Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

The lenses I've owned in similar ranges are the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Comparing this lens to the 18-70mm is probably a bit unfair, so I won't mention it again. However, there are many people looking for alternatives and the Tamron 17-50mm is as close as it gets so I'll base this review as a comparison to the Tamron. Having owned the Tamron for a few weeks before offing it, I can tell you this. If you're looking for a lens that equally matches or even exceeds the 17-55mm in terms of image quality, then by all means, go for the Tamron. Equality pretty much ends there. The advantages of the Nikon 17-55mm are the following: BUILD QUALITY - You immediately notice the build quality as soon as you handle and inspect the 17-55mm. It's encased in metal and nicely sealed so dust, moisture (which leads to fungus) will hopefully be minimized. "Built like a tank" is a good cliche. FAST FOCUS - The Silent Wave Motor is not only fast, but extremely quiet. SHARP WIDE OPEN - Using an aperture of f/2.8, this lens is very usable. Another advantage is that is focuses more accurately in low light. This is an aspect that was inferior in the Tamron. COLOR RENDITION - I've found colors out of the lens are very satisfying with little need to "tweak" during post processing. The Tamron had a warmer color, but this may vary among copies. MINIMAL CA - CA didn't bother me much in the Tamron, but it's much more controlled on the 17-55mm, especially wide open. BETTER QUALITY CONTROL - This was the deal breaker with the Tamron. I received a copy that overexposed which is in line with the experiences of many people with that particular lens. Although sample variance exists with Nikon, it's much more controlled. SIZE/WEIGHT/BALANCE - Some people mention this lens is too bulky and heavy. I find the size and weight actually helpful and helps balance and control on the majority of camera bodies. The 17-55mm doesn't have any major flaws for me. I'm not a professional nor am I a pixel peeper. I'm just an enthusiast that likes good image quality. However, if I were to knit pick, here are the flaws: SMALL ZOOM RING - It's annoyingly small at first, but you get used to it. FLARES EASILY - Point it at a light source directly or even indirectly and this lens has a propensity to flare. You can certainly use the massive hood to mitigate flare. DISTORTION AT WIDE END - Some say the distortion at the wide end makes this lens unusable for landscape/architecture work. If you're looking for a lens specifically for that task, you may want to consider a true wide angle lens like the 12-24mm or 14-24mm or go Sigma 10-20mm. However, I find this lens quite usable at the wide end. One peculiarity with the 17-55mm is that it's at its shortest length almost fully zoomed at around 45mm and longest and fully extended at 17mm. I found this amusing since I haven't experienced other lenses with this characteristic. In my research, I also considered the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. This lens should definitely be on your list because it offers the latest technology and it's a full frame (FX) lens. I ruled it out because it's not only $500 more than the 17-55mm, but also because it's not wide enough for my purposes. Also, I happen to be under the opinion that DX has at least a few more years before it becomes obsoleted/deprecated by FX. People are beginning to recommend against investing in DX lenses, but IMHO, affordable full frame bodies are years away. Ultimately, I selected the Nikkor 17-55mm over the Tamron 17-50mm because of its superior usability wide open. The hit on my pocketbook was rather significant, but I have no regrets of getting such a excellent lens with a great usable range. If Nikon ever added VR to this lens, then it would be a dream come true. I state this because I often need to use a shutter speed of 1/30 or slower when shooting in low light and I rarely use a tripod. VR would come in extremely handy in this situation to prevent camera shake. I highly recommend this lens. It's on my camera 9 times out of 10. Okay, I'll stop now.

