Thank you for the recommendation, followed your tips and after using it for 6 months on my D7500 couldn’t be happier. Ended up selling my kits lens off on EBay. This baby blows them away.
Hi there, Is this still a great lens in 2021? I am just getting into photography as a hobby, (Mainly landscape, cityscape and architectural photography). Looking to use as a go-to lens on a D7200.
@@KenTheoriaApophasis Awesome! Thanks! I’m About to hoof the sigma and shop for one of these. I was originally looking at the 16-80mm until I watched your video on it. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
i just traded in my Nikon D800 for a D500 and bought a used Nikkor 17-55 2.8 from a NY camera store for 800 bucks in Exc+ shape. Can't wait! I have a D850 for my studio work and felt the D800 needed to be upgraded. Love your reviews and your overthetop attitude!
Not a professional photographer just enjoy it as a hobby. I was convinced dropping ~$2500 for a full frame mirrorless camera set up to upgrade from my dx camera. But after watching your objective videos I realised I don't need all that and will keep using the dx camera and ordered one of these lenses used for $509. I know I can get some fantastic shots with it. Thanks!
If you leave the lens shade home, you can still fit a D7100 with the 17-55mm in a holster case. Put your SB800 case on the strap, and you have your goto setup. A little extra sharpening brings out the best in this lens.
This is the only DX lens I still own for my D7000. Excellent lens. Question for Ken - If I use it on my D850 - in crop mode (I haven't) - wouldn't it still be a 17-55mm rather than something equivalent to 26-82mm? Or am I getting this wrong?
ur photos would have the angle of view of a 27.2mm-88mm, with the compression and distortion of a 17mm-55mm lens. it’s just a lens of 17mm focal length on a cropped sensor (aps-c sensor is 63% of the area size of a fullframe, so you only get that much of the angle-of-view, giving you the narrower angle of view that a longer focal length lens would have). focal length is the distance between the optical center of the lens (where the light converges) and the sensor (where the light is recorded). this is meant to remain the same regardless of camera, so mounts are made.
I just got this lens and took a couple of portrait shots and there is something magic with the image at f2.8 that I can't put my finger on... Maybe it's the soft transition from the subject to the bokeh background? I don't know but loving it so far!!!
I own a D500. A big camera store here in India is selling these lens brand new at around $750. They have 4 pieces but it seems no one's buying for some reasons. VR maybe...DX maybe..wanted to ask if the price is decent enough to go ahead or are there better options.?
I also remember specifically asking you about the 17-55mm, and you said it was crazy because it had a plastic lens element, and you'd never recommend it for DX. You also said to get the 17-35mm, because it was better. Today, it appears that the opposite is true. I bought the lens anyway, and it turned out to be awesome. Funny you have no recollection of your previous opinion. What changed, you bought and tried it?
Fair enough. Your lens recommendations are pretty well trusted. I got a nikkor 135mm 2.8, and it's as awesome as you said it was. This one just caught me off guard.
Ken, I am surprised by this review. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that you didn't especially care for this lens as it has two plastic elements. I bought mine for used for $600 on e-bay and love it with my D7200 and D7000.
Ok I’ve been searching the manual for a couple hours and I can’t find it. Maybe it’s a difference in terminology. I’m still relatively new to Nikon. On my Pentax I can link the exposure metering to the Autofocus points I’ve selected. Pentax calls it “Link AE to AF point”. That’s pretty easy. What I want to do is this. I’m shooting in continuous autofocus using 25 auto focus points. I have metering set to center weighted. I want the camera to meter center weighted in the area I’ve set the group of 25 auto focus points (so if I'm to the right of the frame focused on a person then meter on that person). Where is the metering setting that links metering to the selected autofocus points? Thanks in advance. (It’s likely staring me in the face). Love the D500 but too use to 30 years shooting Pentax.
I’ve just purchased a D600 and I’m searching for a variable focal length lens. I’ve been looking at this lens as a possibility. I’m new at this, but I followed most of what you said. However I do not understand what you mean by “crop mode.” Since the D600 has a full sized sensor, should I be looking for a different or better lens instead? May I ask your recommendation?
I have noticed that some Nikon zoom lenses have the focus ring on the lens mount end of the lens and some have the focus ring on the filter end of the lens. Should I be concerned which end of the lens has the focus ring?
Guten Tag. :) I am considering getting this lens. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to try it out. How does this lens do with landscape photography? I tried the 16 - 80 kit lens on a D500, and at 16 mm, there is a lot of distortion. I also watched your review about the 16 - 80 lens and decided not to get it when I buy my D500. Just a note, I love landscape photography and of course taking pics of my dogs running and jumping on the beach.
Hello Ken thanks for tons of information from your videos.anyway I bought this lens for 500 euro on ebay, I noticed that from 35mm up to 55 mm at f2.8 it is soft, compare to 17mm up to 35 mm.is it the same with your lens?
Hi Ken, after seeing this video maybe for 5 times 😅, I decided to go for it and I found a good one from an honest seller who told that he had it from 2008 and he showed me even the receipt, and I payed £350 for it here in the UK. The question is: Is it normal for the zoom ring to be quite stiff?? I called Nikon and they said just send it, and I'm afraid that this might cost a fortune 😩 The zoom ring is working all throughout the focal length. However, starts to be stiff on the both ends (especially between 45-55). To be more specific, one finger is extremely difficult to use in these ends (I think that might help), and you can hear a friction sound inside it, like it needs a lubricant or so. So should I really send it to Nikon just to check it if this normal or not?? Or just live with it?? Apart from this stiffness, this lens is a hell of a beast (the best ever on DX). I have D7200 Looking forward to hearing from you Thanks
Just leave it be if it can focus on the wide and long end and your pictures are sharp. I mean you paid a bargain for this lens. If you were to send it for service you might as well got one in mint condition to start with. Besides it seems that it has not been used for a wile. Sometimes they do loosen up a little after being used again.
