Is a 17-55mm f2.8 really worth it?

Trig's

Trig's

Messages
4,367
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I was thinking of selling my Sigma EX 150mm 2.8 macro & Nikon 18-70mm lenses to fund a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 for my Nikon D300s & just want to really know is it really as good as its cracked up to be?

Only reason for asking is after reading the review from everyones fav pro Mr Ken Rockwell :whistling: (sorry couldn't find a tongue in cheek icon) as he said:

:rules:"In some ways the cheaper 18-70 mm and 18-55 mm lenses do the same or more and cost a lot less. This professional 17-55 just feels more solid and inspires more confidence and is a stop faster. The images aren't any different."

So is this actually true or not as by god there is a lot riding on this "possible future" purchase, as I dont really want to get rid of my 3rd brought Sigma 150mm macro for a lens thats not really going to make much of a difference...

Cheers for any advice input that anyone has...
 
I think a QI bell and buzzer alarm should come up every time the name Ken Rockwell is typed on here :D

I've got the 17-55mm in Canon spec, probably my most used lens and on the camera 90% of the time. It's a wonderful lens (in Nikon spec too I'd imagine) although do you use the 150mm a lotand would you miss it? I moved from the 18-55mm kit lens to it and it was much better, but I was just covering the same focal length.
 
ignore uncle ken, he will always love the kit lens, and cares deeply about how much his camera weighs for some reason :/

the 17-55 is a very good lens, very good indeed.

The tamron 17-50 2.8 is less than £200 s/h on here, and very, very close in performance to the nikon 17-55 ;) The flare for in shot light sources is uglier, and it's not anywhere near as well built, but other than that, it's a very good lens.
 
Trig's said:
:rules:"In some ways the cheaper 18-70 mm and 18-55 mm lenses do the same or more and cost a lot less. This professional 17-55 just feels more solid and inspires more confidence and is a stop faster. The images aren't any different."
Click to expand...

However, if that stop is the difference between a blurry mess, and an acceptable shot, the images WILL be very different!

I loved my kit lens, it was sharp (when stopped down a little), light, and I was very happy. However, when I started doing more low-light stuff, that stop really did come in handy. Sometimes I still struggle at f/2.8 and maximum ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed, if I was using a kit lens there would be no chance whatsoever!

As said above, personally I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, save yourself a few hundred quid. That way you get the extra speed, save a lot of money, and get a lens that is only slightly worse than the Nikon equivalent.

Chris
 
Uncle Ken also says the best portrait lens that Nikon make is the 18-200 :suspect: :lol:

As Dave says the Tamron runs the Nikon pretty close, it's a bit on the plasticky side, but it's also a lot cheaper. I wouldn't trade back though......
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Uncle Ken also says the best portrait lens that Nikon make is the 18-200 :suspect: :lol:
Click to expand...

uncle ken is also...just a bit speshul.

As Dave says the Tamron runs the Nikon pretty close, it's a bit on the plasticky side, but it's also a lot cheaper. I wouldn't trade back though......
Click to expand...

yeah... 1/3rd of the price... buuuut one day, I fully intend to upgrade to it...but then again, I do pay my bills with a camera, and mostly with this lens (though the 50 1.4 is a hell of a money spinner too :P )... your mileage may vary.
 
It's a lot of money for something that has very stiff competition from the Sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-50 2.8. The Sigma has HSM so is pretty quiet and fairly fast, to justify the premium it depends what you're shooting I guess. Also with VC technology the Tamron seems like a seriously good lens for low light, adds another 2-4 stops, and the Sigma is due to be updated with it's OS technology too...personally I'd hold off until the Sima surfaces and then reconsider.
 
You could look for a 2nd hand one - I think there is one on the forum here. It's a superb professional quality lens that you can depend on. Solidly built and sharp as a tack.
 
The 17-55/2.8 is fast to focus and as sharp as you'd ever want. My reasons for selling mine were:

*rendering is a bit flat
*it's a real convenience lens, I wanted to push myself
*it's a big heavy zoom and I prefer primes

That is to say, there's nothing wrong with the lens and it's an all-round strong performer. They go for about £600 secondhand and there're loads available since people tend to shed them when they go FX. I used mine for a couple of years and sold it for what I paid. Free rental :D
 
I miss mine now I have sold it. It was big, heavy, looked good too!! Solidly made and very good IQ and very quick to focus. Why did I sell? Simply because I used my 50mm 1.4 most of the time for portraits, and wanted a 70-200, and could not justify having both. Also, I often found that I wanted a bit more than 55mm. Looking at old pics, very few were below 24mm, so made sense to get a 24/28-70/75 lens.

I now use the 50mm or 70-200 most of the time, although do have a Tamron 28-75 as a walkabout. Tamron is fine - obviously not as good as the other lenses I have but to most other people little difference.

If you are happy with the 17-55 range, and have the money, then get it. I did have this and my Tamron for about a week together and took some comparison shots. The Tamron was not as good, but at a third of the price it was far from being a third of the quality!
 
I used one of these a few years ago when I trialled one from Nikon UK on a D2x in Norway and Malawi (cold, icy and wet + hot, humid and wet).
Nice enough lens, but no better than the older 17-35 f/2.8 and nowhere near as good as the 28-70 f/2.8, both of which work on FX and DX, whereas the 17-55 is DX only.

Had a couple of glitches where the camera didn't interface with the lens' electronics properly resulting in missed shots, but I was assured it was a one-off by the techie-blokes at Kingston.
 
Crikey what a response....

Got slightly confused:runaway:

I thought of getting the Nikon 2.8 due to mainly that the barrell doesn't extend & due to the fact that its the dogs testies & compliments my D300s & stupidly thinking cos its a NIKON:bonk:

I have Sigma lenses & am quite, no i'm very happy with the results so having to have a Nikon lens attached is no real neccessity.. If a Tamron gives exactly the same results & is half the cost of a Nikon then that will do fine.

I'm on my 3rd Sigma EX 150mm 2.8 & have had the Nikon 60mm af-D macro & hated it so sold it as soon as I could & brought the 3rd Sigma...

Reading thru the forum regarding the Tamron 2.8 and noticing that there are a few reviews on which one is better - the earlier version or the built in motor version.. or did I miss read a post there??

If a tamron is good as some are saying then I'll nip down to the local camera shop & have a play with one.. Best way I spose.

Which Tamron 17-50 2.8 should I be look at or is there just the one version?

Cheers again, all advice is being taken into account...
 
There are 2 similar Tamrons, the 17-50 and the 28-75. The latter is FF too, so ideal if you plan to change in future. I would argue that the only difference is the focal lengths, but I am sure there are others who can better advise. I chose the 28-75 as I prefer that focal length and would suggest you think about what you take and what you would prefer.

When I got mine, I was advised on here that the earlier models with no motor were quicker to AF.
 
I've got the 17-55 and it's a great lens but as others have said it's also quiet heavy so bear that in mind.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Nikon 16-85mm VR I had this lens before I bought the 17-55 and that too was a great lens I detected very little difference in image quality between the two but the 17-55 did just have the edge. The downside is that the 16-85 is f3.5-5.6 but it does have VR.
 
Fuuudge said:
If that's what you want to call it

http://www.kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

:lol:



It does extend. It sticks out slightly at 55, is in at 35ish and then sticks out the most at 17.

Click to expand...

:thumbs: Many thanks for that, I always thought that it didn't - as I assumed that pro lenses didn't....:bonk:


cambsno said:
There are 2 similar Tamrons, the 17-50 and the 28-75. The latter is FF too, so ideal if you plan to change in future. I would argue that the only difference is the focal lengths, but I am sure there are others who can better advise. I chose the 28-75 as I prefer that focal length and would suggest you think about what you take and what you would prefer.

