 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
|
|
|
|
ladomat2001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Real Sharp, Good zoomrange, Professional feel, Greate contrast and colours
|
|
Cons:
|
maybe a bit heavy (tamron sheap plastic lens is less heavy but performs also "light")
|
|
|
I mostly shoot fashion and people, so i need good colours and goos contrast. First i baught Tamron 28-75 2.8 because of good reviews i've read about it. It might be a good lens, bu i wasn't really happy with, it was not tack sharp and the colours were not really goos. Also the zooming was not technically superb. Of course it's 1/3 of the price of nikon, but when it comes to image quality i think it pays off at the end of the day. The Nikon is the opposite of Tamron lens. It's tack sharp already at 2.8 and through the whole zoom range. It's built like a Tank and feels very professional. The zooming is precise and very smooth and quite. Did i mention the sharpness? It's the sharpest Lens i've tried (before buying i tried Sigma 18-60 and also Tamron 17-35). The other manufacturers are of course cheaper, but than when you have bought them, you think : what if i have bought the nikon? The answer is: it would be much, much better!
The price is high, but when you have so so pictures because of the cheap lens, than you would regret not have invested in better optics, expecially when shooting with D2X, as it performs best with best nikkors (60mm Micro is wonderful on D2X!!!).
|
|
 Sep 7, 2005
|
|
papi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a tack, built like a tank, super-fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Size/weight, but that's inevitable, considering the performance.
|
|
|
The 17-55 DX is the best "normal" zoom I've ever used. I can't believe that another reviewer found problems in the corners, it must be a defective or sub-standard lens because mine is tack sharp all over the place from f/4 on. The f/2.8 performance is also awesome and consiberably better than just "usable", as in most zooms I've used (Canon, Sigma, other Nikons etc.) This lens spends most of the time on my D2x (a match made in heaven!) but performance on my D70 is also phenomenal.
The only complaint I have is the price. I had the opportunity to try a $420 Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and when you stop it down, it comes pretty close to the 17-55. But since I REALLY needed pro-caliber f/2.8, this Nikon zoom was the obligatory choice. Still, it costs three times as much as the Sigma and it sure isn't three times better. I think Nikon should definitely work on their pricing.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2005
|
|
fabgo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast aperture, fast AF, sharp, solid vuild, reverse zoom, good zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
Significant distortion, prone to flare, lack of corner sharpness, not razor sharp at the wide and tele end.
|
|
|
The 17-55 DX is significantly sharper than my 18-70 kit lens. Center sharpness is outstanding at all apertures. Corner sharpness is disappointing, even stopped down. Distortion is significant, and frequently needs correction in Photoshop. The lens is also surprisingly prone to flare. Despite the drawbacks, it's a very good lens, and pretty much the only professional-quality normal zoom for Nikon's DX format.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2005
|
|
tgreenw900
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp,sharp,sharp..instant focus..very close focus...weather resistant..solid build..intuitive focus and zoom placement...77mm filter size
|
|
Cons:
|
flare when shooting right into the sun...but that is my fault I guess
|
|
|
I started with the 18-70mm lens that came with the D70 and was a little dissapointed with picture quality. I do a few weddings and have small shows of my nature shots, orchids, reptiles and landscapes. I went to the local camera shop and they highly suggested this lens as well as the 28-75mm Sigma. This won out due to the picture quality. I like to go to the camera store and shoot with the different lens. Go home and look at the prints and then decide. You can read all the reviews here and on www.kenrockwell and www.bythom etc but in the end it's YOUR perception of how the photo looks not mine that counts. The print quality between the 2 lens was easy to see. This lens hardly ever leaves my camera. It seems at first to be a little heavy on the D70 but I soon got very used to it. Zoom and focus are the same as other Nikkor glass, unlike the "kit" lens. The Manual override for focus is well placed and works well. The focus ability of this lens is amazingly fast and accurate. I have shot entire weddings with only this lens. My lens came with a very secure hood and black velvet pouch and a 5 year US Warranty. I would value where you buy this more than how cheaply you can get one. It has survived a few rain squalls and a rouge wave at a beach wedding. After now 6 months of use and 7000 pictures it hardly shows any wear. A big negative was the DX rating. I have seen the D2X now come out with the 1.5x magnification factor due to the APS size sensor. So I too read the reviews and purchased one. I suggest that if your serious about your photography then you get your own.
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2005
|
|
JBurian
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 82
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Outstanding sharpness, even wide open. Balances well on my D-100/MB-D100. Extremely fast focus. Built like a tank. This lens stays on one of my bodies.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive. Would like a bit more focal length.
|
|
|
I absolutely love this lens! Since I bought it, it has become my most used lens, and stays on my camera. I have used it for lots of portraits and my clients are amazed how sharp the pictures are. I highly recommend it.
Jeff
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2005
|
|
Paul Simon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Location: Brazil
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical quality, nicely build-finished, acceptable size-weight given features
|
|
Cons:
|
None I can think of
|
|
|
I moved from a D70 - 18-70 combo to a D2X - 17-55 one.
Still need experiencing more but looks like the later zoom perform as per the new sensor's expectations. The larger aperture is also very welcome in low light situations (very sharp wide open).
