I'm COMPLETELY RUINED - picked up a 17-55DX (lots of pics)

[DaveOHUSA]

Quoting Edwardnot sure why this didn't work right..lol)
[... the money I got more than made up for the cost of the 17-55 and it is sitting in my "hobby account" ready for the next lens or body I may "need". Another great thing is that my wife knows I sold the lenses and won't even blink when I do decide to re-invest the funds.

I say if you are not using it - sell it - it will give you funds for the future and it will make you look good and feel good[/QUOTE]


And I can definitely relate to that... Exactly how I have been able to fund my pro glass... Liquidating old toys no longer used. I always buy quality, so if I sell in 5,10 or 20 years, my losses are so minimal she can't even believe it. Just sold my "good" stereo equipment to fund my first batch of glass... now selling some tools I bought to renovate our home to fund future long glass needs. And everyone is happier that way... in my home at least.

 

[SP77]

before I bought my 17-55 I had the following:
10.5mm f/2.8
20mm f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
60mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.8
105mm f/2
180mm f/2.8
300mm f/4
18-135 zoom

After I bought my 17-55 I decided to sell the lenses that didn't get enough use to justify having them sit around so I sold the following:
18-135 zoom
20mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
60mm f/2.8
85mm f/2.8
180mm f/2.8

When I put them up for sale I worried that I might be making a mistake that I would regret it, but now I can honestly say that I have not missed them a single bit and on top of that the money I got more than made up for the cost of the 17-55 and it is sitting in my "hobby account" ready for the next lens or body I may "need". Another great thing is that my wife knows I sold the lenses and won't even blink when I do decide to re-invest the funds.

I say if you are not using it - sell it - it will give you funds for the future and it will make you look good and feel good

LOL, Ed I made the mistake of shooting with my 85 tonight! Now I can't bring myself to sell the 85! Well, as long as I'm using stuff I don't care. Part of the challenge is just finding ways to use what you've got. Obviously the more lenses you have, the less you can use each one. The D40/17-55 and D80/85 combo is actually a pretty nice in-house setup, although I still think I'd like a 105 or 135 instead. More stuff. :smile:

 

[SP77]

Now get the Mrs to buy the D300 for Xmas for you...once she sees the high quality from this lens, she'll beg to buy you the new body, if you explain that's what it'll take to improve even more!! but yes, might as well sell the "extra" gear to help her with the funding...lol

ha, she won't fall for it. She already thinks the 17-55 is "too sharp". I could probably sell her on a 77mm filter set though, including a portrait filter. :smile:

Haven't taken off the 17-55 since I bought it. Well maybe once when I was shooting sports with my 85. It is a great lens I don't think I will ever part with. ENJOY!!!Pssssst, love your gorgeous model she too!!!! As they say, she'll go places with looks like that!

Thanks Debbie!

 

[JDann24]

I could probably sell her on a 77mm filter set though, including a portrait filter.

Lol, I just made the sales pitch to the wife on the 77mm filter set last night. Umm, it didn't go very well.

 

[Martin Hunter]

Hmmm... I just showed my wife the BH link for the 17-55 and her response was a mere "nice" and not "nice" in that "hey, that would look nice on your D300" but more like "that would be nice, I'm sure". I'll keep testing the waters

 

[watsonD50]

Steve

welcome to the club. I love the 17-55, the more I use it the more I appreciate it and to be honest my other lenses are starting to collect dust and I might start to sell them off. One of the best things about the 17-55 is how light it is (another tribute to the DX form factor) - and how it mates well with a camera like the D40 or D40x.

I starting doing some pro gigs with the 17-55 and it hasn't let me down. I have thought about purchasing the D300 but now I am having second thoughts after looking at samples (still waiting for dpreview to review it though) and have pondered two D40x's - one with a 17-55 attached and the other with a 70-200 or the like (that would be the ultimate light weight two body system). I think the D40/D40x's are good enough for pro work (some friends are giving me the thumbs down), but I could be wrong - i don't care about the missing AF motor, once you go AFS you don't go back :wink:

 

[SP77]

welcome to the club. I love the 17-55, the more I use it the more I appreciate it and to be honest my other lenses are starting to collect dust and I might start to sell them off. One of the best things about the 17-55 is how light it is (another tribute to the DX form factor) - and how it mates well with a camera like the D40 or D40x.

Thanks Daniel! Yeah the lightness surprised me. It's no heavier and actually better handling than my 70-300VR. It's noticeably lighter than my Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 too. Granted that covers full frame, but not at nearly the same quality level as Nikkor glass. The first time I held the 17-55 in my hands I was like, that's it? Referring to the weight, not the price. :wink:

<< split reply over to other thread >>

 

[Joseph]

Good shots Steve! It's truly an awesome lens. It's quite pricey but it definitely makes up for it when you're looking at the images in your computer. The build is awesome too.

 

[Michael Mohrmann]

One of the best things about the 17-55 is how light it is (another tribute to the DX form factor) ...

That and the 12-24, 16-85, 50-135/2.8, etc. So many lenses to like with the DX format. Just wish I could manage the viewfinder on a DX body.

 

[sambru]

I love my 17-55 - it a great lens, Lately it's been taking a beating because it's a DX lens.

 

[PBurkott]

When I bought my D200 & 18-200mm lens, I thought I really didn't need my 35-70mm lens, so I gave it to my son. After a fashion, I really missed the quality of it, but do to the 1.5X crop factor I decided to replace it with a 17-55mm lens. It's now on my camera most of the time...it's an awesome lens.