Hihi has anyone used this lens on FX camera without using the in body crop? I've seen videos where they say that there is no vignette when used on FX sensor
Hey there,just checking out this lens for my nikon d300. I have found a deal for 250 usd,lens has a little fungus inside it though. Shall i go and buy it?i would like your thoughts on this,thank you
Hey Angry Ken :) I just bought this lens (used) after watching your review. It is so good and fast focusing!!! It's sharp too. But I tested with nikkor 40mm 2.8 on same 40mm and they are sharp equal. On some photos I will give advantage to 40mm 2.8. but i love my new lens 17-55 on nikon D7100.
Hello. I have the D7200 and lenses 11-20, 35, 50, 70-200, and looking for something between 20-35. Based on your reviews I am considering this 17-55, but don´t really need the 35-55 focal length on i this. May you recommend this or either other lens? Also suitable for video.
A great lens. Shot weddings, christenings, parties with it on my trusty D7000. Was never let down. After my switch to FX I replaced with a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. Also a good lens, well made, reliable. But it doesn't produce those "magic" pictures. I was too cheap back then to justify a new Nikkor 24-70. Should have gotten a used Nikkor for the price of the new Tamron now that I think about it...
As a walk around lens, well it depends on how far you have to walk. I bought my 17-55mm because there was no better alternative in a performance wide-to-tele zoom. The D7100 is a moderately heavy camera so I have no problem with the balance. The contrast is so good in this lens that it is simply a matter of moving the sharpness slider a little farther to see an outstanding image.
I don't know if Ken has reviewed the Sigma 18-35mm, I have never used it. The Sigma 18-35mm would be considered a wide-angle zoom, not a wide-angle to telephoto zoom, when used on a D7100.
Got a mint copy, however didn't properly check for dust beforehand. Cosmetically it's excellent, but the IQ is very soft. Currently quite disappointed, will however give it a few chances more in case AF auto adjustments / my technique are to blame more than the lens itself.
just picked up a min example of this lens ,no box no paperworkbut the lens is mint payed 350 Euros i couldnot be happier with this bad boy thanks for the raccomendation
I would go with a used in good condition Nikon 17-55 over the Sigma, which I am selling. The Sigma is a great lens. It's heavy, the range of 18-35 is limited, and you really need the USB Dock if you want to use the lens at 1.8. Still, the Sigma is a fine lens, and much less expensive, new.
Hi! Sorry to bother you, but I just bougth a used lens like this. The zoom seems to be hard to turn Close to 17 and 55. in the middle it is almoust no friction if you know what I man.Is it worn or is it suppose to be like this. The lens is not as Sharp as I expected either, but I havent tryed It much yet.
I dont need that much force. Like you say, a little stiff at both ends. I have only used it iside With bad light yet but it do not seem that sharper then my kitlens 18-55DX. A little more difference on D300 then D500
I bought one used for $600. Like new, without a mark on it. I use it (back up to the my d750 and 24-70 2.8) as a wedding lens for my d7100. I know it's very expensive but used, reasonable for a 2.8 and appears to be well built.
Hi Ken . already the owner of the nikon d500 and nikon 16-80 . Ive got some great shots with my 16-80 but now have a chance to get my hands of a very good condition nikon 17-55 . my question is to you should i buy the 17-55 and trade off my 16-80 ? what difference will i get from owning the 17-55? regards kenny Reply
this lens or the sigma 18 35 f1.8? the 1.8 would be great for my astrophotography but the extra zoom of the nikon would be great for my day to day use.... :/ I could get bouth for $550. Thank You:)!
+Marc North the 17-35 FX is crap (2 plastic elements, poor rendition),......the 17-55 DX (this lens) is NOT crap. IF however you did indeed ask 17-55 then i had a brain communication-fart, and its my ERR. 17-35 sux 17-55 great (however id NEVER recommend anyone buy a new one for $1500) :( :( :(
I very much appreciate Ken's advice, he's spot on on most issues, but on this one I have to disagree. At least my copy of this lens is not good at all. At 55mm lousy even in the center. Maybe it's a bad copy. But never mind, I wanted to give Nikon another shot but I'll stay with my superb and lightweight Fuji lenses. :)
Coincidentally, I picked up this lens before seeing your video in like new condition for $500 with box, caps, and hood. I usually don't buy a lens without checking your recommendations first, but this vid had not yet been made. I fell in love with the lens on first use, and doubt I'll ever sell it. Part of the joy of this lens, especially for an old film guy like me, is the feeling of holding a real professional instrument in one's hands, not a plastic wonder. You will probably laugh at me for buying such an old camera, but that same week, I bought a Nikon D300s in its original box with papers, that had 556 clicks on it, again for $500. This camera and lens seem made for each other and the lens rarely comes off that body. I've learned that for me, not every camera needs to be super high resolution or a low light performer in near dark. It too is a lot about "feel" and control layout. I've also gotten excellent results with this lens on my D7100. I think people should keep in mind that this lens was introduced when DX was the only Nikon digital format, and pros were using it. The lens turned out to be better than the cameras of the day, but is a real stunner now on higher resolution DX. After the D500 has a little time to mature, i might get one and I am sure this lens would see a lot of use on that camera. Thanks for confirming my choice in buying this lens, and I appreciate your videos.
I don't know if I got a lemon or these lenses are not quite as good as I thought they would be. I compared it after many hours of taking photographs with this lens compared to the Tokina 100mm f2.8 and also the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI VC USD G2. I shot everything at f-stop of 2.8. The tokina was tack sharp and so beautiful at F2 .8. The tokina is a lens to die for it is so great. Also the Tamron was beautiful and tack sharp at f2.8 and looked just fabulous. However I must say I was extremely disappointed in the performance of this Nikon 17 to 55 mm when set at f2.8. All the photographs were very fuzzy compared to my other two lenses. And I took so so many pictures it was always the same. Therefore I'm selling this lens even though I've only had it a little while. Maybe this is a lemon and I really believe it is a lemon because other photo's I have seen on the net set at f2.8 with lens look just fine . But After having been bitten on this lens don't want to try to get another lemon and I have to sell it again. So if I buy another lens like this I will make sure it is returnable. Because after seeing all the reviews I know this must be a good Lens.