This is the first lens I purchased for my Nikon D7000 and I think that it may have skewed my expectations - after using this lens, all of the other Nikon DX lenses seem to pale in comparison. The Good: ------------------- Make no mistake about it, this is a pro-grade lens and you will probably get the most out of it on Nikon's only "pro grade" DX camera, the D7000. It will work on just about all of the other camera bodies, however. It's body is made out of metal and its constant f/2.8 means great performance across its range of focal lengths even in dim lighting. On a DX camera you're getting 26mm to 83mm and everything in between, so with this one lens you can effectively handle most photographic work. I like this aspect from a business standpoint, because can go to the long end for excellent portraits or the short end for excellent wide-angle shots. This lens effectively replaces a bag of primes and I can confidently say it performs BETTER than the other primes available for DX cameras; it's basically an FX lens downsized to the DX format and quality was not sacrificed. Taking pictures with this lens will really unleash the potential of your D7000, but it will have the nasty side effect of making all of your other lenses look bad. I have completed a couple shoots using this lens and the results were night-and-day with other DX options, namely the 35mm f/1.8G (about 53mm on full-frame cameras). In all lighting conditions the results were substantially better with the 17-55mm lens, and considering the focal ranges it covers as well as its quality, the price is justifiable. The Bad: ------------------- It's freakin heavy! The 17-55 weighs in just under 2 lbs and that bulk seems to get heavier if you have to carry it around your neck for any extended period of time...though to be honest it's not as bad as I thought it would be - just make sure you get a quality padded camera strap like the one made by OP-TECH. It's BIG so it will partially block the AF assist light on the D7000 when you are not using the included hood, and when you do use the hood it blocks the AF assist light almost entirely. The big size also interferes with the D7000's built in flash, causing a shadow to appear on the lower half of your shots...if you want to use a flash, you'll need to go with a dedicated unit. Expensive in relation to other DX lenses, but then again it's the only DX-specific lens that isn't a hunk of junk. Its constant f/2.8 speed makes it versatile enough to be usable in poor lighting, but it's not ideal for "flashless" low light photography. Y u no have nano crystal coating!? How I use it: ------------------- I love this lens for model shoots and portraits, but it also does well with anything that does not require super zoom or ultra-wide angle. I am a fan of available light and prefer to make the subject work within the scene rather than making a scene for the subject...like a challenge, if you will. The Lumix GH2 camera that I have been using before the D7000 delivered impressive results with its 25mm Leica lens and its 14-140mm Zoom - but the D7000 with the 17-55mm stepped my game up from "hi I'm a freelance picture guy with a camera" to more of a pro-level "take a number and wait your turn" kinda photographer. In other words, the pictures it is capable of taking sell themselves and then some! Recommendation: ------------------- If you enjoy taking pictures in the 17-55mm focal length range on a DX camera, this is the best lens you can get for that purpose. The quality you get with this lens is generally better than what you get from the primes of the same focal length. If you're strapped for cash you could consider renting one of these from a local camera shop to get a feel for it, otherwise get it and make sure you have a decent camera too.

Most reviews of this lens note how heavy it is, but still, when you first hold it it's quite amazing. Certainly if you are using anything smaller than a D7xxx or D90, it makes your rig front-heavy. That isn't necessarily a problem, but it's still worth mentioning. In terms of image quality, I haven't tested it (or used it) extensively enough to make any strong claims, but what I've seen I am extremely happy with, both in terms of color rendition and sharpness. The reason for 4, rather than 5, stars are the ergonomics. The zoom ring is set unintuitively far back on the lens, almost far enough that the camera body interferes with it. More annoyingly, it is really stiff. Like, you need to force the zoom. Reviews around the web do highlight this problem, but I feel they downplay it. All other things being equal, this problem would keep me from recommending this lens to others. Fortunately for Nikon, not all other things are equal, and the build quality and optical characteristics of the lens allow one to overlook the terribly designed zoom ring.

I bought this lens about a week after I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC in a local store. I bought the Tamron because it was significantly cheaper, and as an advanced hobbyist who doesn't make one cent from photography, I thought I could live with a substitute. Fortunately, my doubt gets the better of me, and I decided to give the Nikkor a shot. From the much larger computer screen, the images produced from the Nikkor appears to be very sharper even at the largest aperture of f2.8, and I just love the contrasty, and rich colour tone produced by this lens. This lens is fantastic for indoor shoots due to the larger aperture and also the "zoomabilty". The 17mm focal points allows you to shoot in a tight space, and the 55mm allows you to zoom in for a facial/closer shot. I like museum, indoor exhibition and this lens is just perfect for me. You may have heard people insisted Tamron is just as good. Well, ask them whether they own or tested both and, if not, how qualified are they to make that statement? As good as Tamron is, and being a affordable Nikkor substitute, IMO it's still not on par with a Nikkor: not the IQ (even though they are very close), not the build quality, not the weather sealed, and certainly not the resale value after a few years. Furthermore, the Nikkor has a much faster, quieter and assured AF even in low light situations. Although this is not a super zoom, this lens is quite heavy, and it balances quite well with a bigger camera such as a D300S. IMO, the only real weakness of this Nikkor lens is the lack of a VR function. For some, this may not be a necessity, but for me, weighing at about 1.5kg (3 Ibs) when use with a D300S, it's difficult not to shake when you hold it up against your face. Nonetheless, due to the larger aperture, I can handhold and shoot very sharp images at 1/30 sec (at 55mm) even though I don't have the steadiest hands . Imagine being able to shoot 2 to 4 more stops if a VR function is added, I can probably handhold at 1/13 sec without much problem. If $$$ is not an issue to you, and you don't mind the heavier weight, I suggest you seriously consider getting this one. The $800 difference (when compared to a Tamorn 17-50mm f2.8 VC) may seem be big now, but this is one lens that would last you a long time, and Nikkor's resale value tends to hold very well even after many year of use. I decided to keep the Nikkor, and passed the Tamron to my wife who prefers the lighter weight over Nikkor's superior IQ, faster AF, weather seal with her Nikon D90.