 

[daniyarm]

Sounds like this lens is awesome, I am surprised because of all the reviews I have read. Too bad it's a little short for my taste, I am lusting over 24-70.

 

[basharar]

Sp77, the 17-55 rocks, I had it on my D40 and loved it, you may consider selling your D40/D80 and get a D90/D5000, the new generation of cameras will save you lots of time fiddling around with photoshop/DXO,photos will come out with the right colors/exposure and contrast right out of the camera, you will only need photoshop for special FX...

 

[Rooz]

i'll go against the grain. i prefer my primes. certianly on a smaller body, i feel the 17-55 is completely unbalanced on a d60...(just MO). if it wasnt for work stuff, i'd sell the 24-70 tomorrow...as incredible as it is.

and its certianly not "grab and go". lol well...not in the true context of how that term has historically been used.

 

[Domdog31]

lol i remember a few weeks ago your 35 f/1.8 was the cats meow....

NAS is a killer!!!

 

[SP77]

lol i remember a few weeks ago your 35 f/1.8 was the cats meow....

NAS is a killer!!!

LOL - this thread is old. Check the date of the first posting. :biggrin: NAS is definitely killer though. I've since been ruined by more pro glass than the 17-55. The 17-55 is what got me hooked! :tongue:

 

[truronion]

God how much did that lens cost you? now where have I heard that before?

 

[SP77]

Good shots Steve! It's truly an awesome lens. It's quite pricey but it definitely makes up for it when you're looking at the images in your computer. The build is awesome too.

Thanks Joseph! See also Favorites from the year with the 17-55DX. This lens just kept on delivering winner after winner last year. Definitely worth every penny in my opinion.

That and the 12-24, 16-85, 50-135/2.8, etc. So many lenses to like with the DX format. Just wish I could manage the viewfinder on a DX body.

I hear ya on that. I really wish Nikon would come out with some modernized consumer FX glass. Even an upgraded 24-120vr "II" would be nice. Not sure what cameras you've had but the higher end DX bodies definitely have better viewfinders. It's tiny on the d40, especially compared to my F100 which is a night and day difference shooting them back to back.

I love my 17-55 - it a great lens, Lately it's been taking a beating because it's a DX lens.

That's only perception though. Its status has taken a hit, but none of that will ever change the fact that it's truly a top-notch hunk of glass. If something falls out of fashion or popularity, that just means people buying used today are getting incredible deals at the loss of others.

 

[SP77]

Sounds like this lens is awesome, I am surprised because of all the reviews I have read. Too bad it's a little short for my taste, I am lusting over 24-70.

Not sure what reviews you've read. I think photozone.de actually rated the Tamron as being sharper at 2.8 which it may be, but the ugly bokeh on that lens is a deal breaker for me, and the slow AF speed is another deal breaker. Ken R. didn't like it either, but he comes at things from a landscape/scenic point of view and I agree there's little point to this lens for that. As I use it though for photojournalist purposes chasing my kids around it can't be beat. The AF speed is blazing fast, rugged build, beautiful bokeh, as sharp as you'd need it at f/2.8, and very manageable size wise. The 24-70 is great too, but there's little difference between 55 and 70mm. Just a quick crop. There's no way to crop out to 17mm if you need it though if your lens only goes as wide as 24 or 28! I end up shooting mine at 55mm a lot, but the times I need 17 it gets there and saves me a lens change or a missed shot.

Sp77, the 17-55 rocks, I had it on my D40 and loved it, you may consider selling your D40/D80 and get a D90/D5000, the new generation of cameras will save you lots of time fiddling around with photoshop/DXO,photos will come out with the right colors/exposure and contrast right out of the camera, you will only need photoshop for special FX...

I use flash a lot and the matrix metering is dead nuts on even on the 40/80. Outdoors it's more tricky, but I have my choice of film bodies now and color negative films could care less if you're off by a stop or two, and a recent shoot with a recently acquired d50 showed me that it's not nearly as idiotic as the 40/80 are with no flash matrix metering either. Desmond's thread on the d90 matrix metering showed me it was still playing a lot of the same stupid games with the metering and I lost interest. Plus the 70/80/90 bodies have some ergonomic quirks that I don't care for. For DX I stay either at the bottom or would go all out for a d200/300. I almost bought that $599 d200 best buy special, but I just picked up a 14mm f/2.8. no mo money, lol. :smile: Will be curious to see how the d5000 performs

i'll go against the grain. i prefer my primes. certianly on a smaller body, i feel the 17-55 is completely unbalanced on a d60...(just MO). if it wasnt for work stuff, i'd sell the 24-70 tomorrow...as incredible as it is.

and its certianly not "grab and go". lol well...not in the true context of how that term has historically been used.

If you're trying to shoot it one-handed, yeah it's pretty awkward, but still nothing compared to a 70-200vr, LOL. :biggrin: The point of having a big honkin zoom though is to zoom, so you're gonna be using your left hand. I can hold the bottom of the 17-55 with my left hand at the center of mass and it feels perfect. I like doing that better than when the center of mass is more towards the body since my hands are pretty big and I already have some trouble gripping the d40 just by itself. If I want to go light I've got the 35/1.8g and 50/1.4g too. I was almost convinced to sell the 17-55 with these new primes, but sometimes you've just gotta have speed and zoom ability at the same time.

 

[panda-R]

seriously this is my favorite lens by far, but that's only because i haven't tried a 24-70/2.8 on the D700 yet, but I love the 17-55/d300 combo.