Nikon 17 - 55m F2.8

P

pablob

Suspended / Banned
Messages
764
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I need some glass lower down the mm level. My Current bag is :-

1. D300
2. Sigma 10 - 20mm
3. Sigma 50 -150mm F2.8
4. Nikon 50mm F1.8
5. Nikon 70 - 300 VR
6. Sigma 105mm Macro

I'm looking at the lens per Title - reviews seems excellent. Obviously there's the 24 - 70 although I think that's more an FX Lens, 28 - 70mm or the 24 - 85mm.

I'd probalby get rid of the 50mm Prime as it's not getting much use.

I finding grabbing good picture of People fairly close up is difficult with what I have :(

Couple of stores have some good 2nd hand examples of the 17 - 55m which makes it more affordable.

In short help! lol
 
I have one and its fantastic, very sharp. i have some landscape shots on my site with it, click my sig
 
I had the 17-55mm on my D2Xs before I went D3 / FX. Used every day professionally - and I can't recommend it highly enough. Superb lens!
 
I have one and like it..........:thumbs:
 
:agree: with that lot above, it's a cracking lens, but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is also well worth a look at a fraction of the price....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:agree: with that lot above, it's a cracking lens, but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is also well worth a look at a fraction of the price....
Click to expand...


I did look at that albeit briefly and I will check again before shelling out but this Nikon seems to have so many rave review I think it's worth the outlay, seems like it's built like a tank too which is very reassuring!

Thanks again guys! You've helped me spend a load more cash!
 
Guys I've just read review of the AF-S DX 16- 85mm F3.5 - 5.6 in the Nikon owner magazine and it seems to compare well with the 17-55 In fact Simon Stafford seems to love it!

Now the best price i've seen the 17-55 2nd hand is around £600 and this is about £350 quite a difference.

I'm now a bit stuck - does anyone have this 16 - 85 lens?

HELP!
 
pablob said:
Guys I've just read review of the AF-S DX 16- 85mm F3.5 - 5.6 in the Nikon owner magazine and it seems to compare well with the 17-55 In fact Simon Stafford seems to love it!

Now the best price i've seen the 17-55 2nd hand is around £600 and this is about £350 quite a difference.

I'm now a bit stuck - does anyone have this 16 - 85 lens?

HELP!
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell claims the 18-55 kit lens is better than the 17-55 as well ;)
 
pablob said:
Guys I've just read review of the AF-S DX 16- 85mm F3.5 - 5.6 in the Nikon owner magazine and it seems to compare well with the 17-55 In fact Simon Stafford seems to love it!

Now the best price i've seen the 17-55 2nd hand is around £600 and this is about £350 quite a difference.

I'm now a bit stuck - does anyone have this 16 - 85 lens?

HELP!
Click to expand...

Do you need f/2.8 - if so get the 17-55?

Although - having used both, I do prefer the 16-85 VR to the 17-55 personally. But I'm not that keen on the 17-55 for a few reasons a) its too damn big b) it has a really silly huge hood c) the Tamron 17-50 is just as good, and 1/3rd the price.

But if you need f/2.8 and excellent IQ then "saving" that £250 won't get f/2.8 if you need it. If you don't need f/2.8 then the choice is really simple.
 
TG. said:
That seems a hell of a claim given the price difference :eek:
Click to expand...


I should correct that to say "as good", rather than better ;)

"Personally I prefer my lighter 18-55mm kit lens, which gives about the same results optically for digital"
 
Must admit when i had my D50 i got some great portrait type shots with the 18-55mm kit lens, i actually missed it when i sold it, still i just got the 18-70mm which gets some great reviews, just need to have a proper play with it :)
 
Hi, ive just got a 17-55 and already own the Tamron 17-50 to be honest the Tamron is as sharp as the Nikon. IMHO build quality aside i think the Tamron is a superb lens and the one i'd buy if i was on a budget. At the moment i really don't know which one to keep and which to sell it's that close,but i'll probably keep the Nikon just because i prefer Nikon lens' rather than 3rd party for some unexplainable reason:shrug:
 
pablob said:
Hmmm Food for thought! Do I need 2.8 possibly not but would I kick myself if taking some shots indoors where that little bit extra might be needed?!

I'll have a think while I look at this tamron lens suggestion!

Thanks guys!
Click to expand...

I have no experience of the Nikon however do have the Tamron and can only say good things about it (esp. for the money). :)
 
LSPC said:
Hi, ive just got a 17-55 and already own the Tamron 17-50 to be honest the Tamron is as sharp as the Nikon. IMHO build quality aside i think the Tamron is a superb lens and the one i'd buy if i was on a budget. At the moment i really don't know which one to keep and which to sell it's that close,but i'll probably keep the Nikon just because i prefer Nikon lens' rather than 3rd party for some unexplainable reason:shrug:
Click to expand...


Hi there,

Silly question but did you just get the Nikon as you thought it would be an upgrade to the Tamron? The fact your struggling to tell the difference only says good things about the Tamron?! Could get a Grip with the money saved over buying the Nikon! Decisions decisions!
 
pablob said:
Hi there,

Silly question but did you just get the Nikon as you thought it would be an upgrade to the Tamron? The fact your struggling to tell the difference only says good things about the Tamron?! Could get a Grip with the money saved over buying the Nikon! Decisions decisions!
Click to expand...

Either way, I don't think you'd lose a lot of money with either lens if purchased for the right price. You could always move it on if not required. :)
 
I've had the 17-55 Nikkor for over a year now and can't fault it, wide or at full zoom. Very sharp and fast AF.
I can't comment on 3rd party lenses in this range as I don't have them.
My 50mm prime has been redundant since buying this lens.

Gary
 
Shot with 17-55mm - close up - great lens:

AW4_2546.jpg
 
I have both lenses, I had the tamron first whilst optically it is very close to the Nikon above F4 there is no comparison wide open the Nikon is far better.

My main reason in getting the Nikon is focusing, I found the tamron too slow and often went hunting trying to lock focus - this is where I feel the Nikon lens makes it mark.

Julian
 
60mm afs is a marvel
 
pablob said:
Hi there,

Silly question but did you just get the Nikon as you thought it would be an upgrade to the Tamron? The fact your struggling to tell the difference only says good things about the Tamron?! Could get a Grip with the money saved over buying the Nikon! Decisions decisions!
Click to expand...

No not really think it's down to personal preference,again it's just my 2 bobs worth but if i saw 2 shots taken with both lens' i would'nt be able to tell which was the Nikon, the IQ is that close,perhaps i have a tack sharp Tamron lens :shrug:.i think the difference is in the build quality really and i was happy to pay the premium that incurs,but the Tamron is a top lens and i'm sure you'd be happy with it in purely performance terms.
As for battery grips personally i'm not that keen,battery performance on the
D300 is pretty good and you'll only gain 1 fps but again there a marmite thing,have fun with whatever goodies you buy:thumbs:

Regards Lee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top