Nikon 17-55 is too big and heavy!

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>- Adding the hood to the already large 17-55 makes it worse in the size category. How useful is the hood?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 17-55 is prone to flare. In fact, the Tamron may be more resistant to flare. No sense using it without the hood or some other way of avoiding extraneous light.</p>

[gsbhasin]

<p>Swami,<br /> I wish i could say $ was not an issue.</p>

<p>Seriously consider switching platforms. Olympus OM-D with a very lightweight Panasonic 12-25/2.8 is what you need. Both are weather sealed and if you watch closely on dpreview.com's tests OM-D's IQ is nearly indistinguishable to the Nikon D7000. (I have pixel peeped images at various ISO on Oly review).<br>

<br /> What do you lose? Shallow DOF since on the 43 sensor the DOF is 1 stop more than on the APS-C Nikon DX.<br /> Again if money is not an object get a 45/1.8 and soon-to-available 75/1.8 from Olympus. Bob Atkins rates the latter very high and I quote <em>"I don’t think I’ve seen better performance from a lens, certainly not one priced under $1000. Some of the Canon super-telephotos are this good, but they’re not f1.8 and they’re prices over $5000." </em>This could be a long telephoto while the 45/1.8 is equivalent to a an 85 /1.8G on Nikon (moderate telephoto) except that it has 1 more stop of DOF.<br>

<br /> And Oly has great 12 mm (24 mm in 35 mm eq.) primes. Panasonic makes a 7-14 mm ultrawide too. There isn't a reason for carrying the extra weight.<br>

If I was starting from scratch and/or money were no object that is what I would do.</p>

[prabhu_v]

<p>Gurpreet, just to clarify what I meant by $ not being an issue--I plan to buy a used lens, so the resale value should be good--I could likely sell it without making a loss if I decide to upgrade to a full frame later. And since I had already budgeted about $800 for a good walk-around lens, I didn't want cost to be a part of this discussion as I wanted to get a true IQ comparison between the Tamron and the Nikon, and not just whether the Tamron is cost-effective. <br /> Thanks for your input on the Olympus. Always good to know the options and what's out there, but I would have to sell my Nikon gear to switch platforms.</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>Use to have the Nikon 17-55/2.8 before I switched to FX. Didn't like the weight and size too much but loved the image quality, so much so that I hauled it all the way to the top of Mt. Whitney (14,500' - 4,420m).</p>

<p>For a lighter lens I would look no other than the Nikon 16-85, image quality is said to be great, weight is much lower, and range is greater. A perfect go everywhere lens.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>A couple observations:<br>

1) I have the <a href="http://www.customslr.com/products/glide-strap">Custom SLR strap and like it. </a>As many of you have noted, a shoulder strap alleviates some of the weight problems. <br>

2) I also have a Sigma 17 - 50 OS in Canon mount; it's a fine lens, although Canon's version of the 17 - 55 gets better marks. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference in most situations. Many of the discussions of IQ that I've seen look like hair-splitting, assuming that the lens is good out of the box and has been micro-focus adjusted for the camera. The durability factor, however, is still significant. <br>

3) As others have observed, the Olympus OM-D might be a huge improvement. I saw someone using one on the street, and the size is awesome. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>For a lighter lens I would look no other than the Nikon 16-85, <em>image quality is said to be great</em>, weight is much lower, and range is greater. A perfect go everywhere lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>George, is it fair to assume from your comment you've never used the 16-85? looking past the point that it's already been discussed in this thread, i wouldnt call any variable aperture lens "go-anywhere," much less "perfect."</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>Eric, I have own the 16-85 but only for a very short time. I opted not to keep it not because of image quality but because I couldn't afford keeping two lenses in the same range. True a variable aperture lens is not perfect but there is little other choice for the OP in the Nikon line if he wants to get a lighter lens. The only other choice with a constant aperture could be the 24-120 f/4 but it's not as wide.</p>

[chris_brandstrom]

<blockquote>

<p>George, is it fair to assume from your comment you've never used the 16-85? looking past the point that it's already been discussed in this thread, i wouldnt call any variable aperture lens "go-anywhere," much less "perfect."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No lens is perfect. ALL lenses are about compromises. What is an acceptable compromise is of course different to everyone. For some people what they want is the aperture and quality of say the 17-55, so they simply accept the compromise of it being larger, heavier, and more expensive than other options. Others want above all focal range and one lens convenience, so they get an 18-200 and accept an image quality and somewhat higher price compromise.</p>

