Best Nikon DX Mid-Range Lens

StephenArfer

StephenArfer

Messages
550
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
For some time now, I've been using a Nikon 18-200 as my general carry-round lens with my D7000 and considering its focal length range and inevitable compromises, I've been happy with the results.
I also have a 10-24 and 70-200 Mk1 and not unnaturally, their IQ within their ranges is far superior to the 18-200 - Particularly the 70-200 which is wonderful. This did leave me with a gap in the mid-range where I knew I should be able to get better results if I bought a lens dedicated to that range. So, I recently bought a Nikon 17-55 DX which judging by its retail price, should be superb - It isn't. Frankly its rubbish, especially wide open, or near wide open at the short end. I can't believe this is typical though, so I'm taking it up with the trade outlet who supplied it secondhand. Perhaps it will have to be exchanged (if possible) or go back to Nikon. Does anyone have experience with this lens who can comment on its performance?
Is there another lens that I should consider? The Nikon 24-70 would probably be the holy grail, but the price! - Also insanely heavy for use with a DX body.
I do get by with a 50mm prime, but I really would like a good zoom.
Suggestions please!
 
Nikon 17-55 f2.8......best mid range DX lens by far IMO...
 
geriatrix said:
So, I recently bought a Nikon 17-55 DX which judging by its retail price, should be superb - It isn't. Frankly its rubbish, especially wide open, or near wide open at the short end. I can't believe this is typical though, so I'm taking it up with the trade outlet who supplied it secondhand. Perhaps it will have to be exchanged (if possible) or go back to Nikon. Does anyone have experience with this lens who can comment on its performance?
Click to expand...

I had one and it was really sharp wide open at all focal lengths, my favourite lens I've ever owned.
 
I've got one...and find it to be excellent, providing sharp, contrasty images. Definitely a pro-caliber lens. (I've also got the 70-200 VRII, and the 85 f/1.4 G lenses for comparison, and find all three to be superb.) If you bought one used, and are not getting sharp images, something is wrong!

Here's an example, but even better, I would encourage you to go to Flickr and search for a "group" of photos taken with the 17-55 so you can see literally thousands of examples taken with any and all of Nikon's DX cameras:


Art Institute-17-55 by hunter20ga, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Well, thanks for quick responses! I really would like to retain a large aperture, so I won't consider the 16-85 but thanks for the suggestion.

From your comments it does indeed seem that my 17-55 is seriously faulty. Even if it were as "good" as the 55 end throughout the range, I wouldn't be very impressed.

I'll have to wait until Wednesday now before I can get a reaction from the supplier -Quite frustrating.

I've only bought one used lens before (my 10.5 fisheye) A bit of fun really - And worth every penny in that instance. I'm not sure I'd want to pay retail for a 17-55, and I'm not in any mad rush to get it in use, so I'd really like them to send it back to Nikon, or let me do so and refund me the costs.

Clearly from your comments this is the lens that I do want to have.

We shall see...
 
17-55mm is one of the sharpest lenses I've used, totally worth every penny of RRP and a bargain on the used market IMO. I use mine on a D7000 and D2x.

In what way is your copy not performing? Have you tried doing an AF fine tune in your D7000? Could be that the lens wasn't good going into the dealer and they've sold it on in the same state. How much did you pay - was it market price of cheaper?

This is the kind of sharpness and detail I get with the D7000 + 17-55mm combo:

DSC_1018-3.jpg
DSC_1018.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was about to take it out for serious use for the first time, so I spent a short time in the garden first just to familiarize myself with it. I was focusing on objects around 5-10 metres away at various focal lengths and apertures. The results at 17mm/F2.8 were really terrible! I did at first think it might be a focus issue, but then I noticed that nothing was sharp within what is, even at F2.8 a pretty large depth of field. As one would expect it improved a bit stage by stage up to F8 (I didn't try anything smaller than that). At 55mm it was better, but not pin sharp by any means. Certainly not up to the standard of what is posted here.

Yes, I expect the dealer sold just as received. It is in great external condition. Described as near mint and is so.

There is one point; The zoom was quite stiff except in the 35/45 range where it retracts/extends very little anyway. I was a bit concerned about this, but checking it just now, it has eased off considerably. I can now zoom just using my thumb which is my usual technique. I couldn't do that before. Are your 17-55's consistently smooth across the whole range?

I need to put it mirror-up on a tripod and get some objective shots - As soon as the weather lets me!

I hesitate to mention the dealer at this point. I paid what seems to be an average price for a good used example of this lens. Difficult to be specific as it was a part-exchange, but this lens does on the surface at least generally appear to be a bargain second-hand.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 28-70 is a option to replace a 24-70
 
geriatrix said:
I was about to take it out for serious use for the first time, so I spent a short time in the garden first just to familiarize myself with it. I was focusing on objects around 5-10 metres away at various focal lengths and apertures. The results at 17mm/F2.8 were really terrible! I did at first think it might be a focus issue, but then I noticed that nothing was sharp within what is, even at F2.8 a pretty large depth of field. As one would expect it improved a bit stage by stage up to F8 (I didn't try anything smaller than that). At 55mm it was better, but not pin sharp by any means. Certainly not up to the standard of what is posted here.

