Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

I bought this lens about a week after I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC in a local store. I bought the Tamron because it was significantly cheaper, and as an advanced hobbyist who doesn't make one cent from photography, I thought I could live with a substitute. Fortunately, my doubt gets the better of me, and I decided to give the Nikkor a shot. From the much larger computer screen, the images produced from the Nikkor appears to be very sharper even at the largest aperture of f2.8, and I just love the contrasty, and rich colour tone produced by this lens. This lens is fantastic for indoor shoots due to the larger aperture and also the "zoomabilty". The 17mm focal points allows you to shoot in a tight space, and the 55mm allows you to zoom in for a facial/closer shot. I like museum, indoor exhibition and this lens is just perfect for me. You may have heard people insisted Tamron is just as good. Well, ask them whether they own or tested both and, if not, how qualified are they to make that statement? As good as Tamron is, and being a affordable Nikkor substitute, IMO it's still not on par with a Nikkor: not the IQ (even though they are very close), not the build quality, not the weather sealed, and certainly not the resale value after a few years. Furthermore, the Nikkor has a much faster, quieter and assured AF even in low light situations. Although this is not a super zoom, this lens is quite heavy, and it balances quite well with a bigger camera such as a D300S. IMO, the only real weakness of this Nikkor lens is the lack of a VR function. For some, this may not be a necessity, but for me, weighing at about 1.5kg (3 Ibs) when use with a D300S, it's difficult not to shake when you hold it up against your face. Nonetheless, due to the larger aperture, I can handhold and shoot very sharp images at 1/30 sec (at 55mm) even though I don't have the steadiest hands . Imagine being able to shoot 2 to 4 more stops if a VR function is added, I can probably handhold at 1/13 sec without much problem. If $$$ is not an issue to you, and you don't mind the heavier weight, I suggest you seriously consider getting this one. The $800 difference (when compared to a Tamorn 17-50mm f2.8 VC) may seem be big now, but this is one lens that would last you a long time, and Nikkor's resale value tends to hold very well even after many year of use. I decided to keep the Nikkor, and passed the Tamron to my wife who prefers the lighter weight over Nikkor's superior IQ, faster AF, weather seal with her Nikon D90.

This is the first lens I purchased for my Nikon D7000 and I think that it may have skewed my expectations - after using this lens, all of the other Nikon DX lenses seem to pale in comparison. The Good: ------------------- Make no mistake about it, this is a pro-grade lens and you will probably get the most out of it on Nikon's only "pro grade" DX camera, the D7000. It will work on just about all of the other camera bodies, however. It's body is made out of metal and its constant f/2.8 means great performance across its range of focal lengths even in dim lighting. On a DX camera you're getting 26mm to 83mm and everything in between, so with this one lens you can effectively handle most photographic work. I like this aspect from a business standpoint, because can go to the long end for excellent portraits or the short end for excellent wide-angle shots. This lens effectively replaces a bag of primes and I can confidently say it performs BETTER than the other primes available for DX cameras; it's basically an FX lens downsized to the DX format and quality was not sacrificed. Taking pictures with this lens will really unleash the potential of your D7000, but it will have the nasty side effect of making all of your other lenses look bad. I have completed a couple shoots using this lens and the results were night-and-day with other DX options, namely the 35mm f/1.8G (about 53mm on full-frame cameras). In all lighting conditions the results were substantially better with the 17-55mm lens, and considering the focal ranges it covers as well as its quality, the price is justifiable. The Bad: ------------------- It's freakin heavy! The 17-55 weighs in just under 2 lbs and that bulk seems to get heavier if you have to carry it around your neck for any extended period of time...though to be honest it's not as bad as I thought it would be - just make sure you get a quality padded camera strap like the one made by OP-TECH. It's BIG so it will partially block the AF assist light on the D7000 when you are not using the included hood, and when you do use the hood it blocks the AF assist light almost entirely. The big size also interferes with the D7000's built in flash, causing a shadow to appear on the lower half of your shots...if you want to use a flash, you'll need to go with a dedicated unit. Expensive in relation to other DX lenses, but then again it's the only DX-specific lens that isn't a hunk of junk. Its constant f/2.8 speed makes it versatile enough to be usable in poor lighting, but it's not ideal for "flashless" low light photography. Y u no have nano crystal coating!? How I use it: ------------------- I love this lens for model shoots and portraits, but it also does well with anything that does not require super zoom or ultra-wide angle. I am a fan of available light and prefer to make the subject work within the scene rather than making a scene for the subject...like a challenge, if you will. The Lumix GH2 camera that I have been using before the D7000 delivered impressive results with its 25mm Leica lens and its 14-140mm Zoom - but the D7000 with the 17-55mm stepped my game up from "hi I'm a freelance picture guy with a camera" to more of a pro-level "take a number and wait your turn" kinda photographer. In other words, the pictures it is capable of taking sell themselves and then some! Recommendation: ------------------- If you enjoy taking pictures in the 17-55mm focal length range on a DX camera, this is the best lens you can get for that purpose. The quality you get with this lens is generally better than what you get from the primes of the same focal length. If you're strapped for cash you could consider renting one of these from a local camera shop to get a feel for it, otherwise get it and make sure you have a decent camera too.

I have had this puppy for a week now (august 2007), and here is what i can tell you: What they say is true: It is sharp, even at F/2.8. It focuses fast. Chromatic aberration is under control. Bokeh is great. Who cares if it's heavy. If you want a light lens, you are probably willing to compromise image quality. Drawbacks: There is significant distortion at 17mm. Correctible in PS(-3 does the trick), but I would expect more from such a pricey piece of glass. Also, I wish it had VR. Again, for the price that would make sense. Overall, it is pro glass. you get what you pay for, and it will probably never leave the D200 body. Those who are considering this purchase should wait for a couple of months - nikon (and the rest) will be debuting new products before the holidays. I'd bet they'll roll out a VR version of this guy. So, this will model will probably drop in price. (just a guess) p.s. (i like using parentheses)

I initially owned the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens after purchasing my Nikon D300 body earlier this year. The 18-200 of course is a do-all mid-line lens and shouldn't be too critically compared to the professional line of Nikon glass. I used the 18-200 briefly as I became more familiar with my new D300 and found the images from the 18-200 were adequate, although not as crisp and sharp and high contrast as many of my Canon lenses had been before I migrated over to the Nikon side after 12+ years of using Canon gear. When I recently got a wedding shoot to do that required only available light and no flash for the entire 1 hour ceremony I now had the reason to consider purchasing the 17-55. Considering the Nikon 18-200 falls well short of a large enough aperture for low light photography and in reviews, is softer in resolution over-all anyway compared to the 17-55, this was my motivation to sell my 18-200 and pick up the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens. (I've also added a 70-300mm Nikon VR to my bag to fill the telephoto void, I posted an excellent review on Amazon for this lens as well). The wedding was very recently shot, with most all images during the available light ceremony shot wide open at 2.8 due to the very low lighting in the church. Much to my relief, the images all turned out superbly and were very sharp, had excellent contrast and color saturation even wide open (I always shoot RAW for most important photo jobs). I was also absolutely delighted in the lens regarding how quick the focus was in the low light (basically instant with no hesitation nor any hunting as soon as the shutter release was pressed to record the image). Many shots required a large shift in focus from far to very close-up and the 17-55 didn't fail me even once, frame to frame. In many cases I had to quickly raise the camera to my eye and fire off a burst with no lag time to spare for the focus to occur if I was to capture a perfect shot and not miss the opportunity. The lens never failed here even once. They say, you get what you pay for and considering the 17-55 goes for around the $1200 mark, you're getting the excellent optical quality that only a high end Nikon lens can give you. If you need to shoot in low light levels, or just simply want the very best images that your camera can give you, a high-end lens is the ONLY way to go. This lens will not dissapoint you once-so-ever.

I took a deep breath and clicked buy on this lens about a month ago. I had immediate buyer's remorse. Even though, thanks to a windfall, I could afford it, and I do shoot for hire so I can justify it, but it was the single most expensive camera item I've ever bought. I am ever so glad I did it. The lens is heavy and big - it takes some getting used to, as the focus and zoom controls are different than the kit lens. But WOW! Not only is it incredibly fast and sharp, the new focus system - "Internal Focus" - is fast and accurate. The zoom is firmer than I expected - by that I mean it is harder to turn than I am used to - so I have had to adjust to that when I am zooming in or out to frame. It is not a VR lens (Vibration Reduction) but a fast wide angle doesn't need VR anyway, so no big deal. This is a metal body lens, so I expect it to outlast me - still be usable in 50 or 100 years. Of course, who knows what cameras will be then! So - worth every penny. I feel like I'm entering a whole new era in my photography - not only can I take much better photos, I have to now, because I have to live up to the standard set by this lens. I am so glad I got this lens. My photography is already much better because of it.