Theoria Apophasis Thank you so much for this review, i just got a 2nd second hand for $745 which i might say in very prestine condition, looks and feels like brand new, clean lense,the zoom ring is still stiff, flawless, not even a smudge or scratch at the rear connectors, I meet up with the seller and found out the she only used it twice and switched to mirrorless because of its weight, it got stock on her Electronic dry Cabinet for a couple of years and never been used, I feared that due to the age of lens, it may deteriorate the performance and quality of the lense even if it is properly kept. But upon checking and through the help of your other video about what to check when purchasing pre-owned lenses and other videos as well, it was pretty sharp, it was fast&very silent focusing, love the weight, and i can even convince my co-photographers that i bought it brand new hahaha lol😂
Random dude Yes I had used it recently during our company out of town trip, and it was sharp, it focus so fast, no focus issue at all, it's really a pro grade lens for dx, it. Got some weight(800g) and i love it.
This and 16-80mm video saved me from buying the latter lens. Thanks for that! But I will have to end up buying 17-55mm new, as in AU you can't find a second hand one - there's only one on eBay and focal length rubber is loose which scares me away from buying. Crap... but if you say it's a killer lens, I will probably buy a new one...
The rubber sleeve for the zoom ring is available online from nikon for about $3.00 USD. At that price, I bought two and they arrived in the mail in about a week. You just slip them on and go... no gluing or anything like that.
Bought one for $699 on Ebay to use on my D500 and it comes tomorrow. I'm going to put it up against my Nikon 16-80 and see which get's to stay in my bag.
I sold the 16-80. I liked that lens a little more than you did, but you where correct (as usual) the 17-55 f2/8 is a home run. It is a boat anchor but it's worth lugging it around. Love it! Thanks Angry. BTW this is the second lens I bought on your say so, the other was the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. I also bought a Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro and was dying to put them head to head but my new D810 bit the dust so it went back to B&H and they sent me a brand new one a few days later. It comes in two days and can't wait. Have a good one Angry.
incredible lens youll be so happy with, true SWM motor, even though its a "bit old" its actually fast as shit (faster than many new lenses), and the output is incredible :) got 2 of em '
Theoria Apophasis thank you bro. I hope it will make me happy. I was very unhappy with the 70-200 f2.8 Vii ( never sharp at f2.8 and bad colors). This one will be my elephants 🐘/ nature and habitat lens
So , is this lens superior to sigma 17-50 f2.8 DC OS HSM ? Sigma costs half the price of a used nikkor 17-55. I know that you hate almost all sigma lenses though. I d really like to see a comparison between sigma and nikkor .
Owned the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, in fact, three copies to get one that worked correctly. Noticed an overall yellowish cast to my photos I did not care for on one copy but not another. Controls worked backwards compared to my most used Nikkors. But certainly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 17-55. I cannot truthfully say that I saw image quality differences on most photos, except portraits between the last Sigma (the first one that worked) and the Nikon however. With portraits, the Nikon images looked less "flat" and I much preferred them. I got frustrated with Sigma's so-called quality control and plastic feel and gave up on it. I sold the one that worked to my buddy who has it on a D7000 and he loves it though. He especially likes the stabilization, because he has little experience so far with holding a camera. So, I took the $300 I got for it, added $200 to it, and found happiness (for me at least) with the Nikon 17-55. Cheers.
Oct 2022 I casually click on one of these for sale FB group. Next I log into UA-cam - and this video is top of my feed. Creepy Coincidence? Next thing I'll be getting social credit points PMSL 🤣
The timing of this vid was perfect , Angry does this sound like a deal to you?? : 17-55mm 2.8 + 70-300 VR + a D200 + accessories and a Lowepro backpack. All for 1000$ I alrdy got the D7100, the D200 would be like my warrior body. Forgot to mention all second hand mint condition.
Impressive lens because of its size, weight and price. It's an old lens that was paired to old Nikon professional bodies like D2x. Too expensive for a DX lens. The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is affordable, lightweight and razor sharp. I prefer the Sigma.
@@TheMetalmaniac21 the balance is fine, unless you want to put in a gimbal or something. Tripods deal with it well enough. But it's a heavy lens as you said, be prepared for some arm workout. Worth the results.
I tested this lens the Nikon 17-50 f2 .8 using two different camera bodies. Over several hours using a proffesional sturdy tripod. The D500 Nikon and the D600 Nikon. I compared this lens at F2 .8 with the Tokina 100 mm F2.8 prime lens and the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 DI VC USD G2. With The test subject was black-and-white and color print. The size of the letters were from small to very large. The test was done on a very good professional tripod to insure the cameras were not moving at all. All photographs were done with the cameras set on f2.8. The result with this 17 to 55 mm Nikon that I bought off eBay and I now think is a lemon because I don't think it is good as some of the other ones I have seen pictures of on the net. Is this. The sharpness was abysmal with this lens. I mean trash bad. Now using the Tokina lens which by the way is a lens to die for because it is so good was crispy sharp and also very beautiful with the colors coming out fantastic. The same with the Tamron Crispy sharp with great color and just look great When set at f2.8. But with this lens the 17-55 f2.8 that I got off eBay was it was not sharp in the least. But remember with my limited knowledge of how to describe things other than sharpness I believe there are other factors that made the pictures at F2 .8 abysmal and I mean abysmal. But to give this lens it's due I have seen other pictures on the net set it at f2.8 and they look great.
NIKKOR 17-55 2.8 DX for US$600 or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for US$250 ?? This sigma is very high ranked both in dxomark and between photographers. The cheaper have the advantage of leaviing me money for filters etc.
This lens was actually the "last straw" that pushed me to upgrade to D750 from DX. In my country, this lens cost about US$1200, and the D750 costs US$1300. I've used it once from a rental store, and I was really disappointed about it at the 55mm end. I hope it was a bad copy, otherwise Nikon is asking too much for this lens.
+Aaron Yang ouch, yeah, too much ..... well i got this copy ages ago for $450 i said in the video "no WAY buy this NEW" . You apparently got a bad copy however :/ but all wide zooms have issues at either end , some more than others.
