Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 dx lens: is it worth the cost?

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,077
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm contemplating whether the nikon 17-55mm f2.8 dx lens is worth the cost. I've read some great reviews for this lens. I currently have a 50mm f1.8 which is a great lens but I'm finding it quite limiting for portraits due to the fixed focal length. When you can zoom with your feet it's great but taking shots inside the house of my niece is difficult as my position is usually fixed and she is moving all over the place.

I'm currently selling my sigma 10-20 due to lack of use but I'm worried this will leave me with 50mm as my smallest focal length. The problem is although I don't do many landscapes very often I'm worried 50mm will limit me too much in this respect. Would I be best to sell both the 10-20mm, save up for the nikon 17-55mm and later sell the 50mm.

I've already decided I'm not going to move to full frame any time soon, but I don't mind purchasing either full frame or dx lens if its the best option. I have thought about purchasing a 35mm prime but would have to change between the 35 and 50 all the time.

I'm really looking for one lens that can do portraits and landscapes. I would like to know if others have thought/done the same and whether its worth it. I've currently found the 17-55mm s/h for around £600-650 so I would be looking at all lens up to this price range.
 
Last edited:
I''ve had one with my D7000 for around 18 months. I upgraded from the kit 18-55.

It is as good as all the reviews you've read. Pin sharp, built like a tank and very versatile. It stays on my camera 80% of the time. It's superb.

Sometimes i don't find it wide enough when taking landscapes (10-20 handles that) but for virtually everything else it's perfect.

You may find that primes are marginally sharper at certain apertures in certain areas but it is marginal.

So, in summary, it's quite good!!
 
I can't speak for the Nikon, as I'm not made of money, but I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8, which I love, to the degree that I got rid of the 35mm 1.8 due to lack of use. It gives great results for family snaps indoors, with the flexibility of zoom too. The Tamron 17-50 seems to be very well regarded, with the added advantage of VR, some of the pics on here taken with that lens are cracking.

I'm sure the Nikon is better than both, but the Sigma cost me £140... It'll most certainly do for now! :)

(I realise that wasn't exactly answering the question you asked, but it's sort of related... sorry!)
 
NickD said:
I can't speak for the Nikon, as I'm not made of money, but I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8, which I love, to the degree that I got rid of the 35mm 1.8 due to lack of use. It gives great results for family snaps indoors, with the flexibility of zoom too. The Tamron 17-50 seems to be very well regarded, with the added advantage of VR, some of the pics on here taken with that lens are cracking.

I'm sure the Nikon is better than both, but the Sigma cost me £140... It'll most certainly do for now! :)

(I realise that wasn't exactly answering the question you asked, but it's sort of related... sorry!)
Click to expand...

Thanks, to be honest that's the sort of answer I needed. I find it easier to find reviews of nikon lens than sigma. i find it harder to work out what are good sigma lens. For the money they do some fantastic lens, the sigma 10-20 I have is brilliant but I don't really use it enough hence I'm selling it. When I brought the 10-20 it was out of that and the sigma 17-70, the 10-20 won as it was ultra wide and thought I would use it a lot. A year later I used it only a few times and I think some thing in the 15-70 focal range will probably be more useful as a joint portrait/landscape lens. The 10-20 is really only a landscape lens. The only thing I'm really looking for is a large aperture, around f2.8 for nice low light indoor photos without flash and lens I won't need to replace as I've decided that money spent on good glass (whether thats nikon, sigma,tamron etc) is the way to go.
 
Probably the best DX-only zoom Nikon produces.... a truly fabulous lens that I use day-in, day-out in all weathers without issue. I bought mine used but if I had the money, I'd not think twice about buying a new copy, it's that good.

Nice to hear you're not concerning yourself with the possibility of going FX later... make a refreshing change on this site :)

As a used buy the 17-55mm is very good value... I paid something like £550 for mine and it's never given me any problems other than when I gave mine a bath and it needed a new AF unit. My fault and I don't expect any lens to survive going glass-first into a lake while attached to a camera :lol:

As an all-round tool, it's versatile.... the wide end is sharp from corner to corner with a tiny bit of barrel distortion that's easily corrected in software. At the long end I use mine for head & shoulder shots a lot and wide open it' a nice lens to use.

