Introduction
For many years, I have only used a zoom lens for the 70-200mm focal range. All of my wide angle and normal focal length work has been done with primes (fixed focal length lenses). For most of the history of photography, primes have yielded better image quality than zoom lenses. Nikon's 24mm f/2.8 AF-D,
35mm f/2.0 AF-D, and
50mm f/1.8 AF-D have all been stellar performers in terms of their speed, image quality, and durability. As my work has progressed into faster-paced photojournalism, I realized that changing lenses during an assignment might be costing me some shots. Additionally, changing lenses increases the risk of debris entering the camera. I decided to consider a Nikon zoom lens to take the place of my aforementioned three favorite primes. Three potential contenders became apparent: 1) Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, 2) Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8, and 3) Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8.
The Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 really is an impressive performer. It has very fast and accurate autofocus, decent build quality, and very good image quality except at the widest angle and widest apertures. However, after using it for several weeks, I found the slower aperture, poor zoom action, and vignetting to be not ideal for my work. If these are not limiting factors for you, I highly recommend this lens, especially considering its more than reasonable price tag. Read my review
here.
The Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 is an even more impressive performer. Built to professional standards, this lens yields superb image quality, fast and accurate autofocus, and it lets in a ton of light thanks to its large constant f/2.8 aperture. However, it has less reach and costs more than the Nikon 17-55mm. Without noticeably better image quality, I simply couldn't justify losing focal length at a cost several hundred dollars more.
After awhile, I began hearing great things about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, so I seriously considered this lens as well. However, with its slower autofocus speed, rumors of questionable focus accuracy, and lower build quality, I decided to pass on it for the work that I do. If you don't place the demands on your equipment that I do, I strongly recommend considering this lens.
The field narrowed to the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, I decided to take out a third mortgage on the house and give it a try!
Features and Specifications
From the manufacturer's website:
- Focal Length: 17-55mm
- Maximum Aperture: f/2.8
- Picture Angle : 79 degrees 50 minutes- 28 degrees 50 minutes
- Lens Construction: 14 elements in 10 groups
- Lens Drive: Silent Wave Motor
- Extra Low Dispersion (ED) Lens: 3 Elements
- Aspherical Lens: 3 Elements All Glass
- Focusing Type: Internal Focus
- Minimum Shooting Distance: 14.2 in. to infinity
- Max. Reproduction Ratio: 1:5 (0.20 at Tele)
- Minimum F stop: 22
- Aperture Blade: 7 elements (Rounded)
- Lens Hood: HB-31
- Filter Size: 77mm
- Case: CL-1120 Soft Case
- Dimensions: Approx. 3.4 x 4.4 inches
- Weight: Approx. 26.6 oz.
- Included Accessories: HB-31 Hood, CL-1120 Case, 77mm lens cap, rear cap
As of December 2007, the lowest street price on the 17-55m f/2.8 is approximately $1250. If you can find one for this price, grab it because this model is often in short supply at the major online vendors due to high demand. Prices significantly below this amount are likely gray market products that do not carry Nikon's 5 year warranty.
Performance
Ergonomics
The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is not small. Nor is it light. If you want to let in a lot of light in a lens that is built to take the abuse a pro can dish out, it's not going to be small or light. If you don't need these professional level features, don't buy this lens. The Nikon 18-70mm will give you a lot of what this lens will at a fraction of the price, weight, and size. Otherwise, the ergonomics of the 17-55mm are good. The large diameter feels comfortable in my hand, and the weight balances fairly well on my
Nikon D200 body with the MB-D200 grip attached. Still, it is a little front heavy and you'll put on some muscle after shooting with it for awhile (added health bonus!). The all-metal body has a nice textured finish that is easy to grip when your hands aren't working one of the large, rubberized focus or zoom rings. Both rings are well-dampened and easy to use under any environmental conditions (snow, ice, rain, heat, you name it).
The included center-pinch lens cap is easy to get on and off, even with the included lens hood attached. The included lens hood is fairly easy to get on and off, with a little practice. When not in use, the lens hood can be stored reversed on the lens, keeping it close at hand for future use. Doing so limits access to the manual focus ring, but this has usually not been a problem for me. Also included is Nikon's soft case, which offers little protection for professional use with its unpadded suede and drawstring closure, but works well for keeping dust off the lens when storing it at how. Actually, I've never done this because I would never store this lens - I use it on nearly every assignment. I much prefer the type of case included with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S, which is made from tough nylon with light padding and double zipper closure, and can actually be used in the field.
Build Quality
As I've come to expect from Nikon's fast lenses, build quality is second to none. The all metal lens mount and lens barrel are nearly indestructible. A rubber gasket around the lens mount greatly reduces the possibility of water and dust penetration. Indeed, after suffering through many thunderstorms and dust storms without any external protection, nothing has managed to penetrate this lens' defenses. This lens is truly built to professional standards and easily stands up to the weekly (and often daily) abuse I subject it to. It has taken a few hits on car floors, door frames, and rocky ground without any trouble. Maybe I need to abuse it more because I haven't even been able to chip off any paint yet. Need some scars to keep my street cred.
Focus and Zoom
The AF-S focus in this lens is very fast, as is the case with all of Nikon's AF-S lenses. Similar to Canon's USM system, this system focuses through the use of ultrasonic waves and thereby allows for nearly silent focusing. Focus speed is also greatly improved. Well-lit subjects require less than one second of focus time. Poorly lit subjects can require 1-2 seconds, but this depends on the contrast of the subject as well as which focus point is selected (the center focus point seems to have the quickest focusing). On my D200, I've watched this lens hunt a little in very low light, but eventually lock focus in most cases. I've noticed the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4-5 will hunt for the same subject a little more, but eventually lock focus as well. Of course, there are subjects that have so little contrast that neither lens will lock focus regardless of how brightly lit the subject is. With full time manual override, a quick twist of the wrist solves this problem, thanks to the smooth focus ring of the Nikon 17-55mm. The well-dampened focus ring makes critically accurate manual focusing fairly easy, and slightly more so than the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Autofocus accuracy is also excellent, even in low light. My out of focus shots are rare, and most often attributable to user error.
Image Quality
(UPDATED September 3, 2007)
My image quality standards are uncompromising. If a lens is soft or suffers from significant distortion, I notice almost instantly. With the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, image quality has never been a concern. It is sometimes sharper in the center than my Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D and 35mm f/2.0 AF-D primes. I didn't believe that until I saw it, but it can do it. My
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S is sharper, but it is one of the sharpest lenses available anywhere. In this regard, these lenses compliment each other nicely. From 20mm to 50mm, the Nikon 17-55mm has good sharpness from f/3.5 - f/11. From 17mm to 20mm, this lens is sharp from f/4.0 - f/11. Corner softness (and some minor center softness) is detectable from 17mm to 20mm at f/2.8 - f/3.5, and from 51mm to 55mm at most apertures. It is important to note that this softness is mostly on the edges of the frame, occupying approximately 10% of the area from the edge toward the center. The amount of softness in these areas is not usually objectionable, but different people have different ideas about what a $1300 lens should do. Somewhat disappointingly, the overall sharpness level of this lens is slightly less than my Nikon 18-70mm AF-S.
Only minor vignetting is present at 17mm - 20mm at f/2.8 and not to objectionable levels. Most of the time, I don't notice it, even with a uniform background. Beyond this focal range and aperture, no vignetting is evident, even with a UV filter and the lens hood attached.
As with any wide angle lens, you will find some curvature of straight lines near the edge at the shorter focal lengths. For this reason, I can't really recommend this lens for architectural work. That being said, this type of distortion, known as barrel distortion, is well controlled on this lens and is really only a slight problem between 17mm and 22mm. Otherwise, I rarely worry about barrel distortion with this lens. Overall, the barrel distortion of this lens is not worse than my Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, which was a happy surprise to me. However, field curvature is a problem with this lens, which is unpleasantly surprising. My 18-70mm does not suffer from this problem.
