Is the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it?

J

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens and am thinking about renting the 17-55mm for an event. I'm unsure if the higher aperture (and weight) will be worth it. All the pics I'll be taking will be in doors under mostly low light. I will have my sb-700 flash with me. I'll cost a little over $75 to rent for the week that I need it.

Thoughts?
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Funny you should mention that particular lens. I was at the mall today, and walked by the mall Santa, who had a camera setup. The camera was a D70 and the lens was a 17-55 2.8 and a flash through a 30" umbrella. Pictures were coming out awesome.
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
It's a very nice lens. I had the Tamron 17-50 and then got the 17-55 Nikon and the Nikon is a little sharper. But the Tamron has VR… and is half price of the Nikon.
And the Nikon is twice the weight. But the IQ is better with the Nikon.
 
S

Sambr

Senior Member
It's a great lens. One of my favorites. Built like a tank could serve as a weapon if needed. Seriously it's my most used lens on my D300.
 
J

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
Thanks for all the responses everyone. I guess I'm still trying to answer the question though. Will I get better pictures with the 17-55 vs the 18-55 kit lens in the environment mentioned above?
 
J

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
well, I guess I know I'll get better pics with the 17-55, but will the difference be enough to go "wow!" when viewing the results?
 
R

Ranie

Senior Member
jdeg, i have this lens as my default lens. Use it 95% of the time in all my shoots (outdoor and indoor)
you cant get wrong with this lens
 
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
Ranie said:
jdeg, i have this lens as my default lens. Use it 95% of the time in all my shoots (outdoor and indoor)
you cant get wrong with this lens
Click to expand...

Same here. With the f/2.8 aperture you can really isolate subjects and shoot in low light. If I had to choose only one DX lens, this would be it with no reservations.
 
G

gav329

Senior Member
Hi Ranie

Unfortunately the 17-55 is way out of my reach however I am probably going to purchase the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, do you have experience of this lens? I am new to DSLR so the Nikon is wasted on me but the Tamron is a possibility. I had a look at your flickr link above, some stunning photography really impressive.
 
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
gav329 said:
Unfortunately the 17-55 is way out of my reach however I am probably going to purchase the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, do you have experience of this lens? I am new to DSLR so the Nikon is wasted on me but the Tamron is a possibility.
Click to expand...

You might want to consider buying used - I did. The price for a new copy of the latest Tamron versus a used Nikkor seems to be around US$200-250. With folks moving to FX and some effort. you can often find one around US$850-900. Just a thought.
 
G

gav329

Senior Member
Hi eduard

Yes I'll go for second hand. The Nikon is still a bit expensive. I've found 2 nice examples of the tamron second hand in very good condition, I'll probably buy one. Thanks for your reply


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
R

Ranie

Senior Member
gav329 said:
Hi Ranie

Unfortunately the 17-55 is way out of my reach however I am probably going to purchase the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, do you have experience of this lens? I am new to DSLR so the Nikon is wasted on me but the Tamron is a possibility. I had a look at your flickr link above, some stunning photography really impressive.
Click to expand...

Hi gav329. Personally, I have not tried the Tamron in this focal range but have tried in other focal ranges. Plus its a hit or miss with 3rd party lenses. I find the Tamron slow in AF. The pre-owned Nikon 17-55 would be your best option if the brandnew is over on your budget.
 
Top