As for a wide angle, I strongly recommend the 12-24mm f/4 if you want to have an all-Nikon lineup.... or look at the Tokina 12-24mm, which is just as good, if not quite as tightly made and much cheaper. The tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is the daddy of UWA lenses for DX, nothing comes close to it...
 
Last edited:
Are you taking portraits, or pictures of people on the fly - two very different things.

A portrait is a very deliberate, set up picture. Taking candid and grab shots is not portrait shooting - you need a different lens for portraits to candids on the fly. With the one you have control and time, with the other you take it as it comes and grab what you can as it happens.

As a general lens the 17-55 is the equivalent of the 24-70 in full frame and as such is a "standard zoom" for all day everyday photography. Your 50 will be the equivalent of a 75mm and so be great for head and shoulders of full head shots at limited aperture. The 55 end of the zoom will not give you quite the same feel because of the f-stop difference, but if you didn't have the two side by side, I doubt you'de be disappointed with the f2.8 results.
 
Lensflare said:
Are you taking portraits, or pictures of people on the fly - two very different things.

A portrait is a very deliberate, set up picture. Taking candid and grab shots is not portrait shooting - you need a different lens for portraits to candids on the fly. With the one you have control and time, with the other you take it as it comes and grab what you can as it happens.

As a general lens the 17-55 is the equivalent of the 24-70 in full frame and as such is a "standard zoom" for all day everyday photography. Your 50 will be the equivalent of a 75mm and so be great for head and shoulders of full head shots at limited aperture. The 55 end of the zoom will not give you quite the same feel because of the f-stop difference, but if you didn't have the two side by side, I doubt you'de be disappointed with the f2.8 results.
Click to expand...

A bit of both really. I like taking setup portrait shots but I do like candid shots as I feel they are more natural. I fine people usually become self aware and either freeze or do a weird smile once they have a camera in front of them. I'm looking for a good quality lens that's great for people and landscape shots, as you say an every day lens.
 
rob-nikon said:
A bit of both really. I like taking setup portrait shots but I do like candid shots as I feel they are more natural. I fine people usually become self aware and either freeze or do a weird smile once they have a camera in front of them. I'm looking for a good quality lens that's great for people and landscape shots, as you say an every day lens.
Click to expand...

This is a great lens, works great as a 'people' lens:


Playing a beast by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr


Peter by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

I suppose portrait purists would be looking for a lens that gives them bokeh that is perfect and being a zoom where there have to be compromises made to facilitate the zoom, this wouldn't be on the top of their list. However, it's the versatility of a lens like this that excels and a very good AF motor.... you get really snappy, 100 per cent certainty from this lens, which in situations where you're working quickly and you may only be able to fire off a handful of shots, you know it'll give you results.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Probably the best DX-only zoom Nikon produces.... a truly fabulous lens that I use day-in, day-out in all weathers without issue. I bought mine used but if I had the money, I'd not think twice about buying a new copy, it's that good.

Nice to hear you're not concerning yourself with the possibility of going FX later... make a refreshing change on this site :)

As for a wide angle, I strongly recommend the 12-24mm f/4 if you want to have an all-Nikon lineup.... or look at the Tokina 12-24mm, which is just as good, if not quite as tightly made and much cheaper. The tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is the daddy of UWA lenses for DX, nothing comes close to it...
Click to expand...

Thanks, I thought about it and decided that as a hobby could I really justify sending £1500-2000 on a camera body that will be out of date in a couple of years. I've concentrating on buying good glass instead that will last me years.

I'm not too worried about an UWA as I already have a sigma 10-20 that's great. I don't use it enough so I'm letting it go to fund a more useful everyday lens somewhere between 15-70mm.
 
Last edited:
On a DX body, a 17(ish) to 50(ish) f2.8 zoom should really be the first step into getting some different lenses.

Its pretty flexible as a focal length range for general photography - wide enough for outdoors scenery and long enough for closeups. Also the right length for taking pictures of people indoors - unless you happen to live in a mansion.

