Is the Nikon 17-55 F2.8 still relavent on 24mp APS-C ?

[Sootchucker]

Hi guys,

Whilst typically I would use my full frame bodies for most of my photography, I often use the D7200 for reach. I sold off all my DX lenses some years ago when investing in FX, so only use my telephotos on the D7200.

I am considering getting one "standard" lens for the camera, and when I had a Nikon D200 and D300s, my then copy of the 17-55 F2.8 DX AF-S was simply stunning.

I've seen the price drop on these considerably in recent times as people no doubt offload them in their switch to FX, so secondhand ones can be had a bargain prices these days. My question is how does the venerable Nikon 17-55 F2.8 fare these days on the much higher pixel density 24mp cameras from today. Anyone still use one ?

I did look briefly into the new 16-80 F2.8-4, (especially as Pa gave it such a good write up), but currently it's simply too expensive for a variable aperture zoom (at least here in the UK). Did also have a short fling with the Sigma 17-50 F2.8, which gave great results, but I just couldn't get on with the focussing ring rotating all the time, and kept catching it with my hand, so had to return that one.

Any advise appreciated.

 

[trenchmonkey]

I'm thinkin' it'll be fine. Love my old AF-S 17-35 f2.8 on my 36MP D810/800's
I don't do 'landscapes' so there might be better options out there, but for PJ/walkaround
stuff this glass is hard to beat. (FWIW, Nikon's still makin' 'em)

 

[morcguy]

I still shoot mine with myD7200 and it gives great results. IMO no other lens of comparable focal length will AF as quickly as the 17-55. I am curious about the Sigma 18-35 as far as IQ.

 

[trenchmonkey]

I still shoot mine with myD7200 and it gives great results. IMO no other lens of comparable focal length will AF as quickly as the 17-55. I am curious about the Sigma 18-35 as far as IQ.

The Sig's IQ is off the charts AND a stop and a third faster...downside might be the limited range.
I was an early adopter and very impressed with the lens. Was even sweet on FX from ~23mm >35

 

[Pa]

Since you reference my comments on the new 16-80 I'll not push that further.

I had a 17-55 several years ago and thought it was a very good lens, but the limited range and large size turned me off. I want small and light when I'm using a DX camera so I preferred the 16-85VR (I didn't really need f/2.8). Now the 16-80 has replaced the 16-85 in my arsenal.

After posting this I realized that I hadn't really addressed your main question. I was using the 17-55 on a D200, so I know nothing about how it would perform on a 24MP sensor. However, since it is well made and uses high-quality glass it will probably be fine.

 

[pforsell]

Andrew,
since you use both FX and DX cameras, I think you'd get the best bang for the buck by getting a lens that's compatible with both. If a "normalish" zoom is in your mind, another vote to the AF-S 17-35 f2.8 that is also sharper than the DX 17-55.

Or how about getting a fast prime instead? Something like Sigma ART 35 f1.4? That lens is much better that it has any right to be at that price. And it could serve double duty as a fast wide angle on FX and a fast normal on DX. It requires a little more involvement than a zoom and you need to do foot zooming, but that's well worth it photographically. And you get free exercise as a bonus.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I loved my 17-55m when I owned it!

 

[Sootchucker]

Thanks guys.

Yes, me too Jonathan, that's what's got me considering one again.

 

[DaveC]

I have one now that I used with my D7000 and now my D7100. I've been very happy with it.

 

[dayv]

If i will get another dx body, this lens for sure will be the top of my list. love it back in the d200/d70/s5pro days.

 

[Winterfell]

Looking forward to pairing my 17-55 with the D500. I splurged on that lens when I bought my first dslr (a Nikon D80). Couple years later I jumped to the D7000 and that camera paired really well with the lens. I haven't used it much since I went from D7000 to D800e. I always liked the 17-55 quick AF speed and the bokeh for portraiture is very respectable for a zoom.

I think the 16-80 is really meant as the replacement - it has all the modern coatings and probably represents a better value as the 17-55 has never been cheap.

Anyone know how the aperture changes on the 16-80 as you zoom out?

 

[Pa]

Anyone know how the aperture changes on the 16-80 as you zoom out?

16 2.8
24 3.0
35 3.3
50 3.8
80 4.0

 

[Naptown]

I still have a 17-55/2.8 DX, my last DX lens. Planning to use it on the D500 as my walking around gear. On the D800 it works well enough but the partial gray small viewfinder image is annoying. I still have a D2xs but the ISO is limited.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Used 17-55 lenses sell for cheap nowadays. I'd buy that before getting any variable aperture, plastic lens!

 

[Pa]

Used 17-55 lenses sell for cheap nowadays. I'd buy that before getting any variable aperture, plastic lens!

It depends on what you shoot. For me, as primarily a travel photographer, the 16-80 is a much better fit.

 

[Naptown]

For me, overall travel kit size is more important than gear weight. I will add the 70-300 VR for travel. Sometimes I just take the D800 with the 50/1.8G.