1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

The 17-55mm is almost a great lens...

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Medic Kayaker, Jun 21, 2007.

  1. Hi All,

    Got my 17-55 several days ago and finally had a chance to really play with it for a couple of hours...Wow, this lens is sharp and fast with great DOF. I only wish that it was a little longer; 400mm would be great. But then I would need a sherpa to carry my bag...LOL

    Take a look at today's pictures, all shot with the 17-55 at the local arboretum.






  2. New lens for Edward?

    "The 17-55 is a great lens and I want to see what it can do :biggrin:"

    Perhaps ANOTHER zoom on your to get list Edward? Would be on mine except the high cost!

    P.S. I sent a PM to you sir just to give you the heads up.
  3. nykonian


    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I had this lens at one point and I love the quality. One complaint is that it's just too heavy so I sold it for the primes :)  Since I acquired a D40 recently, I am inclined to obtain the zooms again due to the lack of AF in D40. 17-55mm is now on top of my list. :) 
  4. Thanks Edward. I'll make the pictures larger next time I post pictures.
  5. Try the new Macro verison of the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and compare it with the Nikkor 17-55mm. You might be in for a surprise.
  6. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The Nikon 17-55 is no longer king of it's focal length, the Tamron 17-50 beats it on raw resolution and the Sigma matches it.
  7. 1FASTZ


    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    Kevin, sorry that folks are poo poo'ing on your parade with a lens pi$$ing match. Don't let it get you down, you've made a wise lens purchase. I'm personally glad that folks are buying the Tamrons and Sigmas because it keeps the Nikon prices down for folks like us.

    Getting back to the original topic...

    You've posted some very nice shots. I'd like to see you repost some larger versions.
    The 17-55DX is a great lens and I'm glad to hear that you are liking it. I love mine, even though it's junk compared to the Tamron and Sigma :wink:. Keep up the great work.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2007
  8. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
  9. 1FASTZ


    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    Weiran - There's no doubt that the Sigma & Tamron are a good value and it's certainly possible for the Tamron to be just as good as the Nikon, if not better, but you have to believe what you want. These guys at photozone essentially borrowed these lenses from one of their buddies (at the top it says "Lens provided by " so and so), did the testing, and then assumed that each sampled lens represents the entire population. We all know that there is variation from lens to lens even within the same brand. I know of a few guys that have gone through 3 or 4 Nikon 18-200's until they have found a good one. It would be interesting to see them pull 20 brand new Nikons and 20 brand new Tamrons and do the testing and compare the averages. Still not a perfect representation of the population, but certainly better than one data point.

    Sorry Kevin for side tracking the tread. I'm not going to respond within this tread again. Weiran and I need to move this specific discussion over to a tread of it's own.
  10. Two things

    that I no longer believe in....

    1) Sample Variation
    2) MTF Charts, DxO Charts, etc.
  11. rubendparra

    rubendparra Guest

    believe in your eyes..... :D 

    is not only about sharpness
  12. Takeda


    Jun 9, 2006
    Durham, NC

    Take a look at the other parameters!!!!! Build quality is a lot worse on the Tamron, and Sigma, and they will not hold their value like the 17 55mm f/2.8!
  13. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl
    Very nice shots, i have the 17-55 and I really like it just have not used it latley, also I like the train pictures the best.

  14. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    nice photos, congrats...;-))

    ..sorry Daniel, but samples do vary, as well as peoples point of view...;-))
  15. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Image quality is my main deciding factor, i also doubt it loses as much money as the Nikon would, its only cost me £160 new, I could probably sell mine for something similar whereas the Nikon 2nd value means it would've cost me about £100 now.
  16. True. My Sigma doesn't feel as solid as the Nikkor, which is built like a tank. Therein lies one of my issues with the Nikkor: It's too heavy to use as a daily walkaround lens. I prefer the weight and optical output of the Sigma. The Sigma also has a smoother zoom ring as compared to the Nikkor.
  17. You know -- talk is cheap and posting results from a questionable test site that is nothing more than some guy in his back yard taking shots with borrowed lenses is even cheaper. Photography is a highly visual art. Why not post some pics from the mighty Tamron and/or Sigma that prove your point?

    After your failure to post any images that prove what you say, why not explain why you posted that gibberish in a thread that has nothing to do with either of those third party lenses? Seems to me this Napoleon Complex that comes with the Tammy and Sig is getting out of hand.

  18. Takeda


    Jun 9, 2006
    Durham, NC
    It's amazing how people can justify buying a 2nd rate lens (like the Tamron and/or Sigma) when they don't have the funds to buy the Nikkor pro lenses!!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.