Nikon 17-55mm 2.8. Opinions?

[Gad-Westy]

Morning all.

Just fancy garnering opinion on the above lens.

I currently have that sort of range covered by a Sigma 18-50 2.8. It's a nice lens, quite sharp most of the time but soft wide open. It also feels a bit lightweight if you know what I mean.

I'm tempted to buy a used 17-55 but at £5-600 I do need some persuading. I'd likely part ex both the 18-50 and a Sigma 180mm Macro lens so that would more or less cover most of the cost.

I guess my questions are, how sharp are they wide open? How sharp for general landscape type apertures? Good value for money?

[Simpo Two]

No lens is at its best wide open, and when using a high quality lens you have to be more careful with technique as they reveal any faults. That said, once I'd got over the cost of the Nikon and adapted to it, it is now my general purpose lens and does 80% of my photography. It's perfect for what I do. Wide enough to operate in small rooms, long enough to do portraits across a table (DX sensor), fast enough to work handheld in most lighting. Also heavy enough to break your toe, but that is preferable to letting it hit the ground. Great lens, love it.

[Gad-Westy]

Thanks Simpo. That is more or less what I hoped to hear. I'm not expecting it to be at its best wide open but it would be nice if it's use able at 2.8. My Sigma's sharpness drops off massively between F4 and F2.8 to the point where I would rarely consider using it wide open. It's a nice lens otherwise but you know how it is when bigger toys are available.

[Yellabelly]

I have used one since I got the D200 4 years ago and it is the one that I use most of the time, excellent lens to use with great results. IIRC GC used one for a lot of his earlier images to stunning effect.

YB

[itsnotarace]

You get what you pay for, it's a great lens on DX bodies. My Nikkor 17-35 was sharper, but it also lacked the extra 20mm zoom range.

[Gad-Westy]

itsnotarace said:

You get what you pay for, it's a great lens on DX bodies. My Nikkor 17-35 was sharper, but it also lacked the extra 20mm zoom range.

Yeah, I think I would miss the longer end a bit with that one, though I do have a 50mm prime so I ought to consider it.

The only thing that keeps niggling away at me is the thought of going full frame with a D700. At that point I'd probably be looking for a 24-70 but they cost mega bucks. Wonder if santa is reading this...

[DJ_AS]

Had a play with the Nikon 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 f/2.8s on a D7000 body briefly in a shop. Couldn't tell you the finer details about the image quality but the weight of the Nikon lens was significantly higher than the Sigma (as was the build quality it must be said).

The point is, I actually found it quite difficult to handhold the Nikon at low shutter speeds as it just didn't feel balanced on the D7000. Might be better on a larger/heavier body though.

In the end I bought a Canon 7d anyway, but if I had gone for a Nikon D7000, I would have chosen the sigma as its simply a better balanced lens on a small/med body.

[Gad-Westy]

DJ_AS said:

Had a play with the Nikon 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 f/2.8s on a D7000 body briefly in a shop. Couldn't tell you the finer details about the image quality but the weight of the Nikon lens was significantly higher than the Sigma (as was the build quality it must be said).

The point is, I actually found it quite difficult to handhold the Nikon at low shutter speeds as it just didn't feel balanced on the D7000. Might be better on a larger/heavier body though.

In the end I bought a Canon 7d anyway, but if I had gone for a Nikon D7000, I would have chosen the sigma as its simply a better balanced lens on a small/med body.

Yeah, the Sigma 17-50 is on the radar as well as it has OS, is meant to possibly be sharper and its cheaper. Only thing is the build quality. I like my 180mm Sigma macro lens but the 18-50 feels a little fragile. Haven't has a good look at a 17-50 though.