Yes, I expect the dealer sold just as received. It is in great external condition. Described as near mint and is so.

There is one point; The zoom was quite stiff except in the 35/45 range where it retracts/extends very little anyway. I was a bit concerned about this, but checking it just now, it has eased off considerably. I can now zoom just using my thumb which is my usual technique. I couldn't do that before. Are your 17-55's consistently smooth across the whole range?

I need to put it mirror-up on a tripod and get some objective shots - As soon as the weather lets me!

I hesitate to mention the dealer at this point. I paid what seems to be an average price for a good used example of this lens. Difficult to be specific as it was a part-exchange, but this lens does on the surface at least generally appear to be a bargain second-hand.
Click to expand...

If they are decent return it asap (if you still can) as faulty. Then buy new or get one on here or ebay from individual honest seller. AVOID 2nd hand dealers as a plague! (same for cars)
 
Well, I found some time between showers to photograph a brick wall at small distances up to 5 metres. Right now I seem to have an absolutely fantastic 18-200 and 10-24 - At least compared to the 17-55! I've tried manual focus, but no better/worse. IQ on the 17-55, although not good, is at least pretty consistent across the frame, so it's all a bit odd.
I appreciate the comments on the value and quality of the 28-70, but it is heavy isn't it? I doubt very much whether I will ever go back to full frame now so I'd prefer to stick with DX lenses for general carrying about.

This is the first used lens that I've bought from a dealer, and probably the last. Having said that, I suppose I shouldn't expect them to know the history of everything they sell used. Hopefully they'll take the view that this is bound to happen from time to time and will work with me to resolve it. My best option would be to send it to Nikon (anyone else?) for repair at supplier's cost.
 
geriatrix said:
Well, I found some time between showers to photograph a brick wall at small distances up to 5 metres. Right now I seem to have an absolutely fantastic 18-200 and 10-24 - At least compared to the 17-55! I've tried manual focus, but no better/worse. IQ on the 17-55, although not good, is at least pretty consistent across the frame, so it's all a bit odd.
I appreciate the comments on the value and quality of the 28-70, but it is heavy isn't it? I doubt very much whether I will ever go back to full frame now so I'd prefer to stick with DX lenses for general carrying about.

This is the first used lens that I've bought from a dealer, and probably the last. Having said that, I suppose I shouldn't expect them to know the history of everything they sell used. Hopefully they'll take the view that this is bound to happen from time to time and will work with me to resolve it. My best option would be to send it to Nikon (anyone else?) for repair at supplier's cost.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve....you will not better the 17-55 for DX to be honest. It has super fast focussing and (all but your copy it seems) you will get fantastic sharp images. I've tried the 28-70 which is a great lens...a beast of a thing to be honest...but will be a totally different range on your DX 42- 105. Are you looking to stay with the 17-55 range?
 
SteveF said:
Hi Steve....you will not better the 17-55 for DX to be honest. It has super fast focussing and (all but your copy it seems) you will get fantastic sharp images. I've tried the 28-70 which is a great lens...a beast of a thing to be honest...but will be a totally different range on your DX 42- 105. Are you looking to stay with the 17-55 range?
Click to expand...

Well, I bought Steves 17-55 and I've only been impressed with it, basically making my other lenses just about redundant. Rarely off the camera.
Now I just need a d700 to bolt on the back of it :D
 
I have the 24-70mm, yes it is big and heavy and takes a little getting used to on a D7000 but the images I get out of it are cracking, great IQ no matter what. I'm glad I plumped for it over the 17-55mm as it also means if I ever move onto FF I won't need to replace my most regularly used lens.

Second hand they can be picked up for a reasonable amount, as for weight and carrying it - you get used to it and how to balance it, I generally use mine with just a hand strap and chuck it around as easily as my 50mm 1.8 :thumbs:
 
my dad owns a f/2.8 28-70 it isn't much heavier than a 17-55 but it is still a big lens, which isn't always a bad thing ;)
 
I originally made the decision to go for the 17-55 rather than 24-70 as being more suited to a DX body, on price and to save a bit of weight/bulk. Even used, the 24-70 commands really high prices doesn't it? Thanks to Lightroom, I've just established that I've taken 4,093 images with my 18-200. Of those, 654 were below 24mm and 357 above 55. So I guess that tends to indicate I really should stick with a 17-55 if I can.
 
geriatrix said:
Are your 17-55's consistently smooth across the whole range?
Click to expand...

Mine is, it is also one of the sharpest, and quickest focusing lens that I own.

If yours is not sharp, and the zoom is stiff i would get it returned as soon as possible, because it should be.
 
Martyn... said:
Mine is, it is also one of the sharpest, and quickest focusing lens that I own.