Fits very well on D2X. A bit short focal length on the high end (missing the extra 15mm from the 18-70).
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2005
|
|
bouloss
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 11, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing colors and contrast. I see the difference using this pro lens compared to consumer lenes. Its fast and always on my camera for weddings.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit heavy and big. $$$$
|
|
|
I sold my lens kit 18-70mm to get this lens . I would not go back to consumer lenses. Like the 70-200mm vr this pro lens renders beautiful contrasty colors. No problem focusing in low light .
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2005
|
|
gmooney
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fantastic sharpness wide open, great color, I leave it on my D2X all of the time! Unless the 80-200 is on it. I didnt know how sharp it was till I shot decour handheld one day. I had a few minutes to shoot a whole room. I shot hand held and wide open to pick up the pinspots on the tables. The closeups almost make me forget my 85mm. I bought it to be my main lens and I am not disapointed! I only wonder why Canon doesnt have one like it???
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight. Zoom is too tight, Size. $$
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 19, 2005
|
|
abcseattle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,270.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It is very sharp, especially at wide open. At 17mm f2.8, it is the best I know of. The sharpness at f2.8 and f8 (peak in sharpness)is not much different at wide end. This lens is designed to use at wide open IMO.
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, very long with hood, sharpness at f2.8 55mm could be better, at 17mm small aperture for landscape is not quite sharp. Flare (sometimes)
Distortion at both wide and tele-ends. You will see it but this is not important to me much.
|
|
|
I think people like this lens because of the performance wideopen. It is truly sharp for zoom.
I don't like the weight. I had 2 copies and returned the first one because of the softness at tele-end at f2.8. The second copy is better but still not excellent. At 55mm wideopen, the sharpness at center is good but at the edge it could be better. I stay at f4.5 or smaller for portrait at 55mm. If you want to use the lens for landscape and plan to use at small aperture like f 13, it is not sharp. (15mm on my sigma 15-30 is better at smaller aperture f11-f16) f11 might be the smallest you should use.
The lens will not replace primes you have. I have 20mm f2.8 to use when use directly at sun. I use 35mm f2 around f2.8 to shoot some portrait and use 85mm f1.4 for tight portraits. These lens are much better in terms of quality (17-55mm also has distortion at both wide and tele end). I thought about leaving all my primes at home when I bought the lens but I still have to carry them with me. Though I hardly put them (primes) on as I am too lazy to change the lens and image quality of 17-55mm is comparable if you know sweep-spot. I think 17-55 is the best for lazy person like me though I miss my primes.
I wish somebody told me all the negative aspects before I jumped in. Most people raves about how good it is and sharp wideopen. There are many things untold about this lens. I love this lens by the way but want to give negative sides of the lens for people making decision to buy.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2005
|
|
snegron
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3285
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
Too long with lens hood on.
|
|
|
It feels like solid lens, optically it probably resembles prime lenses within its focal length. My gripe is that I wish it went a slight bit higher than just 55mm, to at least 70mm. So that when I move close to my subjects their heads won't look like large balloons. Word of warning if you are planning on using it on a D70, it weighs more than the camera and is awkward to hold. Also, forget about using the pop up flash on the camera, the length of the barrel causes a huge shadow throughout the picture. Not a bad lens overall, probably cheaper (though inconvenient) to use 3 primes at about the same cost with very similar results.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2005
|
|
Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1436
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very well built professional lens, quick focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharpness falls off towards the edges and corners.
|
|
|
This is the second copy of this lens after I sent the first one back to the dealer for replacement and I am still not very happy with it. Center sharpness is excellent, but the sharpness falls off slightly towards the edges. I had the same problem with the first lens this is why I sent it back for replacement. My 12-24 DX Nikkor or even my 18-70 DX Nikkor is sharper at the edges. Since the range is excellent and it can be sharpened to be acceptable enough I guess I just have to learn to live with this lens.
It is definitely a slight disappointment for me.
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2005
|
|
Qwntm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, contrasty, lovely color, superb Bokeh, quick focusing, excellent construction, my main lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
None! (Price? not really, this lens is worth every penny, just don't let Nikon know ;) )
|
|
This is the lens Canon really needs, and won't make because they are wasting their time with full frame sensors. This lens was one of the reasons I switched to Nikon. And it was worth it.
This lens is a joy to use and the image quality is superb. This is a "bread and Butter" pro lens, and is why pro's work looks like professional work.
When you finally realize that FF is not necesary and you're not going to shoot film again any time soon, this is the lens you must buy... resistance is futile! 
Edward
www.edwardtmartins.com
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
punkyrules
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,225.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast and love the 17-55.
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey!
|
|
|
Had the kit lens and needed something faster and sharper. This lens did it! Images are amazingly sharp and this lens is great in low light.
This has become my main lens as it is great for wide angle shots at 17mm and gets into the mid-range area at 55mm.
Highly Recommend!
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2005
|
|
Josh_J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 154
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, even wide open.
AF-S
Great zoom range for a 2.8 lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Nada
|
|
|
I absolutely love this lens. It lives on one of my D70 bodies.
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
78
|
266681
|
Jun 20, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$1,177.67
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.82
|
8.40
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
