17-55 DX - What's bad?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by nykonian, Jul 6, 2007.

  1. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I've heard a lot of good things about this lens. Can anybody stop me from buying it (tell me some bad things about this)? Thanks. :Confused: :Confused:
     
  2. Okay I'll get the ball rolling... It's expensive :smile:
     
  3. kavawava

    kavawava

    124
    Aug 8, 2006
    Its pretty expensive, and its kinda big, and its pretty expensive.

    Not to mention expensive.
     
  4. billg71

    billg71

    693
    May 4, 2007
    Atlanta, GA
    "Its pretty expensive, and its kinda big, and its pretty expensive."

    It's not THAT expensive.... Smaller than The Beast and just a tad larger and about the same weight as the 17-35. And $300 cheaper than the 17-35 to boot!

    I considered it when I was thinking about upgrading my 20-35, but for me the biggest considerations were the DX format and the lack of an aperture ring. But I shoot film and have an F3 and a Nikkormat that see a fair amount of use.

    So I wound up with a 17-35. I carry it and the 28-70 and they make a great pair. And I especially like the Beast for candids at the 70mm end. So the combo works for me.

    If you don't shoot film, I think it would make a great choice.:505:

    Post us some pix when it arrives!!! :wink::wink:

    Bill
     
  5. Nothing that should stop you from getting one, but:

    Expensive,
    Not full frame,
    Some reports of infinity focus problems at one time,
    No VR, unlike its Canon counterpart. (Don't flame me; he asked for negatives)

    I had one and couldn't have been happier.
    I did end up switching to the 28-70 though, as I found that range better for people shots.
     
  6. Just get it. You won't regret it. I have had mine for over a year and love it.:smile:
     
  7. Well.....it is expensive.......and no one here would take it off your hands if you didn't like it......yeah right!.......
     
  8. In relation to competitors:

    Distortion can be better controlled.

    Heavy

    Zoom ring not smooth

    Centre IQ very good, borders slightly below average

    Doesn't focus close enough (Sigma)
     
  9. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I have a "Beast" and I wasn't fond of the FL sometimes. If the quality is comparable, I would definitely go for 17-55/2.8.
     
  10. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    It seems to me there're more positives than negatives in this thread. Guess nobody can hold me back. :)
     
  11. I found the IQ of the two lenses to be very comparable.
    No meaningful difference in my copies with respect to sharpness, even wide open. https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=100562

    With respect to color and tone, and this is purely a subjective feeling, I thought the 28-70's was a little bit richer and perhaps slightly darker than the 17-55's.

    If you're happy with the 28-70's IQ, but would prefer the 17-55's focal length, then making the switch should make you very happy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  12. Correct, we even kinda/sorta encourage you in a way :biggrin:
     
  13. Well there a few negatives:
    1. It flares against the sun. It is mostly fixed if you use the hood
    2. Peak sharpensss at F6 or so then it declines slightly to F11, not much, but it does. It is quite sharp at F2.8 very good low light lens indoor.
    3. If you are into Future Full Frame cameras, this is a DX lens, and can't be used at 17 on FF cameras, but it can be used from say 24mm or so...

    But there are so many great things about this lens, that ity should not stop you from getting it. Everyone I know that have it say it is the lens that stays on their camera most of the time, it's a true bread and butter lens.
     
  14. Andreas sums it up pretty well. I don't think there is anything "bad" about the lens when you compare it's performance and quality to any other. If there was one thing I'd like better it would be flare control. Other than that its pretty awesome. I guess if you spend $1,200 on the lens and not baby food, that would be bad.
     
  15. I will try too...
    Don't buy it! It has a huge and ugly hood that makes everyone looking at you! :mad:

    Seriously... It is big, heavy, expensive, and the bokeh is not exactly smooth. But it still is the best 1-lens solution IMHO.
     
  16. Zee71

    Zee71

    Apr 1, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Just Do It!!! You'll be a happy but broke camper (your wallet won't weigh as much now).
     
  17. I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that it's pretty expensive. ;-)
     
  18. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Its very big, very expensive and there are much cheaper alternatives if you don't need the build quality.
     
  19. I've owned it for a few months now and it's just as sharp as my primes.

    Best wide-zoom I've ever owned.

    I had a problem focusing at 55mm for a day or two for some reason and then it magically went away.
     
  20. Getting the 17-55dx will cost you in future lens purchases, because you will never again be satisfied with less quality.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
What settings do you use with your Nikkor 18-200 VR 2 DX? Lens Lust Dec 18, 2012
What is the best DX lens? Lens Lust Sep 12, 2011
What's the deal with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX? Lens Lust Mar 24, 2011
What new or updated DX lenses? Lens Lust Mar 18, 2011
What's a good DX family portrait lens? Lens Lust Sep 1, 2009