The lenses I've owned in similar ranges are the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Comparing this lens to the 18-70mm is probably a bit unfair, so I won't mention it again. However, there are many people looking for alternatives and the Tamron 17-50mm is as close as it gets so I'll base this review as a comparison to the Tamron. Having owned the Tamron for a few weeks before offing it, I can tell you this. If you're looking for a lens that equally matches or even exceeds the 17-55mm in terms of image quality, then by all means, go for the Tamron. Equality pretty much ends there. The advantages of the Nikon 17-55mm are the following: BUILD QUALITY - You immediately notice the build quality as soon as you handle and inspect the 17-55mm. It's encased in metal and nicely sealed so dust, moisture (which leads to fungus) will hopefully be minimized. "Built like a tank" is a good cliche. FAST FOCUS - The Silent Wave Motor is not only fast, but extremely quiet. SHARP WIDE OPEN - Using an aperture of f/2.8, this lens is very usable. Another advantage is that is focuses more accurately in low light. This is an aspect that was inferior in the Tamron. COLOR RENDITION - I've found colors out of the lens are very satisfying with little need to "tweak" during post processing. The Tamron had a warmer color, but this may vary among copies. MINIMAL CA - CA didn't bother me much in the Tamron, but it's much more controlled on the 17-55mm, especially wide open. BETTER QUALITY CONTROL - This was the deal breaker with the Tamron. I received a copy that overexposed which is in line with the experiences of many people with that particular lens. Although sample variance exists with Nikon, it's much more controlled. SIZE/WEIGHT/BALANCE - Some people mention this lens is too bulky and heavy. I find the size and weight actually helpful and helps balance and control on the majority of camera bodies. The 17-55mm doesn't have any major flaws for me. I'm not a professional nor am I a pixel peeper. I'm just an enthusiast that likes good image quality. However, if I were to knit pick, here are the flaws: SMALL ZOOM RING - It's annoyingly small at first, but you get used to it. FLARES EASILY - Point it at a light source directly or even indirectly and this lens has a propensity to flare. You can certainly use the massive hood to mitigate flare. DISTORTION AT WIDE END - Some say the distortion at the wide end makes this lens unusable for landscape/architecture work. If you're looking for a lens specifically for that task, you may want to consider a true wide angle lens like the 12-24mm or 14-24mm or go Sigma 10-20mm. However, I find this lens quite usable at the wide end. One peculiarity with the 17-55mm is that it's at its shortest length almost fully zoomed at around 45mm and longest and fully extended at 17mm. I found this amusing since I haven't experienced other lenses with this characteristic. In my research, I also considered the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. This lens should definitely be on your list because it offers the latest technology and it's a full frame (FX) lens. I ruled it out because it's not only $500 more than the 17-55mm, but also because it's not wide enough for my purposes. Also, I happen to be under the opinion that DX has at least a few more years before it becomes obsoleted/deprecated by FX. People are beginning to recommend against investing in DX lenses, but IMHO, affordable full frame bodies are years away. Ultimately, I selected the Nikkor 17-55mm over the Tamron 17-50mm because of its superior usability wide open. The hit on my pocketbook was rather significant, but I have no regrets of getting such a excellent lens with a great usable range. If Nikon ever added VR to this lens, then it would be a dream come true. I state this because I often need to use a shutter speed of 1/30 or slower when shooting in low light and I rarely use a tripod. VR would come in extremely handy in this situation to prevent camera shake. I highly recommend this lens. It's on my camera 9 times out of 10. Okay, I'll stop now.

This is a great lens that I will be hanging on to. Really had no plans to buy a DX lens but after walking around SF with the Nikon D700 and its trinity of lenses I decided against the FX route. Biggest noticeable difference between the D700 and D7000 is the lack of noise at 800 ISO and above. But just not worth the weight and $1500 premium over the cost of my D7000, in my mind. The lens is great, solid, focuses quickly , sharp, contrasty(much better than the 16-85) and clear. Sure it's around $1430 (B&H) but worth the investment I believe. A better lens than the 16-85 in my mind, no VR but hey you have a great Nikon camera that excels at low light and this lens drops down to f/2.8 making it a very fast lens and having the ability to shoot in lower light. Great lens I recommend it. See picture. Shooting more and had a chance to use this often and check the pictures. Excellent glass! I can always count on this lens for its sharpness and clarity. If you know you will be staying with a DX lens this is a worthy investment! Highly recommend!

I received this lens & it is beautiful. Unfortunately, it arrived & there appears to be a lens malfunction or something wrong with the electrical components. When I attached it to my camera I received an F0 error. I confirmed the lens was snapped into place. Tried with three other lenses I own & did not receive this error. Auto-focus & aperture control do not function with this error. Hoping to hear back from the seller as to how to resolve this.

Era lo que esperaba

ottimo prodotto, superiore alle mie aspettative, mi trovo benissimo, già lo uso da un po di mesi e devo dire che a saperlo prima che era così avrei fatto prima l'acquisto risparmiando tempo e denaro in acquisto di altre ottiche, robusto e di vecchia scuola, praticamente quando lo innesti al corpo macchina non lo togli più... lo consiglio a tutti coloro che cercano una lente affidabile, robusta e PROFESSIONALE AL 100% la migliore in commercio per il formato DX

Given so many reviews for this "old" Nikon 17-55mm F2.8G AF-S DX IF-ED, I thought I should first explain that the one missing star is due to its being slightly inferior compared with a prime lens. Apart from that, it's an excellent lens, and its practicality compensates some slight weaknesses. I bought this lens for my D500. The DX 1.5 factor makes its focal range nearly ideal for travel and street photography. I took it on my trip to Paris last week, bringing only my Nikon 70-200 F4G VR as backup. I took some pics indoor (e.g., the Opera Paris) and outdoor (no need to mention). Until finishing the trip, I didn't touch the 70-200 and all the time this 17-55 was on my D500. The photo quality is totally satisfactory. It gives me peace in mind that when going on a trip I can just bring this 17-55mm with my D500 and I don't have to bring with me different lenses unless it's a trip with certain shooting plan. This is what I mean practicality. Recently, I used this 17-55mm for an indoor social dance event. This was one of my purposes to buy this lens, i.e., I do prefer the constant f2.8 for low light situations. This constant f/2.8 of 17-55mm was one of the main reasons I bought it. In most of the time in this dance event, this 17-55mm worked well for me except a few occasions when I had to switch to my Nikon 35mm f/1.4 (it worked as a standard lens on my DX camera) when the light was too low for some spots. The photo quality from this 17-55mm is very satisfactory. It may be worth mentioning that the first week after purchasing the 17-55mm, I shoot an outdoor portrait. I was so impressed by the sharpness of the subject's eye lashes (used f/4). But later incidentally I used f/13 and the sharpness seems slightly lower. My view is that, no point to complain for its slight weaknesses, but I just need to explore and get to know this lens. A perfect lens does not exist in this world. It is known that Nikon's quality slightly varies sometimes, meaning you may find some slight variance in the aspects of the quality across different copies of the same lens model. We have to know the lens in our hand and make the best out of it. Update: It’s been over a year since my earlier post in July 2017. My experience of using this lens has convonced me that I must change my previous 4 star to 5 star for this lens. It’s unfair to compare this zoom lens with a prime lens. Over the past year this lens proved to be really excellent.

DELAYED UPDATE: Amazon handled the replacement as expected. This is now my primary lens for day-to-day photos - it is really an awesome lens! UPDATE: I worked with Amazon support (who was very helpful), and they sent a replacement lens - it arrived and it was the lens that I expected...which means that I actually got to try it out! The lens is VERY nice - it is able to take beautiful pictures across the zoom range, and is brilliant in lower light situations (such as indoors). I was taking pictures of family (infants and adults) at an event inside a house in the evening recently - and I am very happy with the results! In comparison, it is not quite on par with the low-light capabilities of the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 prime lens (which I also have), but the zoom range with this lens makes up for it (at the event I mentioned, there was not a lot of space so having the ability to go wide was very handy). I am upping this to a rating of 3/5, Assuming that the return completes as expected, I will be raising this to a 5/5. ORIGINAL: I placed an order for this specific lens because I did my research and thought it was the right one for my purposes - it came today, but I cannot verify whether I like the actual product because I was shipped an entirely different lens (one that was far less expensive)! The box it came was the appropriate one, the warranty card was for the lens I ordered, same for the instructions included - but the lens itself was in fact a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-105mmm F/3.5-5.6G lens. I have not yet begun the return process, so I do not know how that will go at this time.

Very satisfied with the quality. No flaw at all. Bit heavy, but can be neglected. King of crafted lenses. :)