* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Nikon 17-55 feedback?

Anyone out there using the Nikon 17-55 zoom? Any good?

by [a former member] at 2005-04-29 07:47:14 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Baghdad , Iraq | Bookmark | | Report spam→

I got one a few weeks ago. Its an amazing lens, so sharp, and the af is really quick. I use it on the d100 and works really well, very well balanced. I have also started shooting raw files instead of jpegs and its like having a new camera. Really can not bleave how well it works. I am a very happy man. Worth every penny

by Jon Challicom | 30 Apr 2005 04:04 | london, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Best zoom lens ever made.

by Bryan Bedder | 30 Apr 2005 21:04 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Very sharp and great contrast, my work horse lens, along with my 12-24. Although I wish Nikon had a faster digital wide angle.

by Nayan Sthankiya | 01 May 2005 01:05 | Taegu, Korea (South) | | Report spam→
Nayan would you care to weigh in on the relative benefits of the 12 – 24 vs. the 17 – 55? I have money enough at the moment to invest in only one of these and I was leaning toward the 12 – 24, even though it is not quite as fast as the 17 – 55. I have heard alot of good things about the latter, but nothing about the 12 – 24. Appreciate your opinion.

by Jon Anderson | 01 May 2005 07:05 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→

I’ve been very happy with my 12-24, I’ve had it for just over a year now and it’s a really solid performer. Compared to the 17-35 it is feather light and compact with the same or slightly better image quality. The only thing that irks me sometimes is the speed, for a pro wide angle 2.8 should be minimum. I can’t understand why they chose 4 for this type of lens. There is a good review of the lens here and also for the 17-55.


by Nayan Sthankiya | 01 May 2005 15:05 | Taegu, Korea (South) | | Report spam→
Thanks Nayan, you convinced me. I agree with you about the speed of the lens, but I am willing to put up with it if it gives me good wide angle. And I shoot alot in low low light, so I like fast lenses. This lens is cheaper too, so for now it will do.

by Jon Anderson | 01 May 2005 19:05 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→
I got the 18-70, wich is made with the same structure. It is really good, cheap and fast. Great experience.

by [former member] | 26 Jul 2005 14:07 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
17-55mm/f2.8 is my workhorse. I use it for 50% of my shooting.

by Dragan Matic | 27 Jul 2005 03:07 | Zagreb, Croatia | | Report spam→
I’ve heard a lot of good things about the 17-55. But, I am still skeptical of it and was leaning toward the non-dx Nikon 17-35. Does anyone have anyone have any input on the performance of these two lenses?

by Thomas Michael Corcoran | 27 Jul 2005 11:07 | Washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
We have few 17-35mm/f2.8 in our neswpaper, half of them have problem with focusing and have been few times at Nikon Service in Zagreb.

by Dragan Matic | 27 Jul 2005 13:07 | Zagreb, Croatia | | Report spam→
I used a 17-55 during the emotion workshop at WKU. I’m a canon shooter, however I found the lens to be very good. I never used the auto focus, so can’t comment on that aspect.

by Joshua Armstrong | 31 Jul 2005 13:07 | | Report spam→
Thomas: I got myself a 17-55 and it’s a good lens, but seems more fragile than the 17-35. Certainly if you still use film bodies you would want to stick with the 17-35

by [former member] | 31 Jul 2005 14:07 | Baghdad, Iraq | | Report spam→
Johan is right. The 17-55 like the 18-70 is made for Digital Purposes. You can not use this in film cameras, such FM2, F100 or F5- With 17-35 you can. It has a better construction and is made for daily working. Stick with it.
In my old newspaper they are using the 17-35 for a long time, with good reviews.

by [former member] | 01 Aug 2005 03:08 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
I have shot a few rolls of film with the 17-55 on my f100. 
It worked fine, really sharp, you just have to watch going winder that 28 as vignetting starts to become a problem.