<p>As for myself....I have used the 18-55,16-85,18-105,18-200, AND the 17-55/2.8. Nothing fit just right for me until the 16-85. For me that IS my go anywhere lens. I find it's blend of great focal length including wider 16mm end, VR, small size and weight, and good overall optical quality to be an excellent combo. I accept the compromise that it is variable aperture and somewhat more expensive compared to other "kit" lenses. It is not perfect for all things, but for me it's the best combo for a walk around take anywhere lens. I have other lenses for more special purpose use.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> there is little other choice for the OP <em>in the Nikon line</em> if he wants to get a lighter lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>uh, oh, looks like someone didn't read the entire thread. is there some sort of rule that nikon cameras can only be used with nikon lenses? the reality, is there are at least two excellent alternatives to the 17-55, the tamron and sigma 17-50s. i've owned both. i also have the nikon 18-70, which i never use because it's too slow and image quality isnt better than the two 3rd party options (although comparable at f/8). the fact is, for the OP or anyone in a similar situation, there are alternatives which are certainly viable. i personally feel like the tamron 17-50 is the perfect walkaround lens. the sigma is even better on some levels because it has stabilization, but its not as light or compact as the tamron.</p>

<p>the 16-85? IQ is better than kit lenses, range is good, but it's pretty much a 'good light' lens with that variable aperture. <em>if you never shoot in low light conditions, and never need to isolate a subject, i guess it's okay</em>, but i ruled it out as soon as it came out because of that 5.6 on the long end. if its IQ was surpassed by the 3rd party 2.8s, that would be one thing. but it isn't. this has been discussed many times, but if nikon had made it a constant f/4, the 16-85 would be a LOT more appealing. my guess is they didnt want to cut into sales of the 17-55, but in making its specs so blah, they left the field wide open for compact/lightweight 2.8 3rd party zooms.</p>

 

[chris_brandstrom]

<blockquote>

<p>the 16-85? IQ is better than kit lenses, range is good, but it's pretty much a 'good light' lens with that variable aperture. <em>if you never shoot in low light conditions, and never need to isolate a subject, i guess it's okay</em>, but i ruled it out as soon as it came out because of that 5.6 on the long end. if its IQ was surpassed by the 3rd party 2.8s, that would be one thing. but it isn't. this has been discussed many times, but if nikon had made it a constant f/4, the 16-85 would be a LOT more appealing. my guess is they didnt want to cut into sales of the 17-55, but in making its specs so blah, they left the field wide open for compact/lightweight 2.8 3rd party zooms.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There were rumors floating around of a 16-85 constant f/4 from Nikon. I'd switch to that in a heartbeat if they did come out with one...but it seems unlikely in the face of so many other lenses that are arguably in need. Of course they could blow everyone's mind and perhaps restore faith in DX by doing some thing like doing a new DX 16-60 f/2.8 VR or similar. I'd certainly be tempted by that as well.</p>

[prabhu_v]

<p>I think I'm going to try the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 16-85 and see for myself what works. Subject isolation is definitely important because I shoot people a lot, but then I do have a 35 1.8, but I don't like switching often. The one advantage of the 16-85 I see is the ability for it to be a general purpose landscape lens.</p>

[howard_owen]

<p>I sold my 16-85 shortly after acquiring the 17-55. I probably would have sold the 16-85 regardless since I found its reputed advantages vis-à-vis the 18-70 weren't great enough to justify its much higher price. I will concede that the 17-55 is not my first choice for landscapes since that is an area of interest for you, but I was never satisfied with the 16-85's rendering of them either.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>but I was never satisfied with the 16-85's rendering of them either.</p>

<p>You didn't think the rendering of landscapes was good enough using the 16-85 Howard? You must have had a bad copy. It's a fabulous lens for landscapes.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I like the 18-105 VR that was kitted with my D7000. I have the 17-55/2.8 as well and it's wonderful, but it's a brick sometimes. For lightweight walkaround I'll pop on the 18-105. Lightroom cleans up any objectionable distortion nicely. If I really want top IQ, like if I'll be shooting detail-ish things, or really need to limit DoF, I just have to tough up and bring that 17-55.</p>

