? Use a dedicated Flash like SB400 onwards. Nikon SHOULD consider extendable on board flash to compensate for this, that would be excellent. Again this is a Pro Lens, Nikon has probably assumed that all professionals have at least a SB flashlight which I do and it gives really sharp results.
Flare is not avoidable, I tested this lens against different angles and this is not avoidable, however I felt it was reasonable, especially on the angle that you shoot the object. Solution? Use the lens hood plus try better angles if you can. Use good filters. I honestly do not know how other Nikon lenses do in bright light conditions, but my 18-135mm also flares on the wide end. What I do is to adjust my shooting so that you don’t get the flare, I believe that’s what professional photography is all about. To me, this is a very minor issue.
No VR? Well folks, I think in some ways I am happy and some ways not. If VR was included, I believe the weight would be way more. Then again it would have been great since we already paying premium prices and plus it can compare with the Canon’s lens. This would be a reasonable con for anyone who complains about this lens.
Controls
Some have complained about the reverse of the zoom at the lower end and the focus on the upper ring. It doesn’t take a stupid guy to think why they did it. If you have your lens hood reverse, it would be hard for you to zoom on the outer ring. As this is believed to be more AF focused they let the AF ring on the outside instead which I think was a better move if you think about it. I don’t consider this a con. Would you prefer the zoom ring on the outer end? This means your lens hood will be blocking your zooming when you need to zoom in fast. Whereas you only use focus ring when you need to Manual focus or correct the AF a little.
Quality of lens?
Excellent, my first Pro lens and I believe is well built and high quality lens. Is made in Japan! Not Thailand I had problems more on my UV filter trying to get it clean than the lens itself. Lens is clear and crystal sharp and the construction is just well made. I think it is made to be weather resistant to some extend letting professionals to take shots in harsh weather conditions. Like some have mentioned, feels like a tank. Heavy enough and solid feel.
Performance of lens?
This is clean tops guys, Unless you trying so hard to pick faults on it like the distortions at wide 17mm there is nothing to really complain about. Definitely big differences are being able to shoot without flash in low lighting and still get good shots. I can’t see any reason to put this lens down on image quality, is definitely sharp. Seriously it depends on where you buy this lens from, I believe if you are in the States, you should not be paying more than US$1300 for this lens, the lower prices on online shops sells below $1200.00, what else, you get 5 years extended warranty for US copy plus 1 year international warranty. I wished the flare issue was less but seriously is hard to keep a lens that sharp. I will recommend thin glass UV filters which may help in reducing flare and UV rays. The Hoya Super Pro1 series is a good filter line to look at. You may consider getting Super HMC Pro1 UV(o) or The Super Pro DMC UV filter. Personally I will cry if you scratch this lens, and I would rather spend the money to protect this lens with good picture results.
The lens focus very fast and silent thanks to SWM feature. Pictures are 95% of the time outstanding. Some people get irritated by the extending of the lens when wide angle is used. I tend to want to give these people a puzzled look as in what the hell do you expect on a zoom lens? You mean the zoom lens do not extend? Hello? This is a zoom lens? Anyway, Performance wise is tops. Amateurs should not go buying this lens and just try it out on AUTO mode to expect fantastic shots. This is not what real pros do, you take advantage of the fast aperture for this lens and construct your art of a perfect shot. This lens gives you the above average confidence as it really helps to focus in low lighting. I had two shots taken, one with flash in florescent lighting, another was without flash at F2.8, it turns out the one without using flash looks brighter and sharp.
Overall, I believe some people might feel cheated as they do not understand what they are paying for. I on the other hand have always aimed for this range of Nikon’s pro lens and will gladly say is a good purchase and will probably stay on my camera till I find a need to use my longer lenses. It is also not suitable lens for a D40 to use this lens as the weight ratio is far off. I feel comfortable on the D70s as it feels balanced. Try and understand what this lens is before you consider buying it and expect god results. You get god results when you got right equipment and right attitude of composing the shot you want. Otherwise using settings like auto may not justify the need of using this lens. I hope this review will better help potential buyers to know what they are getting for the price you paid, rather than a string of complains like as if you did not expected this lens was going to be this heavy and such.
I will not say that this lens stays on my D70s 95% of the time but it is my primary lens till I need to change to my longer zoom lens. Where you buy this lens could make your experience a good one or a bad one too, especially if you are buying it online. Check your prices before making the purchase. B&H is a great place to buy this lens as it gives US 5 years extended warranty for it. Despite the obvious cons, and because I know what is expected of this lens. 10/10 easily.
I hated Kenrockwell's comments about this lens, trying to discredit this lens where there is so much positive side to it that he failed to look at. His reviews are pretty good to read but he seems to be really bias and against this lens.
Another common arguement is whether to go for this lens or the 17-35mm. Seriously if you are digital, go for this lens.
