you really have to have a mid-range zoom for
your digital SLR.
pro-quality, mid-range zoom in Nikon's DX series of lenses,
intended to bring back the 28-80mm* angle of view for
digital bodies with 1.5x angle of view conversion. Here's
the lens mounted on my Nikon D70.
*People keep giving me grief about this, saying that 1.5 x 17 = 25.5. Okay, but in reality it's something more like 1.54 x 17.6 (=27). Markings have long been rounded on products. My statement here is effectively correct, if not 100% mathematically accurate. Elsewhere in the article, I'll use 1.54 x 17 just to keep you nitpickers happy.
elements in 10 groups; 3 aspheric, and 3 ED elements.
focus override, AF-S lens focusing motor, internal
77mm filter size. Comes with HB-31 hood. Focuses to
110mm long, 26.6 ounces (755g).
the introduction of digital SLRs (DSLRs), many photographers
lamented the fact that their favorite zooms, such as the 28-70mm ,
suddenly became less useful, as they lost their wide angle capabilities. With the smaller sensor
size of the Nikon digital bodies (D1 series, D100, D2h, Fujifilm
S2 Pro), the angle of view for a 17mm focal length was effectively
a ~26mm lens on a 35mm SLR. Many
professionals regard 28mm at the start of
wide angle range and not overly useful, so they immediately
went out and bought the Nikkor 14mm, which at least got them
angle of view (the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 is
probably the wide angle most in use by outdoor and nature professionals
like myself). Still, this really didn't give them any
flexibility with wide angle extending into the midrange. The wide-angle zooms helped a bit (17-35mm, 18-35mm, 12-24mm), but they didn't extend into the mid-range and moderate telephoto.
solution to the missing lenses was to launch a new
series of optics--the DX lenses--which are designed with an
image circle more appropriate to the smaller sensor size of the
digital lineup. Essentially, these lenses are designed solely
for use on Nikon DSLRs (and the Fujifilm DSLRs), though as you'll
learn, some can be used in a limited fashion on 35mm bodies.
I write this, four DX lenses have been announced:
the 17-55mm that's the subject of this review, the D70 "kit lens" (18-70mm), the 10.5mm full
frame fisheye, and the 12-24mm f/4 AF-S. I expect we'll see additional DX lenses as time goes by.
17-55mm DX lens is a lot larger than you'd expect, being only slightly
smaller than the 17-35mm! That's despite producing a smaller
image circle. The minute you pick
up this lens, you're going to be curious why it is as large as
it is. (Hint: it's once again all about performance, just like with the 12-24mm.)
||From left to right: the 17-55mm DX, the 12-24mm DX, and the 18-70mm DX (D70 kit lens). This should give you some idea of just how big the 17-55mm really is.
17-55mm focal range gives you angle of views from 28 to 79 degrees
on a DSLR; it's effectively the same as using an 26-85mm lens
on a 35mm body (but see my footnote under the top picture; the marked focal length may be 17mm, but it doesn't quite get there). For some users, that's the stay-on-camera range they
have been looking for. Personally, I find myself at the two extreme
focal lengths of this lens all the time. Still, there's
no denying that this is a popular and much-asked-for focal length
is a two ring design; unlike most recent Nikkors, the zoom ring has once again returned to be nearer the camera than the focus ring. The focus ring itself isn't way out towards the front of the lens, but actually lives at about the halfway mark (i.e., the two rings are in the back half of the lens length). The lens does have a distance scale, but
with no depth of field or
markings. You know, even if the lens manufacturers don't want
to give us complete depth of field markings, the least they could do
the hyperfocal point at one useful focal length and aperture combination.
In the case of the DX lenses, this is even more important, as
standard 35mm depth of field charts won't help you; you need
one designed specifically for the APS-sized sensors (copies of
which are in my DSLR books, by the way). On the left side of
the lens (from the back of the camera) is
Focus button: In the M/A position the lens
works as usual (autofocus with manual override). In the M
position, the lens focuses only manually.
HB-31 hood supplied with the lens is the bayonet type butterfly
style. It can be reversed onto the lens for carrying, but it adds
significant diameter to lens when you do so. It's also a bit "deeper" than most of the previous butterfly hoods; it covers the front element well.
get AF-S focusing with this lens, and that'll take you down to
1 foot and a couple of inches (.36m). The supplied lens cap is the
new pinch-front type.
Okay, you'll either love it or hate it.
The zoom ring is quite close to the camera, relatively thin, and stiff. I've run into quite a few photographers who complain about this, though I'm not bothered by any of those things. The "close in" position works well if you're one of those that support the lens with your hand underneath, less well if you're a "side-grabber" with big hands (or use gloves). The bigger issue for me is that it's almost a full quarter turn from one end to the other, which if you're using a finger roll technique works out to three "rolls." But I quickly adjusted to it and stopped noticing after a few minutes of use. If this is the main lens you use, I'd be surprised if you don't adjust, too.
there isn't a great deal of difference in "feel" of
the two rings, the focus ring is a bit wider than the zoom ring,
and easy to find if you slide your hand forward (the area past
the focus ring widens slightly, so acts as a natural "stop").