Yeah, but very very people bought this lens, so it's next to impossible to buy this lens used domestically. I would have bought it if it was $450. But I guess I am spoiled with the quality of prime lenses to go back.
Hey thank you for all your great info, it really helps to have someone that is honest and with so much real experience doing reviews. Also love the way you don't earn any money on your opinions, makes them even the more valid. Could you give me some advice, I am a no way a professional photographer, just do this as a great hobby, and shoot the occasional event etc. Also, I don't have a huge budget. My equipment is listed below, is there any lens that I should sell, or any that is missing that I definitely should have? Cameras: D300 (Being Replaced by D500), D3300 (Wife’s)Lenses: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens (Came with D300) Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Vibration Reduction Fixed Lens with Auto Focus Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D Fixed Zoom Lens with Auto Focus Tokina AT-X116PRDXN AT-X PRO DX 11-16mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II Zoom Lens (Came with D3300)Thank you in advance!
He had mentioned quite a few times actually. He said it was hard to find under $800, so he didn't recommend it. The build on that lens is very sturdy and it looks very similar to this lens, especially the hood.
Take a look at some of the images from the flickr group that Ken posted above. I'm happy with mine and it's built to last. Very quick focus. Far from perfect but it's worth $600 used and was built for a dx system. Great wedding lens for dx shooters. CA is not the best.
For me this lens was trash for sharpness at f2.8 when set on tripod testing print black and white. I had to go to f5 to get decent sharpness. Maybe I bought a lemon off ebay or this lens is trash when it is set on f2.8 on my test. Someone please "show me" I am wrong so I can buy a good one but I am afraid. Fool me once I can recover. Fool me twice and then I am the fool.
Konnichiwa. Ja sam dobro. Kako si ti? Govorite li hrvatski, serbski? Adorama has bad packaging? The sweat forms upon my brow. God I hope the 400mm 3.5 made it to Oz ok.
Hi Ken . already the owner of the nikon d500 and nikon 16-80 . Ive got some great shots with my 16-80 but now have a chance to get my hands of a very good condition nikon 17-55 . my question is to you should i buy the 17-55 and trade off my 16-80 ? what difference will i get from owning the 17-55? regards kenny
Thank you for the recommendation, followed your tips and after using it for 6 months on my D7500 couldn’t be happier. Ended up selling my kits lens off on EBay. This baby blows them away.
Bought the 17-55 off your recommendation, and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the photos. Love you man!!
Hi there, Is this still a great lens in 2021? I am just getting into photography as a hobby, (Mainly landscape, cityscape and architectural photography). Looking to use as a go-to lens on a D7200.
still the best
@@KenTheoriaApophasis Awesome! Thanks! I’m About to hoof the sigma and shop for one of these. I was originally looking at the 16-80mm until I watched your video on it. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
i just traded in my Nikon D800 for a D500 and bought a used Nikkor 17-55 2.8 from a NY camera store for 800 bucks in Exc+ shape. Can't wait! I have a D850 for my studio work and felt the D800 needed to be upgraded. Love your reviews and your overthetop attitude!
Not a professional photographer just enjoy it as a hobby. I was convinced dropping ~$2500 for a full frame mirrorless camera set up to upgrade from my dx camera. But after watching your objective videos I realised I don't need all that and will keep using the dx camera and ordered one of these lenses used for $509. I know I can get some fantastic shots with it. Thanks!
I bought a used 17-55 sometime back for my D7000. Love this lens! Agree 100%... get it used!
If you leave the lens shade home, you can still fit a D7100 with the 17-55mm in a holster case. Put your SB800 case on the strap, and you have your goto setup. A little extra sharpening brings out the best in this lens.
Agreed! Man, I've got an 6 years old D3200 + 17-5mm + SB-800 and I'm impressed by the sharpness. LOVED IT
I need this lens in my life. The 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens just doesn't cut it for me anymore.
This is the only DX lens I still own for my D7000. Excellent lens.
Question for Ken - If I use it on my D850 - in crop mode (I haven't) - wouldn't it still be a 17-55mm rather than something equivalent to 26-82mm? Or am I getting this wrong?
ur photos would have the angle of view of a 27.2mm-88mm, with the compression and distortion of a 17mm-55mm lens. it’s just a lens of 17mm focal length on a cropped sensor (aps-c sensor is 63% of the area size of a fullframe, so you only get that much of the angle-of-view, giving you the narrower angle of view that a longer focal length lens would have). focal length is the distance between the optical center of the lens (where the light converges) and the sensor (where the light is recorded). this is meant to remain the same regardless of camera, so mounts are made.
I just got this lens and took a couple of portrait shots and there is something magic with the image at f2.8 that I can't put my finger on... Maybe it's the soft transition from the subject to the bokeh background? I don't know but loving it so far!!!
It is one of the best Nikkor DX lens. Everyone must Have one 17-55 2.8 for DX cameras .
I love my lens too, really has literally no distortion on 17mm!
I have several prime lenses in that zoom range. Feeling I dont need those anymore, holding my Nikkor DX 17-55mm on my D7200 most of the time.
I own a D500. A big camera store here in India is selling these lens brand new at around $750. They have 4 pieces but it seems no one's buying for some reasons. VR maybe...DX maybe..wanted to ask if the price is decent enough to go ahead or are there better options.?
New Life of the 17-55 2.8 on my Fuji X-H1 adapted with the fringer NF FX Autofocus adapter.Works great and it’s a perfect fit with IS of the X-H1.
I also remember specifically asking you about the 17-55mm, and you said it was crazy because it had a plastic lens element, and you'd never recommend it for DX. You also said to get the 17-35mm, because it was better. Today, it appears that the opposite is true.
I bought the lens anyway, and it turned out to be awesome. Funny you have no recollection of your previous opinion. What changed, you bought and tried it?
+Eric Sharpe the 17-35 is the one with the plastic in it, not the 17-55. If you actually did say the 17-55 then im in ERR and i fubar'd :/
Fair enough. Your lens recommendations are pretty well trusted. I got a nikkor 135mm 2.8, and it's as awesome as you said it was. This one just caught me off guard.
+Eric Sharpe its too damn expensive new, id never buy a new one :)
Ken, I am surprised by this review. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that you didn't especially care for this lens as it has two plastic elements. I bought mine for used for $600 on e-bay and love it with my D7200 and D7000.
+phillymanpete Yeah, I noticed that too. Almost like he shits on lenses he doesn't have.
+phillymanpete youre thinking of the 17-35 FX lens. Thats the stinky lens.
this is the 17-55 (which you and i both own of course)
+patio87 uhhhhh, nope, he was confusing the 17-35 i trashed with this , the 17-55
big diff.
I toured through Europe with this lens and my old d7000, loved it! :)
Joshua Photara sounds like a nice combo..
Just bought the 17-55 for my d500. It’s great!
Ok I’ve been searching the manual for a couple hours and I can’t find it. Maybe it’s a difference in terminology. I’m still relatively new to Nikon. On my Pentax I can link the exposure metering to the Autofocus points I’ve selected. Pentax calls it “Link AE to AF point”. That’s pretty easy.
What I want to do is this. I’m shooting in continuous autofocus using 25 auto focus points. I have metering set to center weighted. I want the camera to meter center weighted in the area I’ve set the group of 25 auto focus points (so if I'm to the right of the frame focused on a person then meter on that person). Where is the metering setting that links metering to the selected autofocus points? Thanks in advance. (It’s likely staring me in the face). Love the D500 but too use to 30 years shooting Pentax.
I’ve just purchased a D600 and I’m searching for a variable focal length lens. I’ve been looking at this lens as a possibility. I’m new at this, but I followed most of what you said. However I do not understand what you mean by “crop mode.” Since the D600 has a full sized sensor, should I be looking for a different or better lens instead? May I ask your recommendation?
I have noticed that some Nikon zoom lenses have the focus ring on the lens mount end of the lens and some have the focus ring on the filter end of the lens. Should I be concerned which end of the lens has the focus ring?
Guten Tag. :) I am considering getting this lens. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to try it out. How does this lens do with landscape photography? I tried the 16 - 80 kit lens on a D500, and at 16 mm, there is a lot of distortion. I also watched your review about the 16 - 80 lens and decided not to get it when I buy my D500. Just a note, I love landscape photography and of course taking pics of my dogs running and jumping on the beach.
Scored one for $300. Clean, quick, & sharp - great for b/w conversion.
Thoughts about Sigma 8-16? I wanted to get one of the old mf lenses but i don't think they work on d3100, only 7000 series?
Size and weight of this lens is great! Probably my favorite zoom.
Hello Ken thanks for tons of information from your videos.anyway I bought this lens for 500 euro on ebay, I noticed that from 35mm up to 55 mm at f2.8 it is soft, compare to 17mm up to 35 mm.is it the same with your lens?
Hi Ken, after seeing this video maybe for 5 times 😅, I decided to go for it and I found a good one from an honest seller who told that he had it from 2008 and he showed me even the receipt, and I payed £350 for it here in the UK.
The question is:
Is it normal for the zoom ring to be quite stiff??
I called Nikon and they said just send it, and I'm afraid that this might cost a fortune 😩
The zoom ring is working all throughout the focal length. However, starts to be stiff on the both ends (especially between 45-55).
To be more specific, one finger is extremely difficult to use in these ends (I think that might help), and you can hear a friction sound inside it, like it needs a lubricant or so.
So should I really send it to Nikon just to check it if this normal or not??
Or just live with it??
Apart from this stiffness, this lens is a hell of a beast (the best ever on DX).
I have D7200
Looking forward to hearing from you
Thanks
Ahmed Abduljabbar based on what u have said, i think you should send it to nikon for repair.
Just leave it be if it can focus on the wide and long end and your pictures are sharp. I mean you paid a bargain for this lens. If you were to send it for service you might as well got one in mint condition to start with. Besides it seems that it has not been used for a wile. Sometimes they do loosen up a little after being used again.
Hihi has anyone used this lens on FX camera without using the in body crop? I've seen videos where they say that there is no vignette when used on FX sensor
Hey there,just checking out this lens for my nikon d300.
I have found a deal for 250 usd,lens has a little fungus inside it though.
Shall i go and buy it?i would like your thoughts on this,thank you
Hey Angry Ken :) I just bought this lens (used) after watching your review. It is so good and fast focusing!!! It's sharp too. But I tested with nikkor 40mm 2.8 on same 40mm and they are sharp equal. On some photos I will give advantage to 40mm 2.8. but i love my new lens 17-55 on nikon D7100.
Software2 Hardware hows your experience with it now and what do you use it for ?
Should i sell my sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex dc os hsm for this Lens? Any advice would be appreciated 🙏
Hello. I have the D7200 and lenses 11-20, 35, 50, 70-200, and looking for something between 20-35. Based on your reviews I am considering this 17-55, but don´t really need the 35-55 focal length on i this. May you recommend this or either other lens? Also suitable for video.
A great lens. Shot weddings, christenings, parties with it on my trusty D7000. Was never let down. After my switch to FX I replaced with a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. Also a good lens, well made, reliable. But it doesn't produce those "magic" pictures. I was too cheap back then to justify a new Nikkor 24-70. Should have gotten a used Nikkor for the price of the new Tamron now that I think about it...
As a walk around lens, well it depends on how far you have to walk. I bought my 17-55mm because there was no better alternative in a performance wide-to-tele zoom. The D7100 is a moderately heavy camera so I have no problem with the balance. The contrast is so good in this lens that it is simply a matter of moving the sharpness slider a little farther to see an outstanding image.
hi brother, I was reading your comments, would you recommend this to sigma 18-35? I have the d7100
I don't know if Ken has reviewed the Sigma 18-35mm, I have never used it. The Sigma 18-35mm would be considered a wide-angle zoom, not a wide-angle to telephoto zoom, when used on a D7100.
Got a mint copy, however didn't properly check for dust beforehand. Cosmetically it's excellent, but the IQ is very soft. Currently quite disappointed, will however give it a few chances more in case AF auto adjustments / my technique are to blame more than the lens itself.
Mare Vare It has severe backfocusing, I have sent it to Nikon for repair.
Glad you got around to reviewing this lens, getting it for my D7100. It is hard to review every lens out there. I am going for a used one myself.
just picked up a min example of this lens ,no box no paperworkbut the lens is mint payed 350 Euros i couldnot be happier with this bad boy thanks for the raccomendation
Would you choose the Nikon 17-55 or Sigma 18-35?
I would go with a used in good condition Nikon 17-55 over the Sigma, which I am selling. The Sigma is a great lens. It's heavy, the range of 18-35 is limited, and you really need the USB Dock if you want to use the lens at 1.8. Still, the Sigma is a fine lens, and much less expensive, new.
Hi! Sorry to bother you, but I just bougth a used lens like this. The zoom seems to be hard to turn Close to 17 and 55. in the middle it is almoust no friction if you know what I man.Is it worn or is it suppose to be like this. The lens is not as Sharp as I expected either, but I havent tryed It much yet.
it is stiff at both ends, but do you need MORE than 2 fingers to zoom it??……. define "not as sharp"
I dont need that much force. Like you say, a little stiff at both ends. I have only used it iside With bad light yet but it do not seem that sharper then my kitlens 18-55DX. A little more difference on D300 then D500
Some people say Sigma 18-35 F1.8 is better than this lens?They say it's sharper,but i don't think sharpness is everything...
Honest question.... Do I still need my 50mm 1.8? I just picked up this 17-55 used.
Yes the 1.8 at 50mm is superior to the 17-55 at 50mm and perfect for portraits.
I bought one used for $600. Like new, without a mark on it. I use it (back up to the my d750 and 24-70 2.8) as a wedding lens for my d7100. I know it's very expensive but used, reasonable for a 2.8 and appears to be well built.
Hi Ken . already the owner of the nikon d500 and nikon 16-80 . Ive got some great shots with my 16-80 but now have a chance to get my hands of a very good condition nikon 17-55 . my question is to you should i buy the 17-55 and trade off my 16-80 ? what difference will i get from owning the 17-55? regards kenny
Reply
475 euros
500 euros
500 euros
this lens or the sigma 18 35 f1.8?
the 1.8 would be great for my astrophotography but the extra zoom of the nikon would be great for my day to day use.... :/
I could get bouth for $550.
Thank You:)!
Adrian K what did you end up getting? I’m in the same boat you were when you wrote this comment
@@Jeff26 same here!
I'm confused here... I asked about this specific lens during a live cast and you said it was crap! ???
+Marc North the 17-35 FX is crap (2 plastic elements, poor rendition),......the 17-55 DX (this lens) is NOT crap.
IF however you did indeed ask 17-55 then i had a brain communication-fart, and its my ERR.
17-35 sux
17-55 great (however id NEVER recommend anyone buy a new one for $1500) :( :( :(
I very much appreciate Ken's advice, he's spot on on most issues, but on this one I have to disagree. At least my copy of this lens is not good at all. At 55mm lousy even in the center. Maybe it's a bad copy. But never mind, I wanted to give Nikon another shot but I'll stay with my superb and lightweight Fuji lenses. :)
I currently have a d500 with a tamron 45mm. Would it be worth selling Tamron and replacing with this? thanks.
Coincidentally, I picked up this lens before seeing your video in like new condition for $500 with box, caps, and hood. I usually don't buy a lens without checking your recommendations first, but this vid had not yet been made. I fell in love with the lens on first use, and doubt I'll ever sell it.
Part of the joy of this lens, especially for an old film guy like me, is the feeling of holding a real professional instrument in one's hands, not a plastic wonder. You will probably laugh at me for buying such an old camera, but that same week, I bought a Nikon D300s in its original box with papers, that had 556 clicks on it, again for $500. This camera and lens seem made for each other and the lens rarely comes off that body. I've learned that for me, not every camera needs to be super high resolution or a low light performer in near dark. It too is a lot about "feel" and control layout.
I've also gotten excellent results with this lens on my D7100. I think people should keep in mind that this lens was introduced when DX was the only Nikon digital format, and pros were using it. The lens turned out to be better than the cameras of the day, but is a real stunner now on higher resolution DX. After the D500 has a little time to mature, i might get one and I am sure this lens would see a lot of use on that camera.
Thanks for confirming my choice in buying this lens, and I appreciate your videos.
It’s an amazing lens. I will be buried with it. Perfect 24-70 for DX. Killer with the D300.
is it good for the d7200
thanks for info Ken, now have 17-55mm on D500 and D810, very good deal at £350 !
how will this lens work under video usage? still a good buy? I have a Nikon D750.
Ken, Is the lens you are mentioning different from the AF-S Nikkor 17-55 F/2.8 G ED DX ?
That's the lens he's speaking of.
I don't know if I got a lemon or these lenses are not quite as good as I thought they would be. I compared it after many hours of taking photographs with this lens compared to the Tokina 100mm f2.8 and also the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI VC USD G2. I shot everything at f-stop of 2.8. The tokina was tack sharp and so beautiful at F2 .8. The tokina is a lens to die for it is so great. Also the Tamron was beautiful and tack sharp at f2.8 and looked just fabulous. However I must say I was extremely disappointed in the performance of this Nikon 17 to 55 mm when set at f2.8. All the photographs were very fuzzy compared to my other two lenses. And I took so so many pictures it was always the same. Therefore I'm selling this lens even though I've only had it a little while. Maybe this is a lemon and I really believe it is a lemon because other photo's I have seen on the net set at f2.8 with lens look just fine . But After having been bitten on this lens don't want to try to get another lemon and I have to sell it again. So if I buy another lens like this I will make sure it is returnable. Because after seeing all the reviews I know this must be a good Lens.
Theoria Apophasis Thank you so much for this review, i just got a 2nd second hand for $745 which i might say in very prestine condition, looks and feels like brand new, clean lense,the zoom ring is still stiff, flawless, not even a smudge or scratch at the rear connectors, I meet up with the seller and found out the she only used it twice and switched to mirrorless because of its weight, it got stock on her Electronic dry Cabinet for a couple of years and never been used, I feared that due to the age of lens, it may deteriorate the performance and quality of the lense even if it is properly kept. But upon checking and through the help of your other video about what to check when purchasing pre-owned lenses and other videos as well, it was pretty sharp, it was fast&very silent focusing, love the weight, and i can even convince my co-photographers that i bought it brand new hahaha lol😂
Lloyd Lausa have you gotten around to using it ?
Random dude Yes I had used it recently during our company out of town trip, and it was sharp, it focus so fast, no focus issue at all, it's really a pro grade lens for dx, it. Got some weight(800g) and i love it.
What's your recommendation of the Tokina 24-70? or can you recommend something similar? thanks!
+Daniel Clarke i cant recommend it at all, however many people love it to pieces.
lol what would you recommend then?
for what camera? for what budget? for what use?
D750. I took your recommendation on the 20mm 1.8G and the 80-200 and just need something in between that. Ill pay the money for a good lens
define IN BETWEEN? for what use and budget?? :)
This and 16-80mm video saved me from buying the latter lens. Thanks for that! But I will have to end up buying 17-55mm new, as in AU you can't find a second hand one - there's only one on eBay and focal length rubber is loose which scares me away from buying. Crap... but if you say it's a killer lens, I will probably buy a new one...
well i could find one and ship it to you
Wow, didn't expect that... I mean that would make me save so much and be so grateful...
would you do the same for me:)
I'm in canada
The rubber sleeve for the zoom ring is available online from nikon for about $3.00 USD. At that price, I bought two and they arrived in the mail in about a week. You just slip them on and go... no gluing or anything like that.
Bought one for $699 on Ebay to use on my D500 and it comes tomorrow. I'm going to put it up against my Nikon 16-80 and see which get's to stay in my bag.
D Hollister interested in a followup
I sold the 16-80. I liked that lens a little more than you did, but you where correct (as usual) the 17-55 f2/8 is a home run. It is a boat anchor but it's worth lugging it around. Love it! Thanks Angry. BTW this is the second lens I bought on your say so, the other was the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. I also bought a Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro and was dying to put them head to head but my new D810 bit the dust so it went back to B&H and they sent me a brand new one a few days later. It comes in two days and can't wait. Have a good one Angry.
Hi buddy!!
Whould u recommend it for landscape?
Thanks ; )
Just ordered this form Nikon ( refurbished for 999- 600 discount to brand new ) thank you bro
incredible lens youll be so happy with, true SWM motor, even though its a "bit old" its actually fast as shit (faster than many new lenses), and the output is incredible :)
got 2 of em '
Theoria Apophasis thank you bro. I hope it will make me happy. I was very unhappy with the 70-200 f2.8 Vii ( never sharp at f2.8 and bad colors). This one will be my elephants 🐘/ nature and habitat lens
Yeah i saw that nice video. I'm going to get it sometime in Q1 2017 ( saving now :)
So , is this lens superior to sigma 17-50 f2.8 DC OS HSM ?
Sigma costs half the price of a used nikkor 17-55.
I know that you hate almost all sigma lenses though.
I d really like to see a comparison between sigma and nikkor .
Owned the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, in fact, three copies to get one that worked correctly. Noticed an overall yellowish cast to my photos I did not care for on one copy but not another. Controls worked backwards compared to my most used Nikkors. But certainly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 17-55. I cannot truthfully say that I saw image quality differences on most photos, except portraits between the last Sigma (the first one that worked) and the Nikon however. With portraits, the Nikon images looked less "flat" and I much preferred them.
I got frustrated with Sigma's so-called quality control and plastic feel and gave up on it. I sold the one that worked to my buddy who has it on a D7000 and he loves it though. He especially likes the stabilization, because he has little experience so far with holding a camera. So, I took the $300 I got for it, added $200 to it, and found happiness (for me at least) with the Nikon 17-55. Cheers.
+Tom Crawford thanks for your reply ,very helpful!
I m leaning towards to the nikkor!
Oct 2022 I casually click on one of these for sale FB group. Next I log into UA-cam - and this video is top of my feed. Creepy Coincidence? Next thing I'll be getting social credit points PMSL 🤣
The timing of this vid was perfect , Angry does this sound like a deal to you?? : 17-55mm 2.8 + 70-300 VR + a D200 + accessories and a Lowepro backpack. All for 1000$ I alrdy got the D7100, the D200 would be like my warrior body.
Forgot to mention all second hand mint condition.
Hey angry... 16-80mm Dx f2.8-4E vr lens,,, would like to no more about this lens, if you can make a video about it thanks... Love your videos..
Know
+Victor de la Cruz I read it's not so good for the money.. small sample size though
Impressive lens because of its size, weight and price. It's an old lens that was paired to old Nikon professional bodies like D2x. Too expensive for a DX lens. The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is affordable, lightweight and razor sharp. I prefer the Sigma.
I have the sigma and mine seems quite dull. I'm always kind of disappointed with the results. I'm getting this one to see if I get better results.
One Question other task, would you say that Nikkor 50mm 1.8 G is a better Portrait Lens than the Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art in Matters of Image quality
Yes I'd say its a better portrait lens, although the sigma is a better lens, but in a different class
I got this for $450 on my D7100 and it's super awesome for DX with razor fast auto focus and superb build quality.
Man, I've got an 6 years old D3200 + 17-5mm + SB-800 and I'm impressed by the sharpness. LOVED IT
@@TheMetalmaniac21 the balance is fine, unless you want to put in a gimbal or something. Tripods deal with it well enough. But it's a heavy lens as you said, be prepared for some arm workout. Worth the results.
Shot with mine on a D3200 for a while which is 24 mega pixel camera as
you know and it was impressive....IMO. This is built like a tank too.
I tested this lens the Nikon 17-50 f2 .8 using two different camera bodies. Over several hours using a proffesional sturdy tripod. The D500 Nikon and the D600 Nikon. I compared this lens at F2 .8 with the Tokina 100 mm F2.8 prime lens and the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 DI VC USD G2. With The test subject was black-and-white and color print. The size of the letters were from small to very large. The test was done on a very good professional tripod to insure the cameras were not moving at all. All photographs were done with the cameras set on f2.8. The result with this 17 to 55 mm Nikon that I bought off eBay and I now think is a lemon because I don't think it is good as some of the other ones I have seen pictures of on the net. Is this. The sharpness was abysmal with this lens. I mean trash bad. Now using the Tokina lens which by the way is a lens to die for because it is so good was crispy sharp and also very beautiful with the colors coming out fantastic. The same with the Tamron Crispy sharp with great color and just look great When set at f2.8. But with this lens the 17-55 f2.8 that I got off eBay was it was not sharp in the least. But remember with my limited knowledge of how to describe things other than sharpness I believe there are other factors that made the pictures at F2 .8 abysmal and I mean abysmal. But to give this lens it's due I have seen other pictures on the net set it at f2.8 and they look great.
Bought it used in excellent condition last year for 264€. Great lens!
How does it stand up to the 24-70
Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 EX OS for $230 or this lens for $550 for my D7200?
+Oscar E Lora Mendez THIS lens for $550, helllll yes.
DXO Mark says otherwise... I know...I know...Thanks for the response
I picked this lens up for $400 tax free in flawless condition from a pawn shop about 2 months ago, AP. The tits!!! can't wait to purchase the d500
awesome damn lens !
Theoria Apophasis for sure
It is a Top lens for DX. The best mid range zoom made by Nikon . Much better than Sigma and Tamron. It is amazing on a D500.
NIKKOR 17-55 2.8 DX for US$600 or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for US$250 ??
This sigma is very high ranked both in dxomark and between photographers.
The cheaper have the advantage of leaviing me money for filters etc.
someone?
The Sigma is a better lens. Cheaper, lighter, razor sharp. The Nikkor lens is a totem. Only its build quality is superior.
This lens was actually the "last straw" that pushed me to upgrade to D750 from DX.
In my country, this lens cost about US$1200, and the D750 costs US$1300.
I've used it once from a rental store, and I was really disappointed about it at the 55mm end.
I hope it was a bad copy, otherwise Nikon is asking too much for this lens.
+Aaron Yang ouch, yeah, too much ..... well i got this copy ages ago for $450
i said in the video "no WAY buy this NEW" . You apparently got a bad copy however :/
but all wide zooms have issues at either end , some more than others.
Yeah, but very very people bought this lens, so it's next to impossible to buy this lens used domestically.
I would have bought it if it was $450.
But I guess I am spoiled with the quality of prime lenses to go back.
can i put in on my D500
Frank Bosvelt: Yes.....I have a D500 and this is the lens I use it with most of the time.
Hey thank you for all your great info, it really helps to have someone that is honest and with so much real experience doing reviews. Also love the way you don't earn any money on your opinions, makes them even the more valid. Could you give me some advice, I am a no way a professional photographer, just do this as a great hobby, and shoot the occasional event etc. Also, I don't have a huge budget. My equipment is listed below, is there any lens that I should sell, or any that is missing that I definitely should have?
Cameras: D300 (Being Replaced by D500), D3300 (Wife’s)Lenses: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens (Came with D300)
Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Vibration Reduction Fixed Lens with Auto Focus
Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D Fixed Zoom Lens with Auto Focus
Tokina AT-X116PRDXN AT-X PRO DX 11-16mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens
Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus
NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II Zoom Lens (Came with D3300)Thank you in advance!
seems you never review or mention the 28-70 f2.8d
+Kai Liu I swear to god he's mentioned it a few times
+Ben M good or bad? I watch many many video, never remember he mention that lens
He had mentioned quite a few times actually. He said it was hard to find under $800, so he didn't recommend it. The build on that lens is very sturdy and it looks very similar to this lens, especially the hood.
+Benjamin Huy Pham I think the price dropped. now quite many around $700 on ebay.
+Kai Liu I didn't know that. $700 is a good price, but considering the 24-70g can be had for around $1k, what would you choose if you had a choice?
Привет! Добрый вечер! :) Очень интересные видео про фототехнику!
This is my always on camera lens on my d7200. It's brilliant. And surprisingly sharp at 2.8 as well
Hi. Do you hear any noises when manual or auto focusing?
No "Hej"? /Disappointed Swede :)
Take a look at some of the images from the flickr group that Ken posted above. I'm happy with mine and it's built to last. Very quick focus. Far from perfect but it's worth $600 used and was built for a dx system. Great wedding lens for dx shooters. CA is not the best.
For me this lens was trash for sharpness at f2.8 when set on tripod testing print black and white. I had to go to f5 to get decent sharpness. Maybe I bought a lemon off ebay or this lens is trash when it is set on f2.8 on my test. Someone please "show me" I am wrong so I can buy a good one but I am afraid. Fool me once I can recover. Fool me twice and then I am the fool.
Konnichiwa. Ja sam dobro. Kako si ti? Govorite li hrvatski, serbski?
Adorama has bad packaging? The sweat forms upon my brow. God I hope the 400mm 3.5 made it to Oz ok.
Can I use this with d5500
those cannot drive a screw drive lens
@@KenTheoriaApophasis ok thanks but isn't this an AF-S?
Hi Ken . already the owner of the nikon d500 and nikon 16-80 . Ive got some great shots with my 16-80 but now have a chance to get my hands of a very good condition nikon 17-55 . my question is to you should i buy the 17-55 and trade off my 16-80 ? what difference will i get from owning the 17-55? regards kenny
used, theyre everywhere........ contact used photo pro for a copy also :)
thats not answering my questions ????????
Guten Morgen :D
hey wat abt the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 art lens
+sanath overpriced poorly made super-junk :)
+Theoria Apophasis same as 1.4 50?
Dobra večer on Croatian..
+roki977 good eve to you too man :)
I just shot a wedding with that lens and a d800 :-)
Hihi were u using the in body crop? If not, is there any vignette?
16 80mm destroys it on my D500.