Weight and size for Nikon's F2.8 zoom has always been expected, likewise for price. If these three main factors were your concern, go for Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 DII where the quality is definately cheaper and affordable.
Highly recommend a good thin UV lens for those who wants to protect the lens. Of course there are those who do not believe in filters. But for the general who uses them, use a good one.
|
|
jmancini
Registered: April 2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: April 8, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
HEAVY, expensive, no VR
|
|
Excellent lens, but quite large and heavy for the limited zoom range. Sharp even wide open, exceptionally well built. Extends slightly at both ends of the zoom range; is shortest around 35mm.
It's already more expensive than the canon equivalent; couldn't we get VR for this much money?
Look at the Tamron if you don't have the budget; fast AF is less critical for wide lenses than for sports telephotos, and you'll save roughly 50%, and the images are nearly as good. I'd probably go that way if I didn't already own this one, as AF-S isn't worth $600 to me.
If money is no object, this is the best.
|
|
stopdown
Registered: March 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: March 28, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Although I initially had some issues with my copy of this lens, once I had the issue corrected (no big deal... high end products of any type require servicing every now and then), this lens has performed beautifully. I won't go into the issues since they are already known (CA, distortion wide open, IQ suffers stopped down past f/11, tricky landscape photography at times, etc ), but they can easily be managed with DxO or CS2/3, or you just need to learn how to use the lens correctly.
I will say this: If you're looking for a sharp, well constructed, dependable everyday lens, this is a great option for your Nikon mount. It can be used for pro photo shoots and a weekend with your family just as well. Please understand that this lens doesn't suit the novice DSLR shooter b/c it takes some knowledge of how to optimally use your DSLR with it.
I agree with most of the positive reviews for this lens thus far, so I won't repeat them. All lenses of weaknesses and this is not an exception, but its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses.
|
|
aviatorbumm
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: March 12, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, constant f2.8 aperture, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare
|
|
I have owned this lens for about a month and am really pleased that I made this purchase. It is hands down the best lens I have owned.
It is super sharp wide open to mid aperture, with great color and contrast. Focus is fast, and though it is a large lens, it balances very well on my D200.
I have made a relatively thorough comparison between this lens and the Tamron 17-50, Nikon 18-200, and Nikon 50mm F/1.8 prime (all lenses I have owned in the past). My 17-55 copy met or exceeded the performance of these other lenses from an IQ and build standpoint – in some cases by a significant margin. I like it much better than the Tamron from a color and contrast standpoint. Also, the Nikon is noticeably sharper than the Tamron (I tried two copies) from F/2.8 to about F/4. From there on, the two lenses are on par.
There is NO comparison between this lens and the 18-200. It is nearly impossible to tell pictures apart taken with this lens compared to the fabulous 50mm F/1.8.
I love the ability to shoot at wide open to mid-aperture without fear of appreciable softness anywhere in the frame. The 17-55 range (26mm to 83mm film) offers enough flexibility to get solid wide angle “expansive” perspective to slight telephoto “compression”. This short telephoto effect at 55mm works very well with open apertures for DOF subject isolation. For me, it is perfect for most landscape and still-life shots. As well, it makes a great “normal” perspective lens and is well suited to portraits. It is not a wildlife (except maybe road-kill) or sports lens.
Three things I don’t care for – first, the lens will flare very easily in most backlight situations. Second, it is big enough to cause shawdows when using the built in speed light on my D200 at wider focal lengths. Last, there is more distortion than I would have expected at 17mm. This goes away quickly, however.
Bottom line for me - Truly great lens!
|
|
engine1navy
Registered: January 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: January 11, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,150.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Need to boost the rating up a bit! Just purchased this lens and the images are top notch! Nobody's wallet hurts more than mine with this purchase but I am willing to deal with it with the quality of the pictures/build of this lens! Sure the range is a little short but I find the wide end more useful for what I like to shoot than something like the 28-75 2.8. For $200 cheaper than that lens too, I don't see how the images can get any better than the ones from this! Buy it and you'll love it!
The guy who gave this lens a 2 gave an undue black eye to this lens' rating. Sometimes it happens that you get a lemon but mine was perfect from the factory, not to mention it is the first review I've ever seen where someone said their copy was a lemon. Didn't even give a second copy a try, just gave up on it. Shame.
|
|
Smackdown1976
Registered: January 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: January 9, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,400.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP! Fast AF, Build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I know of...
|
|
This lens has become my primary walk around lens. Previously I was using the 18-200 VR, and recently decided to upgrade to pro level glass....and boy am I glad I did! I use a D200, and this lens is the first that has truly demonstrated what the D200 can do.
This lens is incredibly sharp throughout the zoom range. I rarely shoot at apertures smaller than f/8, but I have yet to see a shot from my lens that lacks superior sharpness.
