17-55 f/2.8 dx

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by R Bond, Dec 10, 2005.

  1. I currently have a 17-35 2.8-4 Di Tamron and a 24-85 G 3.5-4.5 Nikon and use them on a D100. I am thinking about a lens upgrade and have been comparing my lenses where they overlap. The Nikon has more contrast but the Tamron gives me more detail and I can add contrast. In fact the Tamron gives me detail in areas where the Nikon gives me dark shadows. With the Tamron lens I can add contrast and end up with more detail in the shadows. Also the leaves on distant trees are more like green blobs with the Nikon lens but are more like individual leaves with the Tamron lens. My comparisons have been at 28 and 30 mm.
    I looked at the focal lengths that I used for 300 photos and 90% were between 17 and 50 mm. 50% were 17 to 24 mm and 40% were spread pretty evenly from 28 to 50 mm with the last 10% ranging from 52 to 400 mm.
    The simple answer here is to buy a 17-55 Nikon, but I am wondering if that lens will give me the the best detail that I can get through it's zoom range. If a 17 to 35 will give me better detail in that range I will stick with it and consider "The Beast" 28-70 2.8 AF-s Nikon. If I saw convincing evidence that it is better than what I have through it's range I would also consider the 28-75 2.8 Di
    Tamron. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Sorry this was so long.
     
  2. Just my own two bits: I use the 17-55 and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 on a regular basis. Usually the Tamron is on my D50 and the Nikon is often on my D2X.

    I do like the Tamron, but honestly I think there is something that the Nikon does for images that I don't know how to add in post. The only other lens I use that seems to have this quality is the 70-200 VR.

    Very subjective, of course, but that's what I think.

    The best things about the Tamron, IMHO are that it is a smaller lighter lens while managing f2.8 and of course the much lower cost.
     
  3. The 17-55 brings much to the table that I feel you have not yet experienced. It is a great lens with great clarity and detail and is quite versitle.
    dave
     
  4. Hello Beezle

    Thanks for the quick reply. I have been reading all I can find on the 17-55 and it seems that the people that like it love it and the people that don't like it think it's a pretty good lens. I have read about some problems but I figure they are few and far between. Heck, the 70-200 VR had it's problems when it was first released and it's image quality is legend now. The 28-70 2.8 AF-s (The Beast) is legend too and I wonder how the 17-55 compares to it between 28 and 55 mm?
     
  5. Hi Dave

    The 17-55 certainly is the ideal zoom range for me and I expect that you are correct about my experience, I have yet to see anyone upgrade to the 28-70 2.8 AFS Nikon or the 17-55 dx Nikon that was dissapointed. Though I have seen a few folks switch from the top Nikons to the Tamrons but darn few. Thanks for the reply.
     
  6. remeber that the 17-55 is equal to the 28-70 in digital terms. very similar in results.
    dave
     
  7. I only have limited experience with the 17-55mm since I only got it 6 weeks ago. But I concord with Dave about clarity, detail and versatility. In my book, it's a great lens which definitively gives better images than the Tamron 17-35mm (that I used for around a year).

    To cover the range 17mm-70mm, after reading most of the lens evaluations I can find over the net, I end up with these 2 combinations :

    1.- Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 + 28-70mm f/2.8 (the best but expensive of the 2 combinations)
    2.- Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX + AF 35-70mm f/2.8 (my choice budget-wise since D200 is on its way).
     
  8. Hi Dao Dang

    I'm doing ok with what I have and can live with it for a little while longer, you don't know what you are missing when you've never had it.
    Your #1 scenario is exactly what I think would be optically the best way to go, but as you say, "the most expensive".
    The 17-55 is probably the lens that I would get the most use out of even if I had all three. I am just not 100% convinced. Not to mention that I have a severe case of lust for the "Beast", it's calling me:Mysteriou
     
  9. The 17-55mm lens is the most used lens in my arsenal. I think it is a great lens and the zoom range is perfect for my style of shooting. I took it to Italy with me and if you would like to see some examples of low light shooting without flash, go to my website. The vast majority of the shots were done with the 17-55mm lens.
     

  10. Hello Gordon

    I went through your Tuscan gallery, very nice. I am still on dial up so stopped there for now.
    I am almost convinced that the 17-55 is the lens that I "need". That is I think it is the lens that I would use the most and give me the IQ of the 17-35 and the 28-70, by some accounts it is a sharper lens wide open than the 28-70 afs.
     
  11. Keep in mind RB, that the 17-55 has 3 ED elements and 3 aspherical elements. Contrast and color saturation are incredible. Not too many lenese can boast those specs. You'll rarely every need a polarizer with this lens.
     
  12. Hello Gregg

    Thanks for the reply.
    The case "for" this lens gets better and better, now it's just a matter of money. The fact that you are shooting a D100 helps the case "for" because I will probably will be shooting the D100 for another year. I think (hope) the lens is more important than the camera.
     
  13. Maybe you mean that "magically snap" some Nikkors have. For me the 17-55/2.8 has this indescribable characteristic definitely.

    best regards
    Claus
     
  14. Hello Claus

    You guys really know how to make a fella suffer ;-)
     
  15. Lars Troels

    Lars Troels Guest

  16. Very convincing Lars. I will be buying this lens and will trade the 17-35 Tamron. Thanks for the reply

    Merry Christmas
     
Loading...