Hello hopefully this is the right place to post, and excuse me if it's a dumb question.
I have been reading a lot about this 17-55 Nikkor lens, is it as good as I been told? I currently have a Nikkor 18-70 DX would I gain any IQ with the 17-55 ? What I am trying to say is, is it that much better than the 18-70? Or should I just save my money, the camera(s) I have are a Nikon D200 & D80
To be perfectly honest the 18-70DX is an example of something that Nikon does extremely well and arguably better than any other manufacturer. Consumer grade (and priced) lenses that can, if used with care, assist in creating images indistinguishable from those created with pro level glass at over 3x the cost.
On the other hand I will not give up my 17-55 for any reason. The IQ is stellar and in my opinion it's a brilliant lens worthy of it's price tag. It's a joy to use and I know I can count on it. I like lenses that are 2.8 or faster.
IMHO there isn't a direct answer to your question because so much subjectivity and personal bias is involved. I'll put it this way, the 18-70 is capable of getting you images just as nice as the 17-55 so in those terms it's not that much less of a lens but as an entire package there is no comparison. Two different lenses.
I went back and forth on this question for a couple months as I had a couple lens that covered the same focal length. Well I bought it and I have been so impressed that I sold every other lens execpt my 70-200 VR. There are a few lenses I still want (105 VR, 12-24, 10.5) but I dont miss anything that I have sold. This lens is wonderful. Yes this is subjective and this is my personal bias, but I am blown away by this one.
I too wondered and so got a 17-55 and took it on vacation with me. We went to Yellowstone and I took the 18-70 as well so I could grab a couple of comparison shots. After the first day I put the 18-70 away as the comparisons were no contest. Keep in mind I was taking mostly landscape shots and so was shooting at f/11 and f/13 a lot and even at these settings the 17-55 was wonderful and put on a better show than the 18-70. At larger apertures the differences are even greater. So, at least for me, the 17-55 is well worth the price difference. I'm glad I got the 70-200VR before it, as the 18-70 is an excellent lens and those two make a wonderful paring, but after the 70-200 I'd say the 17-55 is the next step for a serious DX shooter.
No one mentioned the size difference. If a lens is too big, it can get stuck in a bag and not on the camera. A more compact lens fits into a lens pouch on the body and is readily available to shoot the pic.
The 17-55 is too big for me. A friend has one and it hurts to carry it on the camera all day for a wedding.
The 17-55 is large, but not heavy. The IQ is excellent. You might be able to pick up a good used one once the D3 hits the street. I'll be selling mine once the 24-70 is released. I don't see a need for DX lenses any more.
I had the 18-70 and I have the 17-35 (not 17-55) but the 17-35 and 17-55 are very similar in build quality, size, weight and performance (apparently the 17-35 is better but I don't know as I don't have a 17-55 to compare with).
The 18-70 is fantastic at f/8 and is even very good wide open and is a very nice light lens with AFS and decent buid quality. The question you need to ask yourself is what does it not do for you? If you want fixed f/2.8 then you need it, period. If you don't then the advantages of the 17-55 are lower distortion and vignetting and better build quality.
Go to a shop and play with it. I don't mean take shots. You won't notice a difference by taking shots in a dark fluorescent-lit shop. Just play with the lens, the handling, feel, size and then make up your mind.
One other thing. William said the 17-55 is too big and heavy. I actually find it an advantage. Combined with a f2/.8 aperture you will get many more keepers in low light situations. The extra weight does help your hand stabilise the camera better. But if it is too heavy to carry then obviously that's no good. It's up to you.
If you want f/2.8 but don't need the build quality and AFS and want to save some money, get a Tamron 17-50/2.8.
I've gone one step further... I've compared the 18-70 head to head with the 18-200VR and the 17-55 f2.8. I ended up getting rid of the 18-70 because it got filed in the department of redundency department.
Just plain and simple I found the 18-200VR was capable of results just as good as the 18-70 (maybe even slightly sharper and punchier in the common range with my copies!), and of course added the terrific VR (the VR is better on the 18-200 than the 70-200!) and the huge range extension.
As for comparing the 18-70 to the 17-55, there was really no comparison, except for the fact that results have to be tempered with the obvious huge cost difference.
Let me put it this way... I kept listening to folks on this forum rave about the 17-55 f2.8 ad nauseum (Jack O was the main raver... ). I hesitated and hesitated, until finally I had to put in an order. And once I got it, used it regularly, and tested it thoroughly, I say this... This lens is the shorter-length equivalent of the 70-200VR. It's that good. It is an amazingly good focusser, it is sharp as a tack, it produces vivid colors, and best of all I can't find ANY of the usual zoom lens weaknesses with it. It's sharp wide open, it's sharp at the edges, it's sharp in the center, it's sharp at 17mm and it's sharp at 55mm. If there is a weakness to this lens I honestly am baffled where it is. With the 18-70 and 18-200VR, I know the lenses have "tricks" to get the best out of them. With the 17-55 I don't avoid ANY kind of shot. I just set up and shoot, and know I'll never be able to blame the lens for poor results. Everything it does it does well, including limiting any distortion at 17mm!