Colors are great and it locks into focus QUICK. I am a bit amazed at the speed of this lens when using AF.
Lastly is the build quality. I have not pushed this lens very hard yet in terms of durability, but it seems to be built like a tank. Definitely worthy of its pro-caliber pricing.
All in all I am extremely pleased and would highly recommend this lens to anyone looking to get the most out of their DX body.
|
|
Matthew Saville
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: December 29, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, image quality, fast apeture
|
|
Cons:
|
size / weight, cost compared to alternatives...
|
|
When it comes to super-wide angle lenses, Nikon sort of has the best thing out there, with the 17-35mm f/2.8 for film and the 12-24 f/4 DX for digital.
But in the mid-range, wide-mid range zoom category, some third parties are coming pretty close to Nikon and at a fraction of the cost, making this lens a pretty hard one to decide upon.
Personally after shooting with the 17-55 DX quite a bunch, I think it's definitely the best out there, but I'd still be tempted by other lenses like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.
What the Nikon has going for it, though:
- build quality is definitely a step above any competition. The Tamron is mostly plastic, and the Sigma is definitely not all-metal either. The Nikon is, and it feels burly.
- the AFS motor, which can be taken for granted and very addictive. The AF speed of the competition might be nearly as good, but the silence of the AFS motor is golden, and the ability to focus manually any time without having to flip a switch is a huge plus.
Personally I'm willing to forego the AFS motor, in hopes that the upcoming Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 is a winner. But if the Tokina isn't about as sharp as the Nikon, I'll just break down and buy the Nikon.
-Matt-
|
|
privid
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: December 16, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,230.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
inspiring build, sharp wide open, great colour and contrast,
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, extending lens barrel, no VR, restricts onboard flash, overpriced.
|
|
I have been nothinh but impressed by this lens. My copy, thankfully, has proven excellent. This lens has essentially taken over my camera. If I want wide I can go wide. If I want portrait or to isolate a face in the crowd I can. F/2.8 is also great for in doors, VR would make this so much better in this situation but it is still head and shoulders above the consumer zooms, hand held in doors available light shots that are sharp and controlled are possible. Unless I want telephoto reach this is the lens I use all the time. The extra 5mm of width at f/4 from the 12-24 at the cost of frequent lens changes just doesn't interest me.
However, it is darn heavy, and you can't use the onboard flash of the D200 though most contemplating the purchase will probably already own an external flash they use regularly.
It also costs too much. I expect to pay more for Nikkor but for a DX lens it seems a little high.
|
|
zalan
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: December 5, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,500.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
quality
|
|
Cons:
|
price and size
|
|
In short, it is a pro quality midrange zoom for the DX format. I bought it after selling my 24-85G and it was a significant step up in every way except for flare, where I can see similar results. The lens is optimized for wide open or near wide open use in close or medium distances, so it is best for an event type of work. There are better landscape (stopped down, focus to/near infinity) lenses out there, but it is still very capable in this area. The sharpness, color rendition and contrast are all very good, but you will see some distortion and little chromatic aberration here and there. Generally I'm very happy with this lens, the small problems it has are only important for the pixel-peepers. One note however, there were some quality control issues with this lens along the way, so you might find some negative comments generated due to this.
|
|
bfischer
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: November 27, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,770.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
stunning wide open performance, AF-S, fast, ergonimics, weather seals
|
|
Cons:
|
little susceptible for flare and ghosts
|
|
This lens is optimized to be shot wide open at near to mid distances. And it does this impressively well. It's only shortcoming is stopped down performance at infinity. For landscape shots, the 17-35/2.8 at f/8 is visibly sharper.
Bokeh is neutral, but better than 50/1.4. Color rendition and contrast are excellent. The build quality is very good, but the lens barrel extends while zooming to either end. It is shortest around 35mm.
The 17-55 is simply a lens that does not suck. All focal lengths and f-stop combinations between f/2.8 and f/11 can be used safely without harming image quality. Choose your aperture according to you pictoral needs and not wrt lens quality issues.
I use this lens as often as I can. You have to pry it off my camera.
If you are looking for a large aperture standard zoom and you are not primarily a landscape photographer, this lens is for you.
|
|
nohm
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: November 27, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,110.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lives up to pro-line standards if you received good copy of lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Inconsistency with quality control of each individual copy of lens
|
|
As many have mentioned before, its tricky to get your hands on a good copy of this lens from Nikon. I've tried renting a few copies and taking sample shots with them, and the image quality did vary between them.
Needless to say though, the ones that were "proper" produced images fit for a pro-line lens among the Nikkor lineup. f2.8 all throughout is a necessity for indoor low light shooting, and this lens delivers on par with similar 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor within their respective ranges. Also, because this lens is light in weight in comparison to the 17-35 f2.8 or the 28-70 f2.8, this lens makes for a great walkaround pro lens. Would recommend if budget fits.
|
|
ultrafast
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: November 23, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fantastic range, sharp*, well built, AF-S, f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive and heavy
|
|
* I said this lens is sharp, and that is what I believe, but be sure to be aware that there is substantial sample variation with this lens. I had to return one before I got one that was really good.
With that aside, it is a nice walk around range, and very convenient for landscapes. I bought it to replace a 17-35mm and 28-70mm f/2.8, because I found that I always had the wrong lens on with that combination. I have not been disappointed with any aspect of the 17-55, which is impressive, given that the 17-35mm and 28-70mm are hard acts to follow. The DX lens is sharp at all apertures, getting better from f/2.8 to f/5.6 then staying about the same and then losing sharpness due to diffraction at around f/13 for my sample. CA is well corrected for and the little there is can be easily removed. Distortion is not as bad as one would expect, but for architecture a lot of correction would be necessary.
Colors are neutral but intense, which is perfect for landscape photography. The build can also take a lot of abuse and I have never felt like I am pushing the bounds of what the lens can take in my treatment of it, which is admittedly not the best.
|
|
mmroden
Registered: September 2006
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: September 8, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,150.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
a great, versatile lens that produces amazing pictures
|
|
Cons:
|
a big on the large side
|
|
This lens has had more than its fair share of quality control issues from Nikon, so don't be ashamed to return it for another one. That having been said, I have no problems with my copy of the lens.
I use it on a d70 body to great effect. It really is a great walkaround lens, as well as a great wedding lens. It produces very good photos wide open, and is quite sharp when stopped down just a bit.
This lens is on my camera whenever I'm not sure of what shooting opportunities I'm going to have, ie, whenever I'm a tourist or covering an event.
|
|
wei
Registered: November 2005
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: June 11, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 10
|
|
great lens use it mostly for weddings photography with my D2X, great performance, great construction.
|
|
Jozef
Registered: May 2006
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,200.00| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
like 2.8 a nice pro lens
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp
|
|
My lens is a lemon! What is wrong with Nikon QC?
My 18-70 is sharper than 17-55.
After 2 days of testing ( I am not expert on it but but I can see what is sharp) lens is going back to store.
here is S#307527
Just in case if this lens was sold or will be resale one more time!
|
|
Das Bosun
Registered: October 2005
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: November 23, 2005
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great performance from a mid range zoom. If you're serious about flexibility get this lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
It would be great to have a 15-70mm version of this lens that performs this well, but I doubt this is possible.
|
|
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G
All of my lens test/comparisons were performed on a Nikon D2x (reduced frame, 1.5x 12.2MP CMOS sensor). The camera was set to mirror lock-up, mounted on a tripod and fired with the MC-30 cable release. The test exposures were captured as NEF raw files and compared with no image sharpening.
The best results arrive with this lens set to around f/5.6. Even wide open (f/2.8) at the 24mm setting this lens performs better than the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G at 24mm when it’s set to f/4.
However, the 17-55mm DX lens pails in comparative detail when comparing its 28mm zoom setting to the fixed focal length AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D lens. Alternatively, the chromatic aberrations of the DX 17-55mm are better controlled than the full frame 28mm f/1.4D lens.
Even at the 17mm setting with an aperture of f/2.8 the 17-55mm DX lens controls chromatic aberrations slightly better than the 12-24mm DX lens at f/8.
AF-S auto focus is quiet and speedy. The 17-55mm DX is a hard working lens on my camera.
Note: these are subjective results that may not reflect your particular sample OR use of this lens.
Das Bosun
|
|
wilfried
Registered: November 2005
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: November 4, 2005
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very solid, very sharp, constant f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
lens hood not secure in reversed position, lens a bit heavy for DX
|
|
My first copy was optically excellent. At 17mm it was far better than the Tokina Pro 17mm f/3.5 prime lens.
However. I discovered a serious back-focus problem at 24mm (ok at 17 and 55mm).
Nikon exchanged it for free.
The second copy still has a minor back-focus problem, but I can live with that.
In practical use it is fast, bright and sharp.
A joy to use!
One caution: The lens hood has a nice latch to hold it in place. However, when mounted reversed (for storage or for walking around with less bulk), it is not secure. It fell off already twice.
Also, please note that in all the press pictures the lens is always shown in the 35mm zoom position. In the 17mm position an inner barrel protrudes about 2cm from the main barrel, which looks somewhat less attractive. At 55mm the inner barrel protrudes 0.5cm.
However, with the lens hood mounted none of this shows, as it is attached to the main barrel and doesn't shift during zooming.
Optics and construction get a "10", but overall only "9" because of the back-focus issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
