Nikkor 17 - 55 f/2.8 lens question

My 17-55 f/2.8 lens purchased new September 2008 along with my D300 does not always auto focus. Maybe even mostly does not always auto focus. This lens was on the camera 95% of the time. I've now taken to using my Sigma 30 f/1.4 as my go-to lens. My other lenses are the Tokina 11 - 16 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR first generation.

 

I've wiped the camera and lens contacts. All my other auto-focus lenses work properly on the camera. I'm hesitant to send the lens off to Nikon because:

1 - I really haven't looked into where to send it

2 - I don't know the procedure with Nikon...is a deposit required for them to look at it. If the lens is too expensive to repair, how do I get it back?

3 - The Sigma 17 - 50 f/2.8 is under $400. Is my 10 year old Nikkor comparable spec-wise with a new Sigma purchased today?

 

The local weekly newspaper got a new editor a couple months ago. I'm now a stringer for the paper and they're actually paying me for the photos they use per their suggestion VS using them for free. I'm not able to get the shots with the 30 like I used to with the 17 - 55. This was most notable the last several days when the 'Eyes of Freedom' traveling memorial arrived in town. Perry County Welcomes The Eyes of Freedom — Perry County Ohio . The extra 25 mm reach on the 17 - 55 over the 30 is just so handy sometimes.

 

Any suggestions? Comments?

 

Thanks in advance,

Mark

1 - I really haven't looked into where to send it

Assuming you are in the US, here's the place to start: Nikon Service and Repair

2 - I don't know the procedure with Nikon...is a deposit required for them to look at it. If the lens is too expensive to repair, how do I get it back?

You ship (insured), Nikon provides a cost estimate that you either accept or decline, you get your lens back repaired or unrepaired, respectively. If you have a local camera store, they may be willing to ship the lens for you.

3 - The Sigma 17 - 50 f/2.8 is under $400. Is my 10 year old Nikkor comparable spec-wise with a new Sigma purchased today?

IMHO, yes. There's also the new 16-80/2.8-4 that I personally prefer over the limited range 16/17/18-50/55 ones (at the expense of a non-constant f/2.8 aperture).

I'd get it repaired. I think that lens is one of Nikons best, excellent results in DX cameras and yes I have used it extensively in newspaper work.

 

Rick H.

Get it repaired. I use APS, they are an authorized Nikon repair facility and there turn around times based on my few experiences them have been reasonably timely.

Professional Nikon Service & Repair - Authorized Photo Service, Inc.

If repair is too expensive, I'd look into Tamron's SP f/2.8 17-50. Mine gives just as good IQ as my 17-55 zoom-Nikkor, which I find just too unwieldy on a D7200.

Errr, have you tried it on another body?

+1 for Rodeo Joe's recommendation of the Tamron 17-50mm if your Nikon 17-55 can't be fixed at a reasonable cost. I had both at one time and sold the Nikon, although it was worked just fine. The Tamron gave me essentially the same performance at a lighter weight.

Errr, have you tried it on another body?

 

- What, so that I have to carry even more weight and bulk around? Your 'avin' a giraffe entcha Mike?

Nah, see if it can AF on another body, not buy and carry another body... that would be silly..:rolleyes:

 

Help ID the fault, not empty your wallet...;)

 

Question...However, if it works OK on another body, whadya do next?

 

Answer......Sell it and buy the Tamron with VC...:D

Thanks for the input everyone. Mike - I don't have another body to try it on. The fact that all my other auto-focus lenses work on the D300 leads me to believe it is a lens issue. Having used the Sigma 30 f/1.4 almost exclusively for the last 6 months I feel the Sigma doesn't auto-focus as quickly as the 17-55. I've been using aperture priority single-point focus almost exclusively for the last 9 years, so I'm used to being careful where I place my focus point. The Sigma just doesn't seem to have as good a success rate. I'm still happy with it though. Back in 2007 - 2008 when I did my research, Tamron just didn't have the reputation that Nikkor, Sigma, and even Tokina had.

 

Because I usually have my SB -900 and battery grip mounted on the camera, smaller lens size isn't much of a concern. When I start my day I never know where I'm going. My County IT office is right next to our 9-1-1 call center. Our village K-9 officer asked one morning if I could take a group photo. I said ooookkkaaayyyyyyy….

I would look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 rather than the Sigma.

Based on my use of the Sigma 17-50/2.8 on a Canon:

• The Sigma zoom ring turns in the opposite direction from Nikon zoom rings. In a fast moving situation (like action/sports) it WILL mess you up. It sucks when you loose a shot when you turned the zoom ring the wrong way. After 15-20 minutes, of using the Sigma to shoot volleyball, I gave up in frustration, and switched to a prime.
  
  • The Tamron lens zooms in the same direction as Nikon.
    

  [*]The Sigma zoom ring is STIFF. The problem as I see it is.

   

  • The zoom throw is significantly less than 90 degrees.
     
    
  • That means that the zoom cam has to be steep, to move the zoom out with a short throw.
     
    
  • The steep cam then requires more FORCE to turn the zoom ring.
    

The Tamron zoom ring turns about 80 degrees from minimum to maximum magnification. It's neither too stiff nor too loose, and the lens doesn't change focal length when held in a vertical position. I have the original version of this lens for Nikon, with no internal AF, so it focuses by screw drive.

Mark, just curious, but does it's serial number begin with a 2 or a 3/4?

 

It's just that i was talking to a couple of fellow shooters the other day and they all thought the early AFS lenses were beginning to fail after 15 or so years.

 

The earliest ones are now 20 years old.

Mike, that timeline doesn't sound right to me. I didn't get my first DSLR until 2007, and I don't think that the AF-S Tamron 17-50mm were available then. For the earliest ones to be 20 years old, they would have had to be introduced a year before the Nikon D1.

Mike - I believe my 17-55 serial number is US 407434. I purchased new from Amazon on 9/11/2008 Sold by J&R Music and Computer World.

 

Hector - I believe Mike is talking about the Nikkor 17 - 55 I purchased when he says the earliest are now 20 years old. Yes, in 2008 when I did my research, the 17 - 55 f/2.8 Nikkor had been out a while. From memory, it had excellent reviews. The biggest complaint in 2008 was the lens was so large. I was not concerned about size at the time. I purchased the battery grip at the same time. At the time I believed (and still do believe) that a large camera/lens outfit is more stable than a small outfit. I'm more comfortable shooting with my D300 w/battery grip and 70 - 200 f/2.8 than my dinky little smart phone.

2 or a 3/4?

Lenses with serial numbers starting with 2 were shipped 2003-2005, those with 3 or 4 started shipping 2006; a 17-55 currently can at worst be 15 years old.

At the time I believed (and still do believe) that a large camera/lens outfit is more stable than a small outfit.

 

- That very much depends on how muscular the user is, and is possibly age-dependent as well. Fatigued, weak or aged muscles will begin to shake very quickly if holding a heavy camera+lens combination.

 

Personally I'm increasingly finding it difficult to hold gear still as age takes its toll. I can say for certain that adding extra weight and bulk to a camera doesn't make that task any easier. And I have 3 battery-grips lying around unused to prove it. :(