If yours is not sharp, and the zoom is stiff i would get it returned as soon as possible, because it should be.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. Mine is exceptionally sharp across the range and at any aperture, yours must be faulty, i`d be inclined to get it checked over at Nikon.

The 17-55 is one lens that is a keeper for me.It pretty much stays bolted on my D200.
 
Well, the supplier issued an RMA this morning without reservation and said that I could return it whether it was faulty or not. I can't quibble with that, but I'll reserve final judgement until I actually receive a refund. They didn't seem interested in the idea of having it checked out by Nikon, so basically I'm back where I started without the quality mid-range lens that I wanted.

I'm keeping an open mind right now as to what I will buy to replace it, 17-55 or 24/28-70. I guess it will depend on what comes up first from a reliable and/or trusted supplier.
 
Last edited:
Never had an issue with Ffordes, Mifsuds, MPB, ApertureUK or Carmathen Cameras if you're looking at used samples still....
 
specialman said:
Never had an issue with Ffordes, Mifsuds, MPB, ApertureUK or Carmathen Cameras if you're looking at used samples still....
Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody is sticking up for used dealers. I'm really surprised at the stick that has been dished out on this thread. I must have bought 10+ lenses and a couple of bodies from various dealers and haven't had a single problem yet. I did have one faulty lens (a 28-70 as it happens) which aperture refunded in full including my postage costs, no quibbles a couple of months after purchase. I've also had great service from Ffordes, MPB, SRS and commercial cameras.

It sounds like you have a bad 17-55 for whatever reason. If you generally like the lens other than the problem, it may be worth persevering with it as that's a useful length on DX. If not, the 28-70 and 24-70 really aren't that much bigger.
 
gad-westy said:
I'm glad somebody is sticking up for used dealers. I'm really surprised at the stick that has been dished out on this thread. I must have bought 10+ lenses and a couple of bodies from various dealers and haven't had a single problem yet.....
Click to expand...

There are a few peeps on this forum who seem to pooh-pooh used dealers as if it's a badge of honour to buy new. Sod that - I'd rather have a few quid more in my account....
 
specialman said:
There are a few peeps on this forum who seem to pooh-pooh used dealers as if it's a badge of honour to buy new. Sod that - I'd rather have a few quid more in my account....
Click to expand...

I have bought both new and used from most of the usual dealers, the only problem I have had was with a brand new lens, which was exchanged without fuss or hassle.

MPB, Grays, Mifsuds, and Camtech have all been spot on with the used stuff I have had off them.
 
BruceMo said:
Well, I bought Steves 17-55 and I've only been impressed with it, basically making my other lenses just about redundant. Rarely off the camera.
Now I just need a d700 to bolt on the back of it :D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it onto a D700. The 17-55 is a DX lens !;)
 
GHP said:
I wouldn't put it onto a D700. The 17-55 is a DX lens !;)
Click to expand...

It will be OK from around 25mm onwards ;)

I tried it on mine once but cannot remember exactly how wide I could get before the corners got dark :D

You could of course use it throughout it's range with the camera set to DX mode, however you would only be getting 5MP images
 
Yes of course. You are quite correct Martyn. IMHO It is a bit of a waste though. I have resisted buying the 17-55 for my D7000, because I am getting a FX soon, and will get the 24-70 instead.
 
GHP said:
Yes of course. You are quite correct Martyn. IMHO It is a bit of a waste though. I have resisted buying the 17-55 for my D7000, because I am getting a FX soon, and will get the 24-70 instead.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but it lives on my D300, and I have had it a few years, sort of got attached to it as it is so useful on the crop body, and produces superb images.
 
daugirdas said:
....AVOID 2nd hand dealers as a plague! (same for cars)
Click to expand...

daugirdas said:
....Again don't use dealers.
Click to expand...

But you do have THE worst luck in the world with anything so your opinion is null and void.... did you upset a Gypsy grandma in another life ;) :lol:

GHP said:
Yes of course. You are quite correct Martyn. IMHO It is a bit of a waste though. I have resisted buying the 17-55 for my D7000, because I am getting a FX soon, and will get the 24-70 instead.
Click to expand...

If you're getting an FX body soon, I can vaguely why you're holding out for a 24-70 but I can't understand in general why DX users play the 'I'll upgrade to FX in the future so I must buy FX lenses' card.... :thinking:
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
If you're getting an FX body soon, I can vaguely why you're holding out for a 24-70 but I can't understand in general why DX users play the 'I'll upgrade to FX in the future so I must buy FX lenses' card.... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Simple. Why buy a DX lens which I'll have to get rid of when I go FX?
 
GHP said:
Simple. Why buy a DX lens which I'll have to get rid of when I go FX?
Click to expand...

As said, I understand why YOU are changing, as you're changing soon, but not people who won't be changing to FX for a long while....
 
Quite. Although I must say with a lens like the 17-55 you probably sell it on with not much loss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top