<p>I use an Upstrap, rig it long, and hang the camera from my shoulder. I quit using a neck strap in the traditional way a long time ago. HTH.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>...<em><strong>I don't want any compromise on quality/sharpness...</strong></em><br>

<em><strong><br /></strong></em>... so, if you do not want to compromise quality and sharpness, stick to it, because not other lens ( from another brand ) is better than this one. Regarding it is too heavy, some people on this thread already explained to you why it is too heavy. I have found out, that if I want to be all day taking pictures, I need to work out and keep myself in shape to sustain the weight of a camera, lens and a camera bag for the whole day. Even so, after 6 hours, I get tired. I do prefer a lens to be heavy rather than not. Perhaps you need to work out or give up quality and sharpness and go for the Tamron / Sigma version which are much lighter. </p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>All of these lenses (Nikon 16-85, 18-105, 17-55; Sigma 1x-5x, Tamron 1x-5x) have their pros and cons, and all are great lenses to "walk around" with from a focal length standpoint. I've shot with each of the Nikon versions (I own the 16-85 and the 17-55) and the VC version of the Tamron...all of these lenses are great optically for "walk around" purposes. <em>The Nikon 17-55 is larger and heavier because it is built to a pro spec (and the only one built to that spec), and if one is a professional who needs this durability, then the Nikon 17-55 is the lens to get...hands down...no other questions asked...pass GO and collect $200.</em> <strong><em>None of the others are built to a pro spec.</em></strong> If you are not hard on your gear and don't need the pro spec build but need f/2.8, then get one of the third party options. If you don't need the f/2.8, but need the extra range, then go with the 16-85 or the 18-105 Nikon options. If f/2.8 and extended focal range are not important, spin the wheel and buy what feels best.</p>

<p>Personally, I would prefer to have more range for a walk around versus the speed. The 35 f/1.8 (or the 50 f/1.4) and the 16-85 work well for me. The 16-85 is a very good lens that is extremely sharp even at the wider apertures, so despite the compromises on specifications and not being a constant f/4, it's really excellent in its range of capabilities and has very little optical compromises. When I need subject isolation and low light, I go for a prime, which works better in this situation than a f/2.8 zoom...Nikon or otherwise. If the 17-55 was a 2 ounce lens, I would still carry the 16-85 and a prime for "walk around" purposes. I use the 17-55 on professional assignments only.</p>

[prabhu_v]

<p>@KJ: thanks for your input, makes sense. I have a 35f/1.8 and thought of that combination too. Have a 2.8 however means that I don't have to change lenses. I also am thinking of getting an ultra wide angle lens for landscape photography. Wondering how something like a Nikon 10-24mm or a Tokina 11-16 mm would fit in with the 16-85. </p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>I don't think you can go wrong with either of those ultra-wides. Both are very good, but keep in mind that they are very different. The Nikon 10-24mm is very sharp and has a nice focal length range. I used to have one and I could walk around downtown Chicago with this lens and a 35mm or 50mm prime and be happy. The 10-24 is built well, but definitely not to a pro spec. I also had a Tokina 11-16 until I made the move to the 14-24. Pound for pound, I like the Nikon better. The Tokina is built better, can open up to f/2.8, and has slightly better optics on color rendering than Nikon. However, the limited range can be a pain. Not that my 14-24 has better range on FX (it gets wider, but it doesn't get long enough to be a walk around with a prime like the 10-24). Again, I don't think you can go wrong...it comes down to preference. I think you should try both out for a weekend and see what you like if you can afford to rent them. Either would be a fine companion to and midrange zoom you are considering.</p>