Bought from Ace Photo - Condition was listed as "Very Good". I would rate condition as "Poor" The Zoom mechanism was very sticky and was hard to turn in one spot. Also the aperture mechanism did not work properly. The lens could not stop down properly when the shutter was activated. So my shots were over exposed. I have had Nikon repair it for $500.

I initially owned the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens after purchasing my Nikon D300 body earlier this year. The 18-200 of course is a do-all mid-line lens and shouldn't be too critically compared to the professional line of Nikon glass. I used the 18-200 briefly as I became more familiar with my new D300 and found the images from the 18-200 were adequate, although not as crisp and sharp and high contrast as many of my Canon lenses had been before I migrated over to the Nikon side after 12+ years of using Canon gear. When I recently got a wedding shoot to do that required only available light and no flash for the entire 1 hour ceremony I now had the reason to consider purchasing the 17-55. Considering the Nikon 18-200 falls well short of a large enough aperture for low light photography and in reviews, is softer in resolution over-all anyway compared to the 17-55, this was my motivation to sell my 18-200 and pick up the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens. (I've also added a 70-300mm Nikon VR to my bag to fill the telephoto void, I posted an excellent review on Amazon for this lens as well). The wedding was very recently shot, with most all images during the available light ceremony shot wide open at 2.8 due to the very low lighting in the church. Much to my relief, the images all turned out superbly and were very sharp, had excellent contrast and color saturation even wide open (I always shoot RAW for most important photo jobs). I was also absolutely delighted in the lens regarding how quick the focus was in the low light (basically instant with no hesitation nor any hunting as soon as the shutter release was pressed to record the image). Many shots required a large shift in focus from far to very close-up and the 17-55 didn't fail me even once, frame to frame. In many cases I had to quickly raise the camera to my eye and fire off a burst with no lag time to spare for the focus to occur if I was to capture a perfect shot and not miss the opportunity. The lens never failed here even once. They say, you get what you pay for and considering the 17-55 goes for around the $1200 mark, you're getting the excellent optical quality that only a high end Nikon lens can give you. If you need to shoot in low light levels, or just simply want the very best images that your camera can give you, a high-end lens is the ONLY way to go. This lens will not dissapoint you once-so-ever.

I received this lens & it is beautiful. Unfortunately, it arrived & there appears to be a lens malfunction or something wrong with the electrical components. When I attached it to my camera I received an F0 error. I confirmed the lens was snapped into place. Tried with three other lenses I own & did not receive this error. Auto-focus & aperture control do not function with this error. Hoping to hear back from the seller as to how to resolve this.

I bought this as an upgrade to my existing 18-55 lens. Not a professional photographer but I have been working photos since Photoshop version 2.5 and I know a good shot when I see it. My 18-55 really did a nice job considering the cost and size. When I got the 17-55, first thing I did was try to setup something to compare both lenses. I did a hand-held shot of a grouping of fallen leaves with both lenses sans filters at same apertures and focal lengths. The shutter speed ended up being just slightly different due to either change of outdoor lighting or brightness of the lenses for proper exposure. When examined zoom out... the photos were very close in appearance which was surprising. However, when zoomed in... the differences became clear. The 17-55 produced more detail in some of the leaves mainly the veins of the leaves. If you were buying this lens alone for this reason... the price might not justify it. Further research shows the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II to just about out perform most of the other offerings from competitors in this zoom and price range which could explain why images were very close. So... why pay the price? Ok, the other thing of note is the extra f/stop down to 2.8. At 55mm the 18-55 is at 5.6 with widest aperture setting while the 17-55 can still hold it at f/2.8. Even at this wide open setting... I was amazed how much detail it captures. I shoot a lot of landscapes and often would go for aperture settings of f/8 -16 to maintain detail and DOF on the slower lenses but... I have been surprised how much DOF I could get at even f/3.3-4 which has been nice on those evenings when sun is dipping low and I don't feel like getting the tripod out. The lens is big... and it is a bit heavy... but everything about it says quality to me. It feels like a solid and well built lens in hand that can probably withstand a fair amount of abuse from traveling and the environment. I would probably prefer the zoom ring and focusing ring to have swapped places as the focus ring is in front and zoom in back but that is probably just my personal preference. I am throughly happy with the lens and its the most used lens I have at the moment on my D200. I look forward to getting more f/2.8 Nikkor lenses now.