Your thoughts on nikon 17-55mm 2.8

[Iconindustries]

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

 

[richie15]

Its a cracking lens, the best I had on the D300. Not sure what it will be like on a GF1 though

 

[PeterB666]

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.

 

[silverbullet]

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!

 

[Chuck Pike]

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

 

[Iconindustries]

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:

 

[PeterB666]

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.