by Jon Challicom | 01 Aug 2005 04:08 | london, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Has anyone been able to compare the back-focusing between the 17-35 and the 17-55?

by Thomas Michael Corcoran | 01 Aug 2005 14:08 | Washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
I seem to have a bit of back-focusing problems with my 17-55, whereas I never had it with the 17-35. Otherwise the focus seems to be a bit faster on the 17-55 and it’s generally a good lens although with the hood it’s a bit of a monster. Preferred the lower profile of the 17-35 and there was less flare in that lens as well.

by [former member] | 01 Aug 2005 14:08 | Baghdad, Iraq | | Report spam→
John, thanks for the comparison. I’ve decided that the 17-35 is a better bet for me. It seems to have a more rugged construction. (But will our lifetime live to see the end of back focus?)

by Thomas Michael Corcoran | 03 Aug 2005 08:08 | Washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
Without the hood the exposed moving element on the 17-55 is a nightmare waiting to happen!

And with the hood IT is a freaking Monster lens.

Other than that good stuff.


by Joel Cairo | 08 Aug 2005 10:08 | Qnz NY, United States | | Report spam→
I sold my 17-35 for the 17-55 and haven’t had one regret. The extra 20 on the 55 really helps with portraits. I have had a few problems with the hood popping off. Anyone had this same problem and found a solution?

by Tom Sperduto | 25 Aug 2005 05:08 | New Jersey, United States | | Report spam→
I too, sold my 17-35 for a 17-55 and have not had any regrets. My 17-55 has not had any backfocus problems. I use this lens on a D100.

by Terence Patrick | 20 Sep 2005 23:09 | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
I have been using the 17-55 for the past couple weeks and I LOVE IT!  I have since sold my other fixed wide-angle.

by Thomas Michael Corcoran | 28 Sep 2005 10:09 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
i got this lens a little bit ago and its a monster of a lens…..big, heavy, somewhat slow turning zoom ring, which i hope will loosen with time….

other than that its fkin SHARP at all apertures, esp on the d2x….its a great all around lens for close situations. carry a 2nd body with the 70-200 and you are set for life….

by grant | 28 Sep 2005 12:09 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
After having previously used the 17-55 extensively on my D2H, I have been using it as my "workhorse" lens on the D2X. Although I sometimes miss the "wider" end of the 12-24, the speed and extra reach definately make up for it. One thing to look out for is when using it on the D2X. That camera seems to bring out every little flaw in your lenses without mercy. Chromatic abberation plagues the 17-55 unfortunately. Always fixable in ACR of course…

My only major gripe is the rather horrible lens hood. It seems to be fairly loose-fitting on mine and others. A little bit of black electrical tape solves the problem, but I still feel like it isnt quite up to par considering the price of the lens.

If it was just a little bit wider, I wouldnt hesitate to call it perfect.

by Joseph Williams | 28 Sep 2005 12:09 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
I wonder why they dont make something like 12-55mm 2.8 ??? is there a technical limit that cant be beat?

by [former member] | 28 Sep 2005 19:09 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Ditto on most of the kudos here… a lot happens in Washington in the 8-20 foot range, and the 17-35 is just too wide to get the job done. My decision was whether to get the 17-55 (and carry just it and the 70-200) or get a 28-70 (and carry it, the 17-35 and 70-200). I went for the 17-55, and I’ve been very, very happy with the decision. Great lens, really versatile focal length. Ditto also, unfortunately, on the useless lens hood. Mine’s on the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay following a sailing assignment…

by Jonathan Ernst | 28 Sep 2005 20:09 | | Report spam→
Although it’s a little big, I hate filters and am always bumping my camera into things so the hood is great for protection.  I do hate the button they put on the hood that makes it fall off easier than a simple hood.

by Thomas Michael Corcoran | 28 Sep 2005 20:09 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
18-70 mm works great!

by Noel Suministrado | 09 Feb 2009 08:02 | | Report spam→
The 18-70 and the 17-55 are both well put together pieces of glass.
The 17-55 is a little heavy but not heavy enough to discredit it.

by Finn | 09 Feb 2009 15:02 | Hudson Valley, United States | | Report spam→
I have been using the nikon 17-55 for about three years now with D200. Considering that it’s a fast f2.8 lens, it is good for my daily newspaper work but has a loose lens hood, has back focusing issues and what really makes me mad is the distortion. Shooting interiors is almost impossible without “buckling” the doors and windows even at the long end 55mm.

by [former member] | 10 Feb 2009 06:02 | New Delhi, India | | Report spam→
17-55 it’s a very good lens, at past i used 18-50 tamron and for me the tamron have the best quality/price rate but now, after some months that i spend with nikon 17-55 i don’t want come back in tamron: the sharpness and the Af speed of 17-55 are better… but the weight… :)

by Salvatore Santoro | 10 Feb 2009 09:02 | Bologna, Italy | | Report spam→
Although not strictly relevant, the new 24-70 2.8 is very good indeed, if a little heavy.

by Marcus Adams | 12 Feb 2009 22:02 | Christchurch, New Zealand | | Report spam→
The first serious zoom I bought was the 17-55. I loved it then and I love it now. It is, as noted above, a great all around lens. Nobody has pointed out that, for the 1.5 Nikon lens factor, it is the classical photojournalist’s 24-70mm lens as converted. So, given its general tack sharp reputation, for someone shooting a Nikon with an APS-sized sensor, this is the one zoom to have.

by [former member] | 13 Feb 2009 12:02 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
This lens is sharp. Has excellent contrast and saturation. One thing I don’t like is the distortion at the wide end and the lens hood which seems to unlock and fall off the lens. Other than the minor quirks I love this lens.

by Ray Patrick Garcia | 21 Feb 2009 12:02 | Cebu, Philippines | | Report spam→
I got a 17-55 about 2 years ago, and it’s on my camera 90% of the time, it’s an amazing lens, incredibly sharp and reliable, best buy I can think of for photography

by Matt Hensley | 24 Feb 2009 11:02 | Cape Town, South Africa | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Jon Challicom, Photographer Jon Challicom
London , United Kingdom
Bryan Bedder, Photographer Bryan Bedder
Brooklyn , United States
Nayan Sthankiya, Visual Journalist Nayan Sthankiya
Visual Journalist
Saskatoon , Canada
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
Dragan Matic, Photojournalist Dragan Matic
Zagreb , Croatia
Thomas Michael Corcoran, journalist/photographer Thomas Michael Corcoran
Washington, Dc , United States
Joshua Armstrong, Student /Photojournalist Joshua Armstrong
Student /Photojournalist
Blacksburg, Va , United States
Joel Cairo, Photographer  Joel Cairo
New York City , United States ( JFK )
Tom Sperduto, Photographer Tom Sperduto
New Jersey , United States
Terence Patrick, First Assistant Terence Patrick
First Assistant
Los Angeles , United States ( LAX )
grant, Photographer grant
[undisclosed location].
Joseph Williams, Student/Photojournalist Joseph Williams
Washington, D.C. , United States
Jonathan Ernst, Photographer/Writer Jonathan Ernst
Washington, Dc , United States
Noel Suministrado, Noel Suministrado
Finn, un callejon sin salida Finn
un callejon sin salida
Hudson Valley , United States
Salvatore Santoro, Freelance Photographer Salvatore Santoro
Freelance Photographer
(Salvatore Santoro | Italy)
Bologna , Italy ( BLQ )
Marcus Adams, Photographer & Guide Marcus Adams
Photographer & Guide
(Guide, Photographer & Fixer)
Singapore , Singapore
Ray Patrick Garcia, Photographer Ray Patrick Garcia
Hong Kong , China
Matt Hensley, Photojournalist Matt Hensley
Auckland , New Zealand ( AKL )


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven