Nikon AF-S 17-55DX

[GeoffR]

Some time ago there was a discussion on whether this lens was as good as the 18-70 for an amateur. Well I'm not going to answer that question>

I picked up a 17-55 this morning and first impressions are that it is better corrected for distortion than the Sigma 18-50 at the short end, which was the reason for buying it in the first place. I was beginning to find that the distortion of the Sigma was distracting, a shame because in every other respect I really like it.

What you don't get from the photographs of the Nikon is just how big it is, 77mm filter thread. Ah well now to go out and give it a try

[hech54]

I played with a 17-55 briefly when I rented the 28-70 2.8 monster. Both would scare children as portrait lenses.

[parisian]

At it's price point - and most were given away virtually as 'kit lenses'. The 18-70mm is one of Nikons little classics. In most situations it will give you very good service indeed and I would certainly recommend it to newcomers who want decent quality from the get go. It is however best served with the APS-C sensors which just use the 'sweet spot' in the centre of the lens.
The 17-55mm is a leap ahead in quality of build, drawing/sharpness and contrast. It too is a Nikon classic and far more able to obtain top quality in the full frame sensors.
It is a stunning lens Geoff - enjoy.

[Mark_Norton]

The 17-55mm is a leap ahead in quality of build, drawing/sharpness and contrast. It too is a Nikon classic and far more able to obtain top quality in the full frame sensors.

The 17-55 is a DX lens...

[TimF]

I seem to remember Clive tried the 17-55 in a store, but rejected it as it seemed prone to flare or some such.

[parisian]

Strewth I mixed that one up good and proper didn't I?
I have the map that Huw gave me to Osama's cave, now may be a good time to use it - apologies

[Mark_Norton]

It's the DX equivalent of the 24-70 f2.8, a somewhat smaller lens than the 17-55 which is a bit of a porker. I used it a lot when my main camera was a D2x and it was a great lens with that camera. I didn't find it especially prone to flare. Have to say I don't use it now though.

[GeoffR]

Well having taken it out yesterday in somewhat poor light I am so far pleased with the results. Thom Hogan says it is suitable for use on FX/35mm from 26mm and up. Not that I will be worried about that as I have a Sigma 28-70 that covers the range there. I am happy with the D2 series so I haven't bought into FX yet, one day, possibly when second hand prices fall.

[Clive]

It's the DX equivalent of the 24-70 f2.8, a somewhat smaller lens than the 17-55 which is a bit of a porker. I used it a lot when my main camera was a D2x and it was a great lens with that camera. I didn't find it especially prone to flare. Have to say I don't use it now though.

Tim was correct about my verdict on the 17-55, Mark. I was considering trading in the 17-35 for the 17-55 and put the new lens on my camera at Jessops in Manchester (Deansgate). I deliberately angled the lens against sources of light as I tend to do a lot of 'against the light' shots. I did think it flared a lot more than the 17-35, but in 'ordinary' use it looked a superb lens.

I still have the 17-35 which gives scintillating results on the smaller sensors, but now it will be used with a red filter on my FM2N for Kodak HIE infrared (of which I still have a large supply) - when I have learned to develop it in a changing bag.

[Mark_Norton]

Certainly it looks like Nikon agreed with you Clive because the most complex lenses since then tend to have the Nano-Crystal coat - difficult to know just how much importance to attach to these buzz words but the 4 of the most recent lenses I have bought - 14-24, 24-70, 60/2.8 and 24mm PC-E - all have it. Interestingly the 50/1.4 does not which makes me wonder whether this lens wasn't built down to a price instead of up to a level of performance.

Still, I'm not going to talk down the 17-55, when I used it on my D2x, it was a fine lens.

[Clive]

I didn't know that, Mark, and I have 3 of your 4 new ones (not the PC). The 14-24 and 24-70 are of the highest rating IMO: Nikon stunners. The new 60 is so beautiful: its close up shots are dreamy. The 50/1.4 (which I have) does perhaps miss something? - the Nano-Crystal coat, methinks..............

[TimF]

Complex is the word for 'em certainly. I forget how many elements these newer zooms tend to have, but that amount of glass does have penalties attached in terms of flaring, slight loss of contrast etc.

I recently acquired an old Leitz 400mm f/6.8 Telyt-R (a 1968 design) which has just two elements in one group at the front of the barrel. Used with it's shoulder stock it does need a cable release for best use - one is on the way now I hope. A test shot using the stock across the body onto my left shoulder (not stable enough I reckon) was terrific quality though. The lens could hardly be more simple.