Seriously, for most users needs its definitely one for the bag as a general workhorse.

Now, Nikon or something else? A difficult choice, whilst the Nikon is regarded as the best it is 2 to 3 times the cost of the others. Is it that good? Personally, no, its not worth that much to me as a general use bit of kit for personal snaps.

As a bit of kit that is pretty much most often used for personal shots rather than media ones, I plonked for the Sigma 18-50 after trying the Tamron 17-50. The Sigma has a AF motor (not a fast one like my Nikon 70-200 I might add!) and focuses faster than the Tamron which didn't. However, the Tamron had a nicer image quality - like all Sigmas I've ever used this has a (subtle) yellowy/pink hue to it which is noticeable because its my only Sigma lens and I don't like it for that reason.

Basically, its ok, it was cheap second hand and it sort of does what it has to do for me.
 
I used the tamron 17-50 before. Absolutely love the lens. But I switched to tokina 11-16 and 24-70 on my d7000. Prefer taking portraits at the 70mm end rather than the 50mm end (maybe I dislike standing too close to people!)
 
As others have said, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a lens capable of producing fantastic images. It's well built and very zippy when focusing. It's a tad front heavy - but a grip on the D7000 makes for a more balanced setup. Highly recommended.
 
adrianday said:
As others have said, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a lens capable of producing fantastic images. It's well built and very zippy when focusing. It's a tad front heavy - but a grip on the D7000 makes for a more balanced setup. Highly recommended.
Click to expand...

Just a left ball comment here but I don't quite get that... Maybe I hold things differently but with a heavy lens I balance the lens on my left hand and just use the right to keep it steady and click the shutter button?

It is a heavy lens alright but fits nicely on the D7000 IMO, It's also a good all round lens although there is a fair amount of distortion at the long end and 55mm is quite often a little too short, but then you get that with most standard zoom lenses. The BIG plus for me over any other lens in this segment is the build quality (one of the reasons for the weight) and the weather sealing. Unless you want a big(ger) heavy, fast prime you're a bit stuck with this lens if you want that.
 
All of the f2.8 zooms are heavy compared with the f4-f5.6 light plastic kit lenses, its just physics!
 
Amp34 said:
Just a left ball comment here but I don't quite get that... Maybe I hold things differently but with a heavy lens I balance the lens on my left hand and just use the right to keep it steady and click the shutter button?
Click to expand...

I know - it seems odd but the grip just makes it 'feel' better. Probably because it provides full engagement of my right palm with the camera body. Certainly noticeable when carrying the camera around (I often use a Herringbone hand strap).
 
See, I generally carry the camera around by the lens with bigger lenses, if the lens weighs more than the camera then you're putting less stress on the mount. I also use the shoulder strap and wrap it round my hand.
 
the 17-55 is actually really good value as a used lens.
they still sell for over a grand new & recently people have been lucky to get £600 back for them :shrug:
i bought one in the summer & only used it on 2 weekends away before i bought a used D3 & some FX lenses :bonk:
i did think about selling it on but i wasn't prepared to lose roughly £1 per shot i took with it so i just put it in its pouch & put it away, i'd rather use it as a dust cap on an unused body than give it away :bang:
 
After a bit of a change of plan I've decided to keep my sigma 10-20mm lens. Due to this and previous advise on this thread I'm thinking of going for either the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM or Tamron SP 17-50mm (VC or non VC). What I'm asking is which would best to go for? Does anyone have experience of both lenses?
 
Tamron 17-50 non vc is only just behind the Nikon 17-55 in the IQ stakes, but way behind it on the build quality front.

I`ve had both and still have the 17-55 Nikon, best Nikon DX midrange zoom available.

In my opinion.
 
i don't have experience of the Sigma but i have the Nikon17-55 & a Tamron17-50 and i've not sold either of them even after going FX
they are both great lenses ;)
 
Having bought the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, based on reviews and DigitalRev's video of it, I'm glad I bought it!
It's build is awesome and it's pin sharp.
It's staying in my collection for a very long time, same goes for the Nikkor 12-24mm f4.0 although this is a plastic body pro lens.

Riz :)
 
rob-nikon said:
After a bit of a change of plan I've decided to keep my sigma 10-20mm lens.
Click to expand...

Rob,

Any reason you are not looking at a secondhand 28-70mm AF-S F2.8.
These are approx £600 & would fill all of your needs as well as future proof your lens (if you decide to go FF)
 
Well, like I said earlier in this thread, the Tamron has better IQ/colours than the Sigma but the focus speed was an issue to me - it was just too slow IMHO, which was a shame as the images were nicer.

I'm sure you could pick up a cheap second hand one of either on here easily and resell if you weren't pleased with it.

Pete - I'd not advise the 28-70 as an alternative, when you talk about the wide end, there is a MASSIVE field of view difference between 28mm and 17/18mm. I had a 24-70 and its really a different beast all together, but horses for courses...
 
I personally dislike mid range zooms. I prefer primes any day. I have owned quite a few over the years ranging from the canon 17-55, tamron 17-50, sigma 24-70, tamron 28-75.
I would imagine though IQ wise the Nikon is a winner, if you are planning on going full frame anytime soon don't get it!
 
Personally, I couldn't justify the price of Nikon over the Tamron non-VC, so went for the latter and love it..... i've not had any concerns of focus speed, but i'm no pro.

As someone said above, if you pick one up 2nd hand you'll hardly lose anything on the Tamron if you decide it isn't for you and have to move it on again.

There's a non-VC Tamron in the classifieds for £230 for example.
 
IF (and it sounds like it may well be!) a move to FF is on the cards in the forseeable future, avoid any Dx lens purchases - they'll need to be replaced on the body upgrade and 2nd hand Dx prices seem to be falling, especially as trade-ins. FF options are limited but remember that 15mm on FF has the same angle of view as your current 10mm on your current body. Of the 2 options (in UWA choice), the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is undeniably a better lens as well as being faster than its Sigma opponent, their 12-24. At the short end, even 2mm makes a difference but even 14mm is insanely wide on FF!
 
Nod said:
IF (and it sounds like it may well be!) a move to FF is on the cards in the forseeable future, avoid any Dx lens purchases!
Click to expand...

I thought the OP had ruled out a move to Full Frame?

rob-nikon said:
I've already decided I'm not going to move to full frame any time soon, but I don't mind purchasing either full frame or dx lens if its the best option.
Click to expand...
 
"Any time soon" being the operative phrase. I'm not a betting man but I reckon a couple of quid on GAS attacking within a couple of years would be a punt worth taking!
 
Nod said:
"Any time soon" being the operative phrase. I'm not a betting man but I reckon a couple of quid on GAS attacking within a couple of years would be a punt worth taking!
Click to expand...

LOL, I'd taken him at his word and forgotten that we are all susceptible to a leave of our senses when it comes to purchasing camera gear. :lol:
 
Aren't we just! I though I had all bases covered with the relatively recent purchase of an XF-1 but then, along came a nearly identical X-10!!!
 
The big problem by and large is that there isn't a solution to wanting a Nikon fit 17-55 f2.8 zoom for DX and having something useful if/when you go FX.

The only sensible solution to move this forward is to get what you need now, fix it later...

Unless Nikon release a nice tasty 10-70 f2.8 :) But of course they won't, their FX marketing direction is f4 or f4.5-f5.6 FX zooms that are all a bit meh and don't answer the need for a 17-55ish f2.8'er on DX.
 
desantnik said:
The big problem by and large is that there isn't a solution to wanting a Nikon fit 17-55 f2.8 zoom for DX and having something useful if/when you go FX.

The only sensible solution to move this forward is to get what you need now, fix it later...

Unless Nikon release a nice tasty 10-70 f2.8 :) But of course they won't, their FX marketing direction is f4 or f4.5-f5.6 FX zooms that are all a bit meh and don't answer the need for a 17-55ish f2.8'er on DX.
Click to expand...

This is what i think. Currently have a d300s and a few dx lenses (35mm, 10-14, 17-50, 50-150). Just the one fx lens (105 macro).

Now if you buy sensibly (ie used), you wont lose much if anything selling later. And it also means you will have a much lighter, much cheaper kit, for that 1, 2 ,or howeverr many years you keep your dx kit.

I'm a 'swinger' when it comes to wanting to upgrade. Sometimes i look at my current kit and think its quite large. However, when going on specific photography trips, like going to the beach this weekend, the extra size doesnt seem that problematic. Swings and roundabouts, with the occasional slide...
 
desantnik said:
there is a MASSIVE field of view difference between 28mm and 17/18mm.
Click to expand...

I agree there is a difference
however if you check his first post thats why Rob-Nikon is after another lens -
He doesn't use his 10-20mm... :D
 
Zarch said:
Personally, I couldn't justify the price of Nikon over the Tamron non-VC, so went for the latter and love it..... i've not had any concerns of focus speed, but i'm no pro.

As someone said above, if you pick one up 2nd hand you'll hardly lose anything on the Tamron if you decide it isn't for you and have to move it on again.

There's a non-VC Tamron in the classifieds for £230 for example.
Click to expand...

This is presently my thinking, do I really need the benefits of the nikon (build quality, IQ etc) for a lens I'm probably not going to use often enough to justify the extra cost. The nikon is currently about £950 new and £650 used but the tamron is about £300 new and £230 used. I don't make any money from photography so a pro lens is probably not required and is really gear lust.
 
Nod said:
IF (and it sounds like it may well be!) a move to FF is on the cards in the forseeable future, avoid any Dx lens purchases - they'll need to be replaced on the body upgrade and 2nd hand Dx prices seem to be falling, especially as trade-ins. FF options are limited but remember that 15mm on FF has the same angle of view as your current 10mm on your current body. Of the 2 options (in UWA choice), the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is undeniably a better lens as well as being faster than its Sigma opponent, their 12-24. At the short end, even 2mm makes a difference but even 14mm is insanely wide on FF!
Click to expand...

I think your right, for the foreseeable future (next year or so) FF is probably off the cards, of course thats until great condition d600 and d800 come on the 2nd hand market at good prices, that may just sway me.
 
Diving Pete said:
Rob,

Any reason you are not looking at a secondhand 28-70mm AF-S F2.8.
These are approx £600 & would fill all of your needs as well as future proof your lens (if you decide to go FF)
Click to expand...

I was looking at the 28-70mm range lens just yesterday as an option. It would be roughly 42-105mm on d7000 and the sigma I'm keeping would be 15-30mm.

I think spending £600 on an FF lens isn't so bad as spending £600 on a DX lens due to the future proofing and the larger market (both FF and DX) there is to sell it to. As I'm keeping the sigma 10-20mm I still have the UWA's covered by that if i need them. The tamron 17-50 is also an option due to the lower cost.

I can never say I won't go full frame in the future so already having the lens would make it easier to do if I did go down that route. The one thing that stops me going fully FF is the loss of focal length compared to DX, as wildlife is something I photograph the most it would be a problem.
 
You don't lose focal length it's essentially a full res crop. D800 offers 16mp or there abouts in crop mode. Like 2 cameras in 1.

36mp in full frame and 16 in dx/crop, best of both formats
 
Last edited:
All of the lenses i own except the sigma 10-20 are FF, this wasn't due to wanting to go FF but due to being the best option focal length or type for what I required.

Getting what I need now is probably the best idea, having a DX lens that can do both landscape and people rather than 2 lenses (10-20 DX & 28-70 FF) that can only do either landscape or people.
 
Thanks all your advice, i decided to get a Nikon 18 - 70 mm / F 3,5 - 4,5 S DX IF-ED in the end. This was mainly due to it getting great reviews and was only 1/6 of the cost of 17-55mm. I think I can live with the stop slower aperture, slightly slower focus and I probably won't use it in low light either so its not really a problem. As it won't be a lens I will use often (I'm more wildlife) its probably the best lens financially for me and a more sensible choice.
 
Last edited:
18-70mm is a really good lens. Optically it's one of the best kit lenses you can buy. Build is good for a kit lens (but way off that of the 17-55mm) but like you say, it's a bargain :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top