17-55mm Lusting... Grrr..

Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,770
Location
Greenlawn NY
One thing I miss from my Canon Line up was my EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS.

I just can't get myself to drop the coin for the Nikon 17-55 2.8 (Non VR Might I add). But I did love the FL..
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,770
Location
Greenlawn NY
I know this might be comparing apples to oranges, but I am still wondering how the 16-85VR lines up with this.. Like I posted in an earlier post, It got Great reviews from Pop Photo..half of the price and VR to boot..
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
962
I got the 17-55 three years ago. The price is long forgotten, the smile when using it remains.

Get one, if you can afford. It's the only lens I will miss when someday my DX-days are over.

By the way, lots of people selling them in mint condition these days because of the D700. This offers some opportunities on getting a new one "cheap".

Regards,

Mattes
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
I <3 my 17-55. I too was hung up with the lack of VR, but once I bought it I had no regrets! Mostly I use it for chasing my daughter around where VR doesn't matter, so I've never really missed having VR on it, although it'd be nice. It's also very nicely built and quite rugged. I've heard the build quality of the canon 17-55 is not quite as nice, but I've never handled it so I don't know personally. Would be nice to have it all in one lens, but for now I have the 17-55 f/2.8, and then an 18-55VR kit lens if I'm just doing scenic or landscape type photos. Its VR system makes up for its lack of speed vs the f/2.8 in a far lighter and more manageable package. VR + f/2.8 would be even better, but the two get the job done and then some. :smile:

Ditto Mattes' comment about 17-55's going for cheap now. With the D700/FX bandwagon rolling, now is the time to be looking for cheap DX lenses used. :biggrin:
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,770
Location
Greenlawn NY
I <3 my 17-55. I too was hung up with the lack of VR, but once I bought it I had no regrets! Mostly I use it for chasing my daughter around where VR doesn't matter, so I've never really missed having VR on it, although it'd be nice. It's also very nicely built and quite rugged. I've heard the build quality of the canon 17-55 is not quite as nice, but I've never handled it so I don't know personally. Would be nice to have it all in one lens, but for now I have the 17-55 f/2.8, and then an 18-55VR kit lens if I'm just doing scenic or landscape type photos. Its VR system makes up for its lack of speed vs the f/2.8 in a far lighter and more manageable package. VR + f/2.8 would be even better, but the two get the job done and then some. :smile:

Ditto Mattes' comment about 17-55's going for cheap now. With the D700/FX bandwagon rolling, now is the time to be looking for cheap DX lenses used. :biggrin:


I must agree with the comment about the Canon 17-55, It is made real cheaply.. Very Plastic/Cheap Feel to it. But it was sharp as a Razor..
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
The Nikon 17-55 is built toughly enough that my daughter can whack the snot out of it accidentally with a toy when I've got my head turned and I don't need to worry about the lens. That was actually a big selling point to me vs the third-party lenses.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
966
Location
Nottingham, UK
The 16-85VR is a slow, consumer zoom, and the 17-55DX is a fast, pro zoom with the weight, size, and price tag to match! It all depends on what your requirements are, I don't need the extra build and AF-S from the Nikon 17-55DX so there's no justification in me paying more for it (which is why I went for the Tamron 17-50mm in the end as optically they are very similar). If you need the range of the 16-85 and the VR then go for that, but if you want the build and better critical resolution then go for the 17-55DX.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
Just get the 17-55 and all you'll stop all your questioning the minute you see your photos. Plus VR in this focal range isn't that much help anyway IMHO
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Redmond, WA
Similar to Steve, I've found the 17-55/2.8 great for my #1 reason to shoot -- chasing after kids. VR doesn't matter as much in this case, since I need to get higher shutter speeds with them anyway. The faster apertures of the 17-55/2.8 help me get good shutter speeds at f/2.8 and f/4. I was actually surprised by how much shooting I do at f/4, plus or minus a stop. f/4 and f/2.8 give some reasonably good subject isolation at these ranges.

Your mileage may vary -- it really depends on what you shoot.

Consider that used 17-55/2.8's have popped up in this forum for about $850. And that a number of folks have bought brand-new, USA warranty 17-55/2.8's with the Microsoft Live Cashback for prices between $810 and $880 (depending on one's array of eBay coupons and the discount percentage -- currently it's more like $960-$1,040).

That's made the big sticker price less of a factor, since the 16-85VR is rather pricey for a consumer lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
424
Location
SD
I have just purchased the 17-55 and LOVE IT! I got it for a very cheap price since the guy was upgrading to FX. It's built like a tank and from what others have said, it looks as if it will take a beating and keep on ticking! I also own the 16-85VR and it serves a different purpose for me. When I'm shooting my 2y/o son and all my nieces and nephews I have the 17-55 on. Its almost always on for indoor family gatherings aswell. Now if Im out and about then I'll slap on my 16-85VR along with my 70-300VR and Im all set to travel anywhere and capture almost anything.

If anything just go and find a good deal on a used 17-55 and try for yourself. Thats what I did and it's been on my camera about most of the time since its purchase.
 
R

RichNY

Guest
I've got both the Canon and Nikon 17-55. Build quality definitely goes to Nikon but the Canon was built well enough that it never caused any issues and was lighter.

IQ of the Nikon is slightly better but I do miss image stabilization. I have a slight hand tremor and found the the IS definitely helped me even at this focal length- lighting conditions didn't always allow me to get to the shutter speeds I wanted. Overall I'd rather have the Canon because of the weight and IS but it won't seem to mount on the D300 :) If you are used to the quality of your Canon then there really isn't any other choice but the Nikon 17-55 which you will be very pleased with.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
113
Location
Colorado
There are always lots of different opinions on lenses. Since I own both I'll share mine.

The 17-55 is a great lens but is not that much beter than the 16-85 optically. At $600, the 16-85 isn't really a consumer lens or a pro lens. It is designed to be a high-quality travel lens and is outstanding for that. My 16-85 is as sharp as my 17-55 across the entire range. The VR is great for vacation shots where you don't want to carry a tripod and want to shoot at sunrise or sunset and get depth of field (F2.8 is useless for this).

The one area where the 17-55 is better is on autofocus performance under low light. An F2.8 lens will always be better than a slower lens here. When I shoot people indoors I normally use the 17-55 because of this. For outdoor shooting and travel, I prefer the 16-85.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
6,408
Location
NYC
This shot was taken with my 17-55. Used my SB600 for fill. This is MY FAVORITE shot!! I think it came out pretty darned good if I say so myself. :biggrin:

329854956_cwXES-XL.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom