How good is the 17-55mm f2.8

<p>I'm looking for a new lens for landscapes and currently using a D300S. I know this lens is expensive, but how good is it? Is it worth the price? Any other suggestions for an walk around lens used mainly for landscapes?</p>

<p>For landscapes, getting a fast lens might not be the best use of your money. Most scenic shots are taken with mid range f-stops, so why pay the extra dough for settings you won't often use ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some say its not worth the price, Some say it is. I bought this lens as an upgrade from Tamron 17-50. I love the build quality and the way this lens balances my D300. Its sharp and contrasty love every aspect of this lens. It was well worth $1200 for me. I use it mostly for portraits and general walk around lens but also for landscapes.</p>

I would buy this lens for shooting indoors, events, etc., but not for walking around and shooting landscapes. It's heavy for carrying around, and you're not going to use its speed for landscape. Have a look at the Sigma 17-70 with OS, it's lighter and much cheaper and just as sharp stopped down a bit.

<p>If you are an habitual f/16 shooter, then this lens may show too much sharpness decline for you at f/16 or f/11. Overall it's an outstanding lens(mine was, anyway..used on a D200, then a D2Xs). It's the only thing I miss about DX since I switched to FX almost three years ago.</p>

<p>I'm sure it is a great lens. I just happen to prefer the 16-85mm focal range, and the VR is nice too when I need it (which isn't too often). I like the price of the 16-85mm as well, being half that of the 17-55. I guess I'm just cheap.</p>

<p>I own both the Tamron and the Nikon, and both are very, very good, as good as any prime I have tried. The Nikon is heavy and large, but it balances well with the D300s. Use it on a tripod, and you get perfect results. I am thinking about getting the 16-85 VR as my travel lens, but only in combination with a D3100 or D7000 as backup body: makes a smaller package. The D300s by itself is so large it does not make sense to me sticking a smaller lens on this body. The Tamron is fine, but I just prefer the tank-like feeling and the consistent results I get from my 17-55.</p>

<p>The 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX is a great lens for event photography, such as parties, weddings. Its optical design seems to be optimized for people photography from like 10 to 15 feet (3 to 5 meters). It is not as sharp at infinity. Most people also don't need f2.8 for landscape work.</p>

<p>If it is strictly for landscape photography, I would buy a slower, lighter and cheaper lens.</p>

<p lang="en-US">When I bought Nikon D200 the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX lens was one of the very few options for middle range zoom for landscape photography. I purchased it I was very happy with the results. Sharp, contrasty and very robust. On the other side I soon learned that the lens is not the best at 11 aperture but rather at 5.6 and that the camera and lens combination is very heavy for the mountaineering. Soon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR become my main landscape lens and 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX remains my lens for events photography.</p>

<p lang="en-US">Regards, Marko</p>

<p>I'll second (third, fourth) that this lens is terrific for people and event photography, but not what I'd put on the camera for traditional landscape photography.</p>

<p>I have a sigma 18-50 f2.8 and it is merely ok. Quite soft for portraits. The 17-55 is my next purchase. I shoot mostly people. I agree with the others that it may not be the best money spent for nature landscapes simply because you won't be shooting at f2.8 for landscapes presumably. For landscapes you might as well shoot with the 18-55 kit lens, which really is a decent lens especially stopped down to f8 or f16 and costs 1/6th of the 17-55.</p>

<p>It's very good. I used mine extensively when I had a D200. It's sharp, fast, and focuses well. For a person who's likely to stick with DX it's a terrific idea.</p>

 

<p>For spending that kind of money I'd be looking at the Nikon 14-24 or Nikon 17-35 full frame lenses, just in case you go to full frame down the road. Even if you don't these lenses will be superior to the 17-55 DX. For better value for a crop body the full frame Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5 D ED could be considered.</p>

<p>If landscape photography becomes important to you then a full frame body could very well be in your future.</p>

<p>IMO, spending that much on a DX lens is crazy. makes more sense to spend the $$ on a 24-70 or 70-200 II. if you really want one get one, but i wouldn't get one new. the used price IMO is much closer to what the purchase price should be, considering the quality of the (less expensive) competition. i have used tamron 17-50 and now sigma 17-50 OS on DX bodies, honestly didnt feel like i was missing much except weight. you can actually get a used 17-35 for less than a new 17-55, which might be a more sensible thing to do.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The lens is outstanding but it is heavy. I use it mainly in the studio with strobes of on a tripod. It is sharp and gives excellent contrast. I also have the 16-85 VR as a walk around lens and it is almost as sharp and lighter by a good bit. The speed of the 17-55 is one of it's best selling points.</p>

<p>-O</p>

Absolutely agree with those who say that you would be paying for something you wouldn't be using. You might get the

18-55 f3.5-5.6, wich behaves very well at f8 and save the rest for something else.

<p>What about the 12-24m f/4 DX? It is not very big and it is light.</p>

<p>If you plan to stick with DX I think it is better to buy DX lenses.</p>