Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

  1. #1
    notnormal1969
    Guest

    Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    Dear GetDpi,

    I have just purchased a Nikon D300 and I am looking for a good all round lens I can use, as well as lens that would be suitable for portraits etc.

    The shop I purchased my camera from recommended the Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX lens. I would really appreciate it if any of you could give me any advice or whether any of you had used this lens?

    Many thanks everyone, and happy new year for 2010!

    Kr,
    Richard

  2. #2
    Senior Member otumay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    1,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    Richard, I did use this lens, and extensively. My only criticism would be that, being a DX lens, it will be useless once/if you upgrade to full-frame.
    Best,
    Osman

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    I agree here. Wonderful lens, and if you're keeping it on the DX bodies, it's hard to beat.

  4. #4
    eastcolo
    Guest

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    I personally loved my AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8. I shot portraits and weddings and it was my main lens. I occasionally switched to a fixed 85mm, and loved the look of that as well. I felt the 28-70 gave me a lot of flexibility when photographing families and children though. It was easy to go quickly from a full frame family shot to zoom into a great moment between certain family members. Hope that helps. And although I am not posting this to sell it to you, I really wanted to give you advice based on what I know, I am selling that lens on the FS forum.

  5. #5
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    I would agree with the sentiment that the 17-55/2.8 is the ideal mid range zoom for DX. I used this (with 12-24 & 70-200 VR) as the core of my DX outfit for several years until going to FX. It's a very sharp and usable lens that I found was worth every penny. As mentioned though, it is a dead end if you move to FX. If you don't need the reach, you might also consider the 17-35 as an alternative.

    As regards the 28-70, a great lens on film/FX but too long as a mid range zoom in my experience. I hauled one around for a long time with my D1 & D1x and it's an indestructible lens guaranteed to strike fear amongst the general public, especially with the hood on it. It's a true pro lens but a bit of a beast IMHO. I can't fault its performance though.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    I would agree with the sentiment that the 17-55/2.8 is the ideal mid range zoom for DX. I used this (with 12-24 & 70-200 VR) as the core of my DX outfit for several years until going to FX. It's a very sharp and usable lens that I found was worth every penny. As mentioned though, it is a dead end if you move to FX. If you don't need the reach, you might also consider the 17-35 as an alternative.

    As regards the 28-70, a great lens on film/FX but too long as a mid range zoom in my experience. I hauled one around for a long time with my D1 & D1x and it's an indestructible lens guaranteed to strike fear amongst the general public, especially with the hood on it. It's a true pro lens but a bit of a beast IMHO. I can't fault its performance though.
    I guess I'm missing something here... is the 28-70 "too long as a mid range zoom" on FX, and the 17-55 "the ideal mid range zoom for DX" because of physical dimensions or focal length (real or effective)? With the 1.5 crop factor, the 17-55 equates to a little wider than the 28-70 at 25.5, and a little longer on the other end at 82.5, so I guess I'm not understanding the distinction you're making here Graham.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    It's a great lens for the D300 it covers most of what you need for general photography. It's too short, IMHO, for tight portraits but the 85 f1.8 is cheap and does that really well on crop sensors. I shoot quite a lot of portraits and found the 70-200 rather intimidating in some situations, so got the 85 f1.8. Wasn't prepared to pay for 1.4 with a new version expected, although it still hasn't appeared.

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd View Post
    I guess I'm missing something here... is the 28-70 "too long as a mid range zoom" on FX, and the 17-55 "the ideal mid range zoom for DX" because of physical dimensions or focal length (real or effective)? With the 1.5 crop factor, the 17-55 equates to a little wider than the 28-70 at 25.5, and a little longer on the other end at 82.5, so I guess I'm not understanding the distinction you're making here Graham.
    I think he means too long on DX. He used it on D1 and D1X. Let me add from my own point of view though, that 28-70 and similar zooms are extremely usable in a studio environment on DX, particularly for portraits, where at least I have little use for the wider focal length, and where 55mm is a bit short sometimes.

  9. #9
    Subscriber Member TRSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central Maine, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    Another big thumbs up for the 17-55. It's perfect on the DX and it's very easy to just leave the thing on the camera like a lens cap.

  10. #10
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd View Post
    I guess I'm missing something here... is the 28-70 "too long as a mid range zoom" on FX, and the 17-55 "the ideal mid range zoom for DX" because of physical dimensions or focal length (real or effective)? With the 1.5 crop factor, the 17-55 equates to a little wider than the 28-70 at 25.5, and a little longer on the other end at 82.5, so I guess I'm not understanding the distinction you're making here Graham.
    My point is that 28mm on DX isn't a very wide angle for a mid range zoom. You are looking at a 42mm equivalent FoV vs ~25mm equivalent FoV with the 17-55 on DX. I found that too long for a general/walkabout mid range zoom.

    Now as mentioned by Jorgen, if you are shooting portraits this might all be moot.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul/Turkey
    Posts
    339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

    I would also recommend the Tamron 17-50mm (DX) lens.
    H3DII-31, 5DII, M8, NEX-3 and Camera collection
    http://seyhun.com
    Facebook Page

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •