17-55 Dx ...a mistake ?...

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mood, Aug 6, 2007.

  1. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    just bought a Nikon 17-55 DX and even though I used it brieifly, I don't think it is the lens for me.....

    I tend to shoot more landscape/ cityscape, and when I do more "portrait"..it is of the more candid, unobtrusive variety

    I have Tokina 12-24, 35f2m, 50 1.4 and 80-200 af-d
    I think I will get the 85 1.8 for lower light capability and portrait type shots
    and possibly a Kenko TC to use with my 80-200
    something still makes me want an all around faster zoom ( smaller than 17-55)
    that still works well. stopped down for some landscape work
    Tamron 17-50 ?
    Sigma 18-50?
    or some real fun with the Nikon 10.5 fish

    thoughts ???
    maybe even the "lowly" 18-55 II


    I know I should probably give the 17-55 more of a chance, but I'd rather return for full value than sell at a loss down the road...
     
  2. MD2595

    MD2595

    835
    Jul 6, 2007
    Fort Worth, TX
    If you're having buyer's remorse, then return it and buy what you really want. I don't use my 17-55 that much, but I'm going to keep it because when I need it, it's in the bag.

    Matt
     
  3. Ask me on Friday--that's when my 17-55 is due to arrive. Mine is replacing a 24-85, so I guess/hope my experience/expectations are different ("better"?) than yours. I have just begun to play with using my 12-24 for people shots and candids and am liking it a lot. I also considered the 85 1.8, but fell for the promised versatility of the zoom. I shoot landscapes too, but tend to go for the extractive style more than the wide look. I'll report back in a few and see what I actually think after using one. For $1200 it better do the laundry AND the dishes!!!!!
     
  4. You have a very nice lens, I got one like a year ago and I am very pleased. Give this lens a chance, you may regret later not having it if you decide to sell it.
     
  5. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    all very valid opinions and I thank you
    I do tend to go wider in my shots. hence going for the 17 part of the 17-55
    I also think my 12-24 is better at 17 than the 17-55
    I like my 35 better at 35, but I have to switch lenses, which I don't want to get lazy about
    I just sold my 18-200 because I always left it on and never experimented with anything else, and the IQ suffered at times , like at the zoo, where my 80-200 blows away the 18-200
    now my 12-24 and 35 have become my favorites and feel the 85 would have that same feeling
     
  6. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    I thought about that also Steve
    didn't you just sell yours ??
    :)
     
  7. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    hey Edward
    was hoping you would chime in
    I was actually just reading Thom Hogans review of that very lens
    maybe that and the 85...
    hmmm
    I like the 77mm filter size on that lens also
    i just don't think I need a fast zoom if I've got the 35, 50 1.4 and add the 85 1.8
     
  8. jak2

    jak2

    246
    Mar 14, 2007
    I get more contrast... almost like I have a polarizer filter partially rotated and a slightly more attractive bokah and one stop is one stop... that can come in handy. The purchase price was high and the law of diminishing returns is ever present but I wouldn't want to go back even though I do think the 18-70 is an excellent kit lens.
     
  9. I just picked up peet's 18-55 kit lens. It's the first version. It's plastic, lightweight, and feels cheaply made. But it takes great photos as long as they're not turned into large prints. It has very little distortion at the wide end, but it's a bit short at the long end. For a feather-light walkaround kit lens, it's hard to beat. Not to mention, it's very inexpensive, as you can probably buy two or three of these for the cost of the 18-70.
     
  10. Frank,

    I am going through a similar decision. I LOVE my primes -- 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.4, and 180 f/2.8. However, my wife did just pick up the 70-200VR, and I can see the benefit a zoom in this range for tennis shots. What I don't have covered yet is the "around 35mm" range. So, I have been going back and forth between the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Nikon 35 f/2. However, today I was in Green's Camera World in Monterey, CA (great people, btw), and there was the 17-55mm for $1299. I know it is more than B&H, but I couldn't help myself. The next thing I knew I was walking out the door with it!! :biggrin:

    Now, I have to ask: Is it worth the money? Do I still need the 35mm? etc etc.

    I look forward to seeing what you decide.

    Craig
     
  11. I love my 17-55mm and so does my wife. We use them as our primary walk-around lens!

    Good luck...Jim
     
  12. jak2

    jak2

    246
    Mar 14, 2007
    True indeed. The photojournalist on the other hand and those whose images are of the same form-factor as a photojournalist I would think will find the 17-55 hard to beat. It does do fine for my landscapes. Some call it lazy but changing lens to me is a bit of a speed-bump and generally a pain (esp in areas that concern me dust-wise). Between the 17-55 and the 80-200 I get most of the shots I want with minimal lens changes... shoot, even if I only shot at the extremes, I cut my lens changes virtually in half... and I do find framing up at in-between focal lengths is something I do reasonably often. I think for me, the zooms help me focus more attention on the image I'm after... every approach has its compromises, we all pick our poison.
     
  13. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    craig
    get the 35 f2
    the color rendition is what I love about it..on top of the small size and sharp pictures
    I guess I'm a bit more deliberate in my shooting, whether or not they come out as planned is another thing
    as I said if I did alot of event/ wedding/ journalistic stuff, I agree, the 17-55 would be the logical choice
     
  14. I would second

    the 18-70. I have not compared it to the 17-55. The images from this lens are remarkable, they just seem to 'pop' and draw out color and micro-contrast. The lens has 3 ED elements, dust/weather seals, fast AF-S focusing, and smooth manual/zoom focusing rings (not to mention a 'semi-pro' build). Bjorn and Thom have given it some high marks. Out of all the lens I have owned/rented, this is the best lens I have ever used taking into consideration the size, wieght, performance, IQ and of course price.
     
  15. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    If I could do it all over again, I'd have gotten my D80 with the 18-70 instead of the 18-55. A little extra reach, and a little extra speed is all I need for a walk around lens. But the 18-55 is a great little lens also, so no sense in "accidentally smashing it against a wall" just to get the 18-70. :wink:
     
  16. madone

    madone

    268
    Jan 9, 2006
    Connecticut
    I love my 17-55. Actually it has become my most used lens. (Rarely leaves my camera).

    One thing to consider about this 2.8 lens is the bokeh it creates when wide open. I love the fact I have more light, BUT the main reason I wanted the 2.8 was to have a "softer" bokeh and subject separation from the background. The 17-55 does an excellent job with this. The "slower" lenses just did not give me the "softness" I was looking for. It's not the "Cream Machine", but is is darn close.
     
  17. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    I understand that madone
    I don't find the bokeh that great actually
    if I go out wanting to shoot some people, I will gladly take the 35 or 50 and just back up/ move forward a little
    and in low light the 35f2, with its light weight makes hand holding easier IMO
     
  18. so mood

    as I have not used the 17-55 myself, it is lacking the 'wow' factor you expected for the price tag ? I have always wanted one, but at the same time I have also wondered how much better can it get for the moola.
     
Loading...