<p>Speaking of the midrange, f/2.8 seems to satisfy a lot of people given the high ISO capabilities of today's cameras. I like having f/2.8, but I like primes even more for isolation and low light. An f/1.4 lens can let in 4x the light of a f/2.8, and even an f/1.8 can let in more than 2x the light. f/2.8 is fast, but I still need to use primes to get what I want. I shoot with a D300s right now and don't like shooting above ISO 800; maybe if I used a D7000 or if my D800 would hurry up and get here I would feel better about f/2.8. Right now, I would still change to a prime even if I carried the f/2.8 17-55.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are not hard on your gear and don't need the pro spec build but need f/2.8, then get one of the third party options.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i previously mentioned i had the tamron 17-50 for 3 years. although not built to a pro-spec, it survived an awful lot of (paid) club/concert shooting. its more durable than it looks thanks to a big rubber bumper which doubles as a zoom ring.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I need subject isolation and low light, I go for a prime, which works better in this situation than a f/2.8 zoom..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the problem here is obvious: no DX primes wider than 35mm. also, if you have to carry 2-3 primes plus a zoom for walkaround usage because your zoom is a slow variable aperture type, you're not exactly shaving weight.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>Most lenses can survive quite a bit of punishment. My 16-85 is about three years old and it's been snowed on, rained on, pummeled with sand at the beach, almost eaten by a 15 month old baby, and dropped countless times...and that's just from my "walk around" usage. I actually used this for all of my paid work until I got the 17-55 when the 16-85 took a really bad spill that damaged the lens hood. I also needed the f/2.8 for flexibility during events.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the problem here is obvious: no DX primes wider than 35mm. also, if you have to carry 2-3 primes plus a zoom for walkaround usage because your zoom is a slow variable aperture type, you're not exactly shaving weight.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>For "walk around", I don't see a huge need for a prime wider than 35mm or longer than 50mm...but that's just me. I never carry more than the 16-85 and one of those primes for "walk around" purposes. Sometimes, I'll carry the 24 f/1.4 around at night along with one of those primes if I know I'm at a social event and there are lots of people around (for group photos), but I normally use that lens for my concert shooting. It's not DX, but it is an available tool. For me, the primes just work better than a f/2.8 zoom for isolation and low light.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>For me, the primes just work better than a f/2.8 zoom for isolation and low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no argument there, but a 2.8 zoom also works better than a 16-85 for the same thing. for walkaround stuff, its not always conducive to change lenses. most of the time, it comes down to how much you need the 1.4 or 1.8 to 2.8 aperture range and how much you weigh that over the ability to change focal lengths. when my main lens was the 17-50, i used to carry a 30/1.4 but it frequently stayed in the bag.</p>

[peter_maxwell1]

<p>Why on earth is no one suggesting the classic Nikkor 18-70 mm f3.5-4.5G? It was the standard lens with the D70s and is still an excellent lens even though its perhaps, what 6 years old. About the only thing people report is that there is a bit too much barrel distortion at the wide end. Other than this (and this is corrected easily in post) its superb. Good contrast and very sharp plus being a G lens it is fast to focus and works well on Nikons latest crop of cameras. I have one still and often use it instead of my 17-55mm when I need something lighter. To be honest I find it hard to see the difference in image quality even though I am very picky. Its also cheap and readily available. I seriously cannot recommend it enough. Probably its major downfall is just that its so readily available and so vice free its not regarded as "sexy" by some.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The Nikon 17-55 is 12 oz. more than the non-VR Tamron. That's a lot. It's also about $1000 more, which is also a lot. You have to have fairly specialized needs - needing the pro spec build quality and the image quality that's slightly, but not really that much, better - to have the Nikon make sense.</p>

<p>I'd just rule out the 16-85 if shooting indoors and blurring the backgrounds are priorities. The slow, variable aperture kits zooms aren't good for either of those things. Zoom in a bit and your max aperture is f/5.6, and you have to stop down to f/8 if you want optimal sharpness. Those f/2.8 zooms at f/4 are as sharp as the kit zooms at f/8. The kit zooms are for shooting in daylight. Heck, when I really want background blur and indoor shooting I don't even bother with my f/2.8 zoom, I got straight to primes. That cheap little 50mm f/1.8G at f/2.2 renders as good an image as you'll ever want to look at.</p>

[larry_lasich]

<p>I just picked up a 17-55 in EC on ebay for $800. My 16-85, after 3 years and 20K+ photo's was showing softness on the left side.<br>

This 17-55 lens is all about performance.<br>

I just tryed it out in a circus tent show using F2.8 1600 ISO with my D300s, one stop down. Even in dark lit areas the focus was fast and sure. I was able to nail the sharpness hand holding even as low as 1/20 s due to the weight. My old 16-85, a nice lens, could never performed like this and I would have never got the shots I did with it. It is nice and sharp even at f2.8 and I do not miss the VR but would not mind more reach.</p><div></div>