The Nikon 17-55mm's Bokeh is very nice. I think my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 has an even nicer bokeh, but this 17-55mm doesn't disappoint. The defocused background looks very smooth and natural, which improves the appeal of the subject.
Although I didn't notice them initially, chromatic aberrations are noticeable in a few too many of the images I've captured with this lens. Although they are usually not to objectionable levels, they can be easily noticed in certain situations. Once again, I've been disappointed to see more of them with this lens than my 18-70mm AF-S Nikkor.
Color rendition is stunning when this lens is attached to the D200. Colors appear natural and saturated with just enough "pop" to let you feel them without getting "Disney" (over-saturated). At least some of this credit goes to the D200, which has the best color rendition of any digital camera I have used.
Perhaps my biggest concern with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is its tendency to produce flare. That being said, it is still a minor concern. I had read other reviews which cite this as a significant problem with this lens. So far, I disagree with this statement. If a light source is in the frame, almost any lens can flare. If a light source is just outside the frame, the same is true. When I have a light source just outside my frame that is producing flare, I simply put the lens hood on and watch it disappear, in most cases. After months of use, I can't convince myself that I've had significantly more flare problems with this lens than any other Nikon or Canon lens. I would be willing to say that I've experience
slightly more flare with this lens, but it has not caused me any missed shots.
----------
UPDATE: A comparison with the Nikon AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED
Something has bothered me about the Nikon 17-55mm AF-S lens since the day I bought it. It’s very difficult to put my finger on. I’ve found myself strangely drawn to the Nikon 18-70mm AF-S lens the more I used the 17-55mm lens. I say strangely because the 17-55mm does nearly everything you’d expect a $1300 lens to do. So, for my own benefit, I decided to make a list of what I like and don’t like about each lens.
In favor of the 17-55mm AF-S f/2.8:
- Professional build quality. This lens is built to take it, whatever “it” is. Solid metal with weather sealing. Hard to find a more well constructed lens. In the nasty weather I tend to find myself in, this is ideal. Interestingly, the 18-70mm has a full rubber seal around the lens mount, so even though the 17-55mm is certainly a more durable lens, the 18-70mm isn’t a piece of junk either.
- Precise zooming. This zoom ring is very precise, probably down to a couple mm without much effort. However, it is very stiff and requires a little too much effort to move significant distances. This can impact a photographer’s workflow. How I wish Nikon could bring back the perfectly dampened zoom found on my old 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 AF AIS.
- Less barrel distortion at widest angles. There is still some, but it’s about 30% less than the 18-70mm. This is probably only critical when shooting things with really straight lines, such as buildings. With either lens, this distortion is correctable in photo editing software, but it does take some time.
- Less vignetting at large apertures. There is still some, but it’s a noticeable improvement over the 18-70mm. However, this is so easily corrected in photo editing software for both lenses, I’m not sure it’s really a big deal anymore.
- Good bokeh. Although it’s not the best I’ve seen, it is nicer than that of the 18-70mm. Since bokeh is a little less critical in my photojournalism, this isn’t really a big deal for me.
- Excellent contrast. Throughout its range, this Nikkor produces sufficient contrast for nearly any photographic purpose. The 18-70mm has decent contrast, but not quite as much as this lens.
- Constant maximum aperture. With noise levels as low as they are on the newer cameras (i.e. Nikon D300), I don’t really need f/2.8 any longer to grab those poorly lit scenes. However, having a constant aperture is nice because it’s one less thing I need to think about.
- Precise manual focusing. I rarely need to use manual focusing, but the 17-55mm works very well when I do need it. Not nearly as nice as most Nikon AIS lenses, but it does have better dampening than the 18-70mm.
In favor of the 18-70mm AF-S f/3.5-4.5:
- More reach. Even though I didn’t expect the extra 15mm to play a difference, especially since they’re on the long end of the lens, they do. I’ve been able to isolate subjects just a little more and in several cases, that made the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot. As an aside, I’ve shot with the 17-35mm f/2.8 and didn’t have this problem. I think this is because I didn’t expect it to do near-telephoto work, so I just instinctively reached for my other camera with a longer lens and got the shot. 55mm is just a strange place to stop on a DX sensor.
- Faster focusing. Both of these lenses have AF-S focus, but the 17-55mm needs to push heavier elements. This has a noticeable effect on focus speed. The 18-70mm is simply faster.
- Faster zooming. Despite its extra reach, the 18-70mm covers ground much faster and easier than the 17-55mm. However, the zoom precision is slightly below average, with changes of less than 5mm requiring too much effort.
- Less field curvature. Surprisingly, this lens produces noticeably less field curvature at its widest angles than the 17-55mm. The difference is visually significant and I’ve been unhappy to see it on my $1300 lens and not on my $300 lens that has more focal range!
- Fewer chromatic aberrations. Once again, I was surprised to find as many aberrations as I did on my $1300 17-55mm lens. They don't usually occur to objectionable levels and can be corrected with some photo editing software, but the 18-70mm does a better job at controlling this problem.
- More compact. This lens is half the size of the 17-55mm, which makes it much more maneuverable in tight spaces, and much less noticeable. I didn’t expect this would be a significant advantage, but it is. I also spend a lot less effort pulling it in and out of my camera bag. That seems trivial, but it can be important in a photographer’s workflow.
- Less weight. At half the weight of the 17-55mm, this lens is more maneuverable in this regard as well. Of course, after a long day of shooting, my body certainly prefers the 18-70mm. Since I’m also lugging around some professional telephotos, every little bit of weight reduction helps. In a less than ideal shooting situation, I can even preset the 18-70mm and shoot one handed. That’s pretty difficult on the 17-55mm.
- Sharper at extreme focal lengths. It’s hard to believe, but I’ve done the tests and seen it with my own eyes. Even at its widest aperture, the 18-70mm is slightly sharper at 18mm and at 70mm, than the 17-55mm is at 17mm and 55mm. Sure, you
might be able to find
slightly greater sharpness at middle focal lengths on the 17-55mm at a specific aperture, but overall the 17-55mm is not a sharper lens.
- Much, much less expensive. For a price difference of $1000, I can’t believe I’m debating this any longer.
Both lenses have the following in common:
- Identical soft case, which is mostly worthless in the field. Really these can only be used for storing the camera. I find it hard to believe that Nikon included such a worthless case with a $1300 lens.
- Rubber gasket around the entire lens mount. I was pleasantly surprised to find the same rubber seal around the 18-70mm lens mount that is on the 17-55mm. Definitely helpful for keeping out moisture and dust.
- Nikon five year warranty. When purchased in the United States as a non-imported lens, both of these lenses carry this same great warranty.
Comparison Conclusions
So, even if my 18-70mm doesn’t resist rain or snow or hail or a few hard hits as well, or even if it doesn’t produce perfect bokeh, I’ll take it. I do worry about the mechanical durability of the 18-70mm a little, but not so much with a five year warranty. If something fails after that time, I can buy three more of these and still have a few bucks left over for dinner with the money I’ve saved. Am I just talking the talk? Nope, I just sold my 17-55mm and bought a 18-70mm. When image quality is paramount, I can use a prime (such as the 24mm f/2.8) and get slightly better image quality than either of these lenses.
Conclusions
The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 G ED-IF AF-S DX is expensive, but puts in a really good performance and is unlikely to disappoint. However, it is not any sharper than Nikon's $300 18-70mm AF-S lens. In other words, it's price-to-image quality ratio is much less than that of the 18-70mm AF-S.
Adorama
