Nikon 17-55mm

Jun 4, 2005
I replaced the 18-70 with that lens. It's fabulous. Not too bad wide open at 2.8, too. You won't miss the 55-70 as you can move with your feet for that range. Just go for it. :)

The 17-55 and the 70-200 are my two working lenses. With those on my pair of bodies, I'm set for almost anything.
Jul 2, 2005
Orange County , CA
17-55 has no f/stop ring... and the zoom is a little closer to the body...

I had the 17-35 and it was perfect for using the zoom

17-55 is a little awkward in the beginning, the extra 35-55 zoom is what I needed... no to get used to the close zoom ring
May 23, 2005
the 17-55 is better in low light for sure, the f/2.8 is quite useable. IT is a heavy lens, one that is not as easy as a "Carry-around" as the 18-780, which is quite petite in comparison.

If you want low light I would first add a $99 50/1.8 In my opinion f/2.8 is NOT fast enough for indoor shooting with no support and no flash, for the most part. The extra stop and a bit of a 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 will probably make the differencei n low light.

Not that I discourage buying the 17-55 it is afantastic lens, but Nikon erred when not including VR on this lens, that would have made it a low light uber-lens.

Overall the 17-55 will give you quality across the range and across apertures, the pictures really pop.

Latest posts

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:
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY:
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom