The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

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

N

notnormal1969

Guest
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
 

otumay

New member
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
 

Lloyd

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

eastcolo

Guest
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.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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. :ROTFL: It's a true pro lens but a bit of a beast IMHO. I can't fault its performance though.
 

Lloyd

Active member
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. :ROTFL: 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.
 

DavidL

New member
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
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.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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.
 
Top