Now, whether or not it's worth the huge difference in cost to you only you can decide. If you find you're wishing for better results wide open, or do a lot of lower-light shooting and can take advantage of a shorter-range zoom that goes 2.8, it's not going to disappoint.
Grab your camera and 18-70 and a card and go to a store that will let you try it out, and compare your results at home against your 18-70... that'd be a good test, and peace of mind before you put out the money it takes to do the switch.
The 17-35 is much better at F 2.8. Much much better IQ under f 4.0. By F8 its more self induced justification oriented wishful thinking to think that any differences in print are the result of the differences in the glass. Oh there will be some.... but none that thirty seconds with PS will not obviate.
But yeah, what william has said is significant to a stronger degree than most give credit - that a larger lens, while great for a pro, often after the euphoric first few weeks drags the photography skills and enthusiasm down because it is just too much hastle.
Hastle with weight, hastle with worry about theft and often the conspicuousness makes people feel a bit dumb carrying it everywhere. So both have their place.
A case in point. I have the 80-200 f 2.8 as well as the 70-200 f 2.8. IQ wise they are identical except the 70-200 has slightly, but significantly non-the-less better bokeh.
The weight feels the same but the 70-200 is only about one inch longer.
Well guess what. Because of that one inch the lens feels different to carry and its a lot harder to fit in my belt-pack. It balances so differently ... that I now am always reaching for the old 80-200. Go figure!
I could have saved myself a lot of money and almost regret the 70-200 purchase ... but never the 80-200.
Little difference in ergonomics CAN matter. So have both
Sambru, yes, the lens is what's its cracked up to be. Really nice colours, bokeh, etc. Especially sharp wide-open. At f/8 up, it won't matter much between the kitlens and it. Aside from the IQ of the lens itself, some people may find it really heavy if using it for a long time. I will say for myself though, that the lens lives on my D70s. My "go-to" kit consists of my camera with the 17-55 on it, and a SB800 in the bag and I'm good to go.
But don't expect a nice expensive lens like this to make your photography any better. Any problems (aside from a bad copy of the lens) will be your technique and skillset. At least you'll have no excuse then I know I didn't
Sambru wrote:
Thank you all for the info - I will probally end up selling my 18-70 and purchasing the 17 - 55 very soon.
Nah, keep the 18-70... you'll need something for the holidays
My 18-70 is so-so. My 17-55 out-resolves the sensor (D70) and produces nice, bright pictures. As someone else mentioned, it's as good as the 70-200. Distortion isn't negligible, mind - it produces both barrel and pincushion distortion. Having said that, my opinions on distortion were recently recalibrated when I tried out an 18-200... now *that's* distortion!!
Anyway, the 17-55 is a brilliant lens.
on the other hand I just did a 14 hour wedding and the 17-55 was cemented to one of my D2Hs all the time. The other was swapping primes and a 80-200 AFS. I didn't feel at all the 17-55 was that heavy, in fact, I find it well balanced.
Qranc wrote:
on the other hand I just did a 14 hour wedding and the 17-55 was cemented to one of my D2Hs all the time. The other was swapping primes and a 80-200 AFS. I didn't feel at all the 17-55 was that heavy, in fact, I find it well balanced.
That's just me though.
It's not just you. The 17-55 and 17-35 feel beautiful on the D2 series. I actually prefer them to the 18-70 on the pro bodies whereas on the smaller bodies not so much.
I'm also with you two... I find the feel of a D2 with the 17-55 is as balanced as a combo can be, and love the combo for the results as well. I shoot more with the 70-200VR than any other lens I own, so I can't fault the 17-55 for weight... it's a near-shrimp in comparison, and again a great balance on the D2's...
Sambru wrote:
Hello hopefully this is the right place to post, and excuse me if it's a dumb question.
I have been reading a lot about this 17-55 Nikkor lens, is it as good as I been told? I currently have a Nikkor 18-70 DX would I gain any IQ with the 17-55 ? What I am trying to say is, is it that much better than the 18-70? Or should I just save my money, the camera(s) I have are a Nikon D200 & D80
The MOMENT i got my 17-55 i sold the 18-70.
The difference is huge.
Plus my 18-70 was vignetting BAD.
). I hesitated and hesitated, until finally I had to put in an order. And once I got it, used it regularly, and tested it thoroughly, I say this... This lens is the shorter-length equivalent of the 70-200VR. It's that good. It is an amazingly good focusser, it is sharp as a tack, it produces vivid colors, and best of all I can't find ANY of the usual zoom lens weaknesses with it. It's sharp wide open, it's sharp at the edges, it's sharp in the center, it's sharp at 17mm and it's sharp at 55mm. If there is a weakness to this lens I honestly am baffled where it is. With the 18-70 and 18-200VR, I know the lenses have "tricks" to get the best out of them. With the 17-55 I don't avoid ANY kind of shot. I just set up and shoot, and know I'll never be able to blame the lens for poor results. Everything it does it does well, including limiting any distortion at 17mm!