How to judge new 17-55?

[joshloeser]

<p>I just received a new 17-55mm from B&H (only my second truly new lens), and I'm looking for guidance on how to run a few good tests on it to check to see that it's a good sample, along with general things to look for. I have not yet had the opportunity to shoot with it in what I'd consider my natural shooting environment, which is street and documentary photography, or at least not with good lighting conditions, but I took a number of shots yesterday indoors at around 640 ISO and up and it seemed a little soft to me. I'm accustomed to the almost laser-like precision of my 85mm 1.8 (AF, not AF-D, but glass is glass), which can cut someone to pieces with its sharpness. I understand that it's not going to be quite that good, but I've read a lot of positive reviews of the 17-55, many of which mention sharpness as a key attribute. It's one of the things that made me go for it, along with the range it offers.</p>

<p>So, any pointers on it would be great. I agonized for a long time between it and the 24-70mm, and I want to make sure I have a good sample no matter what.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have used 3 samples of the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S and 6 samples of the 24-70mm/f2.8. Recently, I tested another sample of the 70-200mm/f2.8 for the well known edge softness at 200mm. I can simply tell you that this class of Nikon lenses, i.e. constant f2.8 zooms, are very consistent. Except for the 24-70, I have owned pretty much every f2.8 zoom model Nikon has ever introduced, and I haven't come across even one so called "bad sample."</p>

<p>Those fragile plastic-mount zooms or those super zooms that extend out very far in multiple stages may be a different story, but I wouldn't worry about any f2.8 zoom unless you find something really wrong in your images. The 17-55 is a bit weak at 17mm. Expect some softness and smearing in the corners at 17mm. Some of us also find it better focusing to 10 feet than at infinity.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, and I have the Nikon 85mm f1.8. The 17-55 outperforms the 85mm, including sharpness. How are you testing? The only way I know to really test sharpness is by using a first class tripod/head, tripping the camera remotely, and shooting a set of grid lines taped flat against a wall. Is that what you did? Surely you weren't trying to test sharpness by hand holding?<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Aside from taking a lot of pictures with it and evaluating them based on your preferences, I suppose the only way to judge whether your lens is good or not is to get another one that is known to be good and test it directly against yours.</p>

<p>Perhaps you can post a sample.</p>

[akira]

<p>The easiest and quickest way to judge the lens is to take scenery with fine details and uniformly distant objects within the entire frame. You can perceive front-focusing if the entire image is too soft. You can also perceive decentering if the sharpness of the four courners of the image is uneven. If the decentering is severe, 1/4-1/3 of one side of the image is way softer than that of another side.</p>

<p>You can perform this test with your camera body in (S-)AF mode and the lens wide open. You can even handhold the camera because the open aperture should enable you to use very fast shutter speed. This test is very valid so far as the AF system of the camera body is working correctly.</p>

<p>Actually, this way I found the strong decentering and front-focusing of my brand new 17-55. (lol) I didn't even need a sturdy tripod to perform the test mentioned above because these problems are so obvious. Nikon acknowleged the problem, made sure that my camera (D40) was perfectly in focus and seviced it under warranty. Unfortunately, however, they cannot fix it. :(</p>

<p>In spite of Shun's comment on the consistency of the Nikon's f2.8 zooms, I've heard a lot about the wider-than-tolerable sample variation of the 17-55 in Japan. Another sample of 17-55 on display at a camera shop suffered from the same problem that I described above.</p>

<p>See, there is no intention of trying to spread negative images of Nikon products through this post. I was just surprized and disappointed to know that the highest grade model in the focal range seemed to suffer from the widest sample variation or the highest rate of defect sample. I have owned two cheapo 18-55/3.5-5.6 (second generation, without VR) and perceived any sort of sample variation, and they performed superbly in terms of sharpness, even image quality in entire frame even wide open, and flare-resistance. Highly recommended! :P</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Judge it against the <a href=" 50mm</a> f /1.8D. Wide open, hand held, on a Nikon N80 with grainy 1600 film.</p>

[peejay1]

<p>Hi Josh,</p>

<p>Being not remotely techie by nature, my suggested form of testing simply involves putting the lens on the camera and taking the sort of shots you bought it for - whether that's portraits (for which it's great), landscapes (for which it's exceptional) or travel photography (for which it's really good, if a bit of a lump).</p>

<p>Optically, I've found mine to be absolutely brilliant in every situation. Edge to edge sharpness - even wide open - is as good as I would ever want or need. No major issues with vignetting (which can be quite attractive in the right scenes), colour is perfect, low flare - especially when you fit the hood.</p>

<p>Seriously, you paid a lot of money for this lens and it is seriously good. Unless you feel you absolutely <em>must</em>, I wouldn't waste any time trying to bench-test it to check 'line-pairs per millimetre', pin-cushion and barrell distortion, edge sharpness and all that. Answer this question to yourself. If you were disappointed with any of the results, what would you do? Sell it? Buy an equivalent focal length Sigma? Swap to Canon? Take holy orders?</p>

<p>In 30-odd years experience, I've only been disappointed with one lens (a kit lens which came with a Canon EOS 300v film camera. It was little more than a yoghurt pot with bits of glass and plastic in it). Every other has done the job I bought it for just fine.</p>

<p>I really hope you get as much pure enjoyment out of yours as I got out of mine (my wife now has it on my D300 as I just got a D700 and can't afford - yet - to get the 17-35mm f2.8).</p>

<p>Best regards. Paul.</p>