OK guys, I've had my eye on a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 IF-ED lens. There are 3 on ebay in Aus at under 1000 (at the moment) and I am wondering if any of you have used this lens and what are your thoughts. Apart from the price, is it built well, and what is the picture quality like? I know it's a heavy piece of precision engineering but my young back should be ok for awhile yet.:smile: I will be coupling it with my D90 and probably try it out with an adapter on my GF1. Do you know if it will work on my GF1 because I don't think it has a aperture ring? Will that matter? Thanks, icon
It is a great lens but quite large and heavy. It will go well with the D90. If you look at the completed listings, they do sometimes go for under $1000 at which price one in excellent condition would be a fabulous buy. I don't think it would handle well on the GF1. You need one of the converters that has a rotating collar that can push the aperture pin. I have never used one of these so don't know how effective it is. The aperture you get between fully open and fully closed would be at best crude gestimation.
This lens I use(d) together with my D300, but...... Now with around 63 years this heavy lens and the body are too big and heavy + the other 7 kg equipment. The lens is an absolutely professional item, when I had to minimize my DSLR gear for trips, this lens was the cap for the Nikon. Here a shot from the Baltic sea, a fisherman's shack in low light: ISO 3200 (You can see the printed slogan on the beer-felt of the former DDR!) Fishermen's shack | Flickr - Photo Sharing! and outside: cool | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Depends on how you want to use it. I had the 17-35mm f/2.8 lens, which was listed on several sites as the best zoom lens Nikon ever made. I agreed as it was the best lens I ever owned, but sold it due to my getting rid of all my Nikon gear and going into the m 4/3 format. If your ever going to go F.F. then you want to get the 17-35 as it works on both DX and FX bodies. If your never thinking about going full frame but staying with DX, the 17-55mm should work well for you. Both are quality lens and both weigh a ton, but as you say your young and strong. I still am shooting and have been for 52 years. Hard to believe that it has been that long. Images for books, magazines and calendars | photosbypike
Thanks fellas for your thoughts regarding the lens. I'll probably just stick with the DX for now and let ff go I reckon ( I gather that full frame cameras they are even larger than the AP-C type.?) I ended up winning the nikon 17-55 for $1025. The bloke I bought it off reckons I got a bargain. He also said that he'l put in a nikon carry pouch for it because the original one he said isn't that good in protecting the lens. So I'm happy as you would imagine. I definitely wont tell my mum about it. I can just imagine her wanting to use the camera one day and she'll think, gee, this feels heavier than last time.:smile:
Vince, it will be interesting to know how it goes with the MFT camera and adapter. I have been thinking to get a Nikon (probably the D7000) but pending such a move, to pick up some Nikon lenses to use of my E-P1. The 17-55 seems to be cheaper than the 17-35 and a more useful range for on MFT. Curious to know how easy it is to focus and use in general.