When I got mine, I was advised on here that the earlier models with no motor were quicker to AF.
Click to expand...

:thinking: How would you tell if they had the motor or not, would it be in the description ie specs or in the name of the lens like - Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF...

Only asking as then it makes it easier to search for ( in my eyes that is)
 
Trig's said:
If a Tamron gives exactly the same results & is half the cost of a Nikon then that will do fine.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind the results won't be exactly the same. If the Tamron was every bit as good as the Nikon, the Nikon wouldn't be sold at all! I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that the Nikon is a better lens, but I couldn't justify spending 3 times the price for only a very slight increase in performance. Some people can though, so it really comes down to you and what you'd have to sell/not buy to get the Nikon. (sorry for being so unhelpful and playing devil's advocate there a little :lol:)


Fuuudge said:
Yup, it's the IF part.
Click to expand...

I thought that just mean 'Internal Focussing'? I.e. the front element doesn't rotate etc etc.....?
 
chris321 said:
...I thought that just mean 'Internal Focussing'? I.e. the front element doesn't rotate etc etc.....?
Click to expand...

...that's my understanding also...

'Silent-wave' was the description Nikon used to differentiate internal from externally-driven AF lenses...
I think on newer lenses that's gone, as they all are, more or less...AFAIK...:shrug:
 
I have to say that I love my Sigma f2.8 17-70 HSM Macro. It's sharp, consistent and super wide open. I've taken some great small DoF shots with it in all sorts of light on my old D60 and on my D300 it's still fab. I've been slightly disappointed with the Nikon lenses so far, but then they've been mainly kit lenses. No quality control problems with Sigma here (although the 70-300 f4-5.6 is a bit soft at 300 but sharper than the kit Nikon at 200mm)

Here's one I took earlier : )
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glidergoth/4476022113/
 
I have the Tamron mentioned and the Nikon 17-55, image quality wise, very little between them,miniscule in fact, build quality, poles apart.
 
chris321 said:
Bear in mind the results won't be exactly the same. If the Tamron was every bit as good as the Nikon, the Nikon wouldn't be sold at all! I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that the Nikon is a better lens, but I couldn't justify spending 3 times the price for only a very slight increase in performance. Some people can though, so it really comes down to you and what you'd have to sell/not buy to get the Nikon. (sorry for being so unhelpful and playing devil's advocate there a little :lol:)
Click to expand...



Your view is welcome & somehow is what I was thinking regarding 3x cost..



fracster said:
I have the Tamron mentioned and the Nikon 17-55, image quality wise, very little between them,miniscule in fact, build quality, poles apart.
Click to expand...

many thanks for that, much appreciated as well.......
 
Trig's said:
many thanks for that, much appreciated as well.......
Click to expand...

No worries, I can`t post side by side pics as I use them for the dreaded "W" word side of photography. Mrs Frac prefers the lightweight Tamron.If money and weight is not a real problem,go for the Nikon, it should last a lifetime.
 
fracster said:
No worries, I can`t post side by side pics as I use them for the dreaded "W" word side of photography. Mrs Frac prefers the lightweight Tamron.If money and weight is not a real problem,go for the Nikon, it should last a lifetime.
Click to expand...

That was the other weigh up of it all - the resale value of the 17-55... I shall keep an eye out for any bargains that decide to come to light..

I do prefer the heavier type of lens thou I must admit.. :thinking: spose that I have answered my original question really haven't I :bonk:
 
Trig's said:
That was the other weigh up of it all - the resale value of the 17-55... I shall keep an eye out for any bargains that decide to come to light..

I do prefer the heavier type of lens thou I must admit.. :thinking: spose that I have answered my original question really haven't I :bonk:
Click to expand...

The resale value of 17-55 has plummeted recently, probably due to the influx of people going full frame.

There is a nice looking one in the for sale section on here.
 
fracster said:
The resale value of 17-55 has plummeted recently, probably due to the influx of people going full frame.

There is a nice looking one in the for sale section on here.
Click to expand...

I have been keeping an eye on the "sale" side of the forum...

:thinking: But don't you have to have a set number of posts before buying - or is that just for selling gear?
 
Trig's said:
I have been keeping an eye on the "sale" side of the forum...

:thinking: But don't you have to have a set number of posts before buying - or is that just for selling gear?
Click to expand...

Just for selling gear,I think...............:shrug:
 
fracster said:
The resale value of 17-55 has plummeted recently, probably due to the influx of people going full frame.

There is a nice looking one in the for sale section on here.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly say it has plummeted, it's a buyer's market but it's still £650-800 from a shop and £500-600 privately as far as I've seen. I bought mine just before the recession kicked in for £560 and sold it for £550 a month or so back.
 
I bought mine for I think £575 in Aug 09 and actually sold on ebay for £599 a couple of months ago.

I doubt you will find one SH for less than £550 and should not pay more than £600. Jessops were doing it new a couple of months ago for around £870.
 
stormcrow said:
I'd be interested to know which shops have it for those prices Camera Price Buster's cheapest price is currently £905
Click to expand...

I meant secondhand from a shop - I thought it was clear from the context but I could've stated that more clearly. Shops never cease to amaze me with pish part-exchange prices and obscenely marked up secondhand prices. Yes, I know why...
 
Mud said:
I'd hardly say it has plummeted, it's a buyer's market but it's still £650-800 from a shop and £500-600 privately as far as I've seen. I bought mine just before the recession kicked in for £560 and sold it for £550 a month or so back.
Click to expand...


I just hope that it stays a buyers market for the next month - as that should then hopefully give me time to sell those 2 lenses...
 
Trig's said:
I just hope that it stays a buyers market for the next month - as that should then hopefully give me time to sell those 2 lenses...
Click to expand...

There's no reason for it to change, there're plenty of 17-55/2.8s changing hands at all times. Finding a reasonably priced approximate equivalent for FX (24-70/2.8, 28-70/2.8) is a much harder task.
 
Mud said:
There's no reason for it to change, there're plenty of 17-55/2.8s changing hands at all times. Finding a reasonably priced approximate equivalent for FX (24-70/2.8, 28-70/2.8) is a much harder task.
Click to expand...

Not right now there isn't: there are two up for sale in that category...
 
Its stunning, dont compromise on anything else as you will always wonder what could have been. Over the years on Nikon I had the 18-55, Sigma 17-70, Tamron 17-50, Nikon 16-85 and finally the Nikon 17-55. I just wish I had got hold of a Nikon 17-55 in the first place. The colour and sharpness is second to none esp on a D300.
 
Nowt wrong with a Tamron 17-50 - great lens, if a little noisey in the AF dept. Great lens that's got me some stunning cover shots in the year I've owned one....
 
Richie15 said:
Its stunning, dont compromise on anything else as you will always wonder what could have been. Over the years on Nikon I had the 18-55, Sigma 17-70, Tamron 17-50, Nikon 16-85 and finally the Nikon 17-55. I just wish I had got hold of a Nikon 17-55 in the first place. The colour and sharpness is second to none esp on a D300.
Click to expand...


Thanks, it seems that this is the lens that I should be looking at purchasing - will just have to justify it 2my other half that it would add value to my D300s when it comes to selling.... Hopefully not before a trip to the states for her birthday....

:thinking:Mmmmmm She did let me get a Nikon GP-1 for my last birthday:nuts:
 
I have the 17 - 55 Nikon and its a great bit of glass - I had borrowed it first with a D300 and thought it was a must have lens - its the only DX lens I own and lightly to be the only one! it sits on a d300 body and compliments it very well:thumbs:

Funny how we all check out what uncle ken says - but as said half of what he says does contradict the other half of what he says:lol:

I still have a look though:thinking::bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top