[Clive]

I have no doubt that simplicity in lens design can be a great advantage, and one might shudder at the thought of the 15 element 24-70/2.8 AFS Nikkor. But ...... read on, or rather, read the review of this lens on Bjorn Rorslett's website. This lens has to be one of the best zoom lenses ever produced, where modern design and technology easily ameliorate the problems of the past, and by doing so Nikon has improved on its old standard, the 28-70/2.8

[PaulatUKcamera]

Clive, been mulling this over all day - should I max the credit card on one or settle for a compromise.

What brought this on? Well the D700 has rendered my 17-50mm f2.8 Sigma well & truly obsolete. I took one picture - the viewfinder confirmed what you all said - a sort of Victorian style round frame - interesting as an art form perhaps, but functionally useless.

In the end caution won and I have just bought a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 on the (suspect?) grounds that a number of internet "worthies" (OK, OK, Rockwell was one!) thought it a reasonable wide angle lens - better than the "D" version.

For £225 I thought it worth a trial for one reason - the bulk of 24-70. I liked one of the remarks made - I forget by whom now - "big enough to frighten any children"

My old Sigma was above all fairly lightweight & compact. This does seem a requirement as my other arm gets quite weary with heft of the D300 + 70-200 VR f2.8 and really is far too "in your face" for unobtrusive work.

Will I miss the f2.8's shallow depth of field? I don't know the accurate figures, but surely at the wide angle end f3.5 on a DX sensor v f2.8 on a FX at 28mm can't be that much different? Or can anyone say otherwise?

Paul

[huwevans]

Will I miss the f2.8's shallow depth of field? I don't know the accurate figures, but surely at the wide angle end f3.5 on a DX sensor v f2.8 on a FX at 28mm can't be that much different? Or can anyone say otherwise?

The mathematics of depth of field is actually quite simple in practice, when comparing equivalent pictures (i.e. changing focal lengths to get the same angles of view) across different formats. For any given angle of view, if two formats are such that one is a factor alpha times the size of the other, then the same depth of field is obtained when the f-numbers are scaled by alpha as well.

So in the case of FX, which is about 1.5x the size of DX, for equivalent focal lengths you need to multiply the f-number by 1.5 as well. Thus f/2.8 with a 17mm lens on DX gives approximately the same DoF as f/4.2 with a 25mm lens on FX.

Conveniently, 1.5 is quite close to the square root of 2, which is the factor between adjacent whole stop f-mumbers, so you might also just think of the DoF difference between the DX and FX formats as approximately a one stop shift.

[PaulatUKcamera]

Thanks Huw, for that erudite reply put simply in layman's terms.

So, in effect, I should still have the shallow depth of field across the 18-50 (27-75mm) zoom range of the Sigma. (The Nikon is wider at 24mm & longer at 85mm, so that's a small gain)

I know I will lose some of the light transmission abilities of the Sigma's constant f2.8, but the thought does occur to me that the D700 is better at rendering low light scenes than the D300, so the loss in light gathering ability should be made up by the better performance of the full frame sensor.

Swings & roundabouts. Now if it comes without significant barrel distortion, I will truly have saved myself not only weight, but £1000!

Paul

[Benchista]

A friend of mine with a D700 has the 24-85 f2.8-4, which looks like a pretty decent option to me - reasonably priced, decent quality, fairly fast and quite compact.

[Clive]

A friend of mine with a D700 has the 24-85 f2.8-4, which looks like a pretty decent option to me - reasonably priced, decent quality, fairly fast and quite compact.

The Sigma may well be a good option, I have no idea, Paul. My problem was that I made far more on my sales of Leica lenses and XPan gear than I had anticipated and I had no option other than buying the 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, the new 60 micro, oh, and a D3 and a D300

[Benchista]

A friend of mine with a D700 has the 24-85 f2.8-4, which looks like a pretty decent option to me - reasonably priced, decent quality, fairly fast and quite compact.

The Sigma may well be a good option, I have no idea, Paul. My problem was that I made far more on my sales of Leica lenses and XPan gear than I had anticipated and I had no option other than buying the 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, the new 60 micro, oh, and a D3 and a D300

No, the Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4...

[Clive]

Sorry .....

(but I'm glad the Nikon's OK as well )