Nikon 17-55mm f2.8... Anyone got/used one?

Benster

Hi folks, I'll be heading to NY in a couple of weeks and am thinking of making the most of the exchange rate in B&H or Adorama or somewhere by getting something along the lines of the above.

Linky

Do any of you Nikon bods here have experience of this beast? Would I be better getting a Sigma or Tamron equivalent for a good bit less?

(Nikon's is about €900-ish in B&H, Sigma and Tamron have their versions for about the €350-mark)

If I went for the Nikon it would probably be The Last Lens I Ever Buy, according to the missus, as my lifetime photo spend quota would be used up completely.

Cheers,

B.

[BTW - this would be mounted on a D200]

eas

may be helpfull -

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=230&sort=7&cat=28&page=2

Benster

Cheers, Eas. I've been reading reviews for about a couple of weeks now, but I missed FredMiranda's site. Looks the biz from what they are saying there.

I'm stuck now on whether it's really what I would use to it's fullest or am I just lusting after a piece of metal and glass :-)

The thing is, it's £900 from UK sites, and I'd be paying about €900-ish in B&H, quite a difference!

B.

eas

No probs. You're going to have fairly hard to find any negative comments on that lens. I friend and I did swapsies a few months ago. He took my 105 vr and I took his 17-55. It's a great lens, really fast and accurate focus. Nice tones and all that. Would I buy one? Personally no. I would find the 28-70 2.8 more useful, and I've sworn off DX lenses.

What other lenses do you have and what do you like to shoot?

Nick Carroll

Hi Benster.

I was in the market for a few lenses a while back, as I needed wider coverage than the 24-70 f2.8 was giving me at the time.

In an attempt to keep the costs down I opted for a Sigma 10-20 and one of their 18-50mm f2.8 lenses. While the 10-20 is one of the coolest chunks of glass I've ever owned, the 18-50 never felt right to me. It was too small in the hand, the glass in the front element looked only lightly coated and the AF had a tendency to hunt in low light. In its defence, the 18-50 produced consistently crisp images and offered great value for money.

However, one of the other pros let me borrow his 17-55 Nikon and I couldn't believe the difference between it and the Sigma. Yes I know that there is also a stark difference in price between these two lenses, but if ever there exists proof of getting what you pay for, then it is here. The Nikon gives you an AF assist motor, a metal body, a weatherproofing ring and beautiful optics.

Straight away, I took the Sigma back to the dealer and put the credit towards the Nikon. I do a lot of natural light portraits, and the Nikon has proved invaluable.

Benster

Cheers folks, that just confirms what I've read elsewhere.

Ok, here's my "will I, won't I?" dilemma... My current main lenses, a 28-85mm variable aperture zoom, a 70-300 cheapie and a nifty-fifty f1.8, have served me very well over the last while. I got the 50mm only a couple of months ago, and have been getting very cosy with being able to shoot wide open and even handheld in dim light.

Now that I'm heading to NY in 2 weeks, I've been making plans to get "something" over in B&H or wherever, seeing as I would make a significant saving. I was initially planning for an 18-200 VR lens (the one which seems to be sold out worldwide, yes...) at around €600. Then I was asked to shoot a relative's wedding in Sept and that got me thinking that I'd like to have a real good bit of glass to do a good job (could lead to others, you never know). So I looked at a very timely review in Professional Photographer this month of WA zooms and the Sigma and Tamron glass came out best, ahead of the Nikon, mostly based on price difference, but it seemed the Nikon was ahead on quality, ease of use etc. Then another forum poster mentioned that even if the lens wasn't liked/required after a couple of years, it could still be sold for about 85% of the original value (more over here I'd say, as it's $900 in US, nearly twice that in UK).

Ok, feck it, I've just talked myself into it... I'll only yearn for what could have been otherwise. :-)

Cheers,
Off-to-start-saving-B.

eas

yep - get the lens. You'll be glad you did on the wedding day.

I just had a look on BnH - the 17-55 is listed as out of stock. I know from talking to other people that Nikon seem to be letting it's stock run quite low on a good few products. There's speculation that this is either simply supply and demand, while others seem to think this means a whole rake of new things on the way, or both.

FYI - BnH AFAIK will charge you local taxes, think it's around 8% - someone else may be able to tell you for sure.

Benster

Yeah, I keep forgetting about that. Is the local tax refundable say at the airport on the way back like it is here? I did that on the way back from Oz when I got my F80 :-)

I'll mail 'em about the stock to see if they are due to get them in. Might try some of the others in Manhattan otherwise.

Thanks again.
B.

pete4130

Instead of spending that crazy money on the Nikon lens, why not consider the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8. It's 1/3 of the cost and you lose just a little on either end of the focal lengths. I got one last December and its my general use lens, the one thats always on my camera. It's sharp, autofocus is reasonably fast and I can't really fault it. It does have macro on it too but even at 50mm its still a bit wide for macro purposes but good for bokeh images.

Here are a few images I've shot with it. I have to say I haven't been disappointed with it at all. I do find that the manual focus is a little stiff but the same has been said with some other Sigma lenses and they usually free up.

Benster

Looks like it could be a fruitless exercise with the Nikon lens anyway, can't find any online stores in NY that have it in stock. It seems that with Nikon's surprise hit-n-run restocking tactics none of the shops can guarantee when or even if they will get it back in again. :-(

Although you are right about the better cost of the Sigma, it just seems that I'd be getting a rock-solid product that would last for years with the Nikon and hopefully with a decent resale value if I ever wanted to change it.

Deflated-B

eas

if you're set on the Nikon 17-55 why not get it off eBay from one of the trusted HK vendors? It works out around the same price. You may even be able to find one with a Nikon international warrantee. AFAIK, if you buy a lens at BnH it's a Nikon US only warrantee.

Another thing to consider, like I mentioned in a earlier post, that the lack of stock on these top end lenses may indicate new things coming. I generally would not recommend putting off a purchase due to the rumour mill, but it does seem the D3 will be coming sooner rather than later :

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/nikon-getting-set-to-unveil-next-gen-professional-dslr/

I'm not an expert in Nikons product strategy, but it would not surprise me if we saw at least some of the expected new pro lenses be released at the same time. In any case, it would probably take months to get one anyway.

dalk

Just to confuse the issue even more, have you considered the Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX & the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] as well. (Those names just roll off the tongue). All seem to be very good performers for the money.