Alternatives to 17-55 2.8?

[robert_landrigan]

<p>OKay, I know that I'm a whiny, spoiled brat, but I'm just having issues liking the 17-55 2.8 Nikkor.<br>

I've been shooting it on my D80 for a few months, and it juts doesn't 'pop' for me, and now I'm considering seeing what other folks consider as a reasonable alternative. <br>

I already have a 20 2.8 and 35 2, and while I love the 20, I'm finding that the 35 doesn't get a lot of love, either.<br>

So, other than the 28 1.4AF, what other show-stoppers are available for Nikon in this range, zoom or fixed? I think the size of the lens is part of the issue, the quality has been fine.</p>

[bobcooley]

<p>The 14-24mm 2.8N - AMAZING (and pricey)...<br>

The 20-35mm 2.8D (a little older, but still a great lens).<br>

I love both of them.</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>It doesn't help you much Robert but your experience helps keep my N.A.S. in check since I've already got the 20/2.8!<br>

<br /> Actually I'm going to see a guy locally about a used 35-70/2.8 tomorrow. We'll see what that does but if it 'pops' for me I'll let you know! (so I guess the N.A.S. isn't really in check...)</p>

[dansutton]

<p>i'll buy that 35/2 from you if you dont use it anylonger... would be perfect on my d90</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well, its large, but the 17-35's a lens that "pops"</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Unless you lens is defective, your problem is probably not a result of your lens.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>What do you mean by "pop"?</p>

<p>If you want a less distracting background, look for a longer lens. The 70-200 VR is a great lens for this, and you don't need a tripod.</p>

<p>If your pictures are unsharp, work on your technique and use a tripod when possible.</p>

<p>If your pictures are flat, work on lighting, exposure and most important, your post processing technique.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>OK so if I read your comment right - - quality is not the problem - - <strong>size of the 17-55 is?</strong> Did I get that right? But the "pop" factor I would say is an indicator of need for more pp work. Some contrast maybe?<br>

In that case it would seem logical that you work with either the primes you have. Or maybe a 45mm<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>don't hate me for suggesting a non-nikon lens but the tamron 17-50 balances well on a d80. IQ is close enough to the 17-55 that it 'pops' quite frequently, without the weight.</p>

<p>this post is a bit confusing, though. you want 'showstoppers' which 'pop' --which suggests IQ issues, which in turn suggests technique issues, since the 17-55 is generally considered a showstopper capable of Orville Redenbacher-esque poppage---but are concerned about size/weight...and you say it's not about (image) quality...okay....so what's your problem, really? if the 17-55 is too much lens, for you, the 17-35 and 14-24 wont be any less leviathan-like. maybe you should learn to work with what you got.</p>

<div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You write [i've been shooting it on my D80 for a few months, and it juts doesn't 'pop' for me].</p>

<p>either user error is involved here, or you just want desperately to buy a new toy. That lens pops.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i see that your arsenal of lenses are primes? maybe more practice on a zoom?</p>

[bsd230]

<p>The 17-35 is a pretty good lens but it's going to be big like the one you have.</p>

[walterh]

<p>There is no small zoom lens that pops nearly as much as the 17-55 on DX.</p>

 

[shawn_mcfarlane]

<p>Funny out of the 3 lenses you have the only one you like is the one that I would say doesn't pop on a D80!<br>

I found the 20 2.8 not even as good as my 18-70 at the same apertures especially at the corners. So I sold them both and got the 17-55, it pops. <br>

You get used to the size but when it really is too bulky I just take my Sigma 30mm f1.4 instead, a lens I am starting to like a lot...be warned though thats as big as your 20 and 35 added together too.</p>