The focus ring goes a bit past a quarter turn for focus; unlike
the zoom, here I'd actually like just a bit more turn, as once
you get out to 5 feet there's not much turn left to get to infinity
(and with a mid-range zoom, you're likely to be in this focus
range the most often, so you want more than a partial finger
roll's worth of fine tuning).
Focal length changes slightly when you're shooting at very close distances (2 feet [.6m] or less). As with most modern lenses, you should be focusing after framing, so I don't see this as a big deal.
While the 17-55mm is a relatively large, heavy lens, it balances very nicely on the front of everything from a D70 to a D2h. With the D70 you'll know it's there, with the D2h you won't. But either way, I felt comfortable.
One side note: this lens is its shortest at 35mm. At wider and longer focal lengths, the inner barrel extends out past the outer barrel. Unlike the 24-120mm and 24-85mm, there is no "wobble" in this extension.
Everyone's probably scrolled past all my other comments to get down to this section, so let's cut to the chase: this is a fine lens in almost every respect; but it's not perfect.
is strong throughout the range, with f/8 being the
point of maximum
sharpness on my sample across the entire focal length range.
Even at f/2.8 in the corners this lens remains an excellent performer.
I'd be comfortable using this lens at f/2.8, but by f/4 there
really aren't any big issues left to worry about. I have to magnify
my images to 200% and beyond to see the chromatic aberration--it's
see chromatic aberration effects over several pixels with some
of my weaker lenses, on a D70 I'm seeing one-pixel impacts on
edges near the corners. On the image, below, for example, the
pixel boundary between the water and shoreline has a very slight
one-pixel coloration in the water edge that's more prominent
at the two sides (corners). In other words, it's there, but boy
is it tough to see short of getting out the magnifier. Of course
when you start post processing an image, especially sharpening,
sometimes you can replicate those problems further from your
Nothing blew my socks off about the images I've taken with the 17-55mm--I think Nikon has probably made a few sharper zooms--but at the same time, nothing immediately struck me as being a problem, either.
falloff is well under control throughout the range on digital
bodies. On 35mm bodies, you'll see light fall off at all focal lengths and clear vignetting caused by the small image circle begins at about 26mm. In other words, you could use this lens on a full frame body from about 26-55mm in a pinch.
an image taken at 55mm that shows the modest pincushion
distortion (the shore line at the bottom has a bit of
curve to it. At the wide end, there's slightly more distortion
in the other direction (barrel).
Note that while I'm many miles away from the Alaska Range here (I'm actually sitting in a canoe in the middle of Wonder Lake), the lens is holding quite a bit of detail in the snowy slopes (pretty easy to see even at this small size). Indeed, the detail level that's being recorded is lost in the little bit of noise the D70 produces at ISO 200 (i.e., generally I'm camera limited by this lens, not optics limited). If anything, there's a tiny bit of diffraction softness in this image (taken at f/22), but you'd expect that with any lens at that aperture on a digital body.
What looks like light falloff at the top is actually a very gentle 1 stop soft edge graduated neutral density filter.
performance is good. At both ends there's measurable distortion (barrel
at the wide end, pincushion at the telephoto), but it's low in
amount and not as obvious as we've seen in some other Nikkor
designs. This isn't an architectural lens, but nor is it a fun-house
is very fast and hunt-free. The f/2.8 aperture helps make low-light focus even better. (This, by the way, is one of two areas in which the decision between the 17-55mm and the 18-70mm DX lens should be made. While the latter is a decent performer and holds its own against the more expensive lens being reviewed here in most respects, you will notice autofocus speed differences as you get into dimmer and dimmer light. The more light that gets to the AF sensors, the better, and that's one of the reasons why you opt for the f/2.8 over the f/3.5-4.5. At 55mm and f/2.8, this lens focuses noticeably more sure than the 18-70mm at 55mm and f/4.5, especially on the D70 and D100, but even on the D2h.)
performance is quite good except for direct into the sun. Unless
light is hitting directly on the front element, I've not seen
and the supplied butterfly type hood is excellent in keeping
light from hitting the front element in most situations. But
if the light source is directly in the picture, things get a
little wonkier, and you're likely to see contrast reduction if
not ghosting. That's typical of virtually all modern zooms, though.
I'm still evaluating bokeh, but my initial impressions are mostly favorable (the lens features a 9-blade aperture diaphragm).
Mortgage the Home Price.
Seems Nikon likes getting US$1400-1900 for a lens. Once again we have an optic that hits in that range.
Bigger and Heavier than you'll Expect.
If you thought a lens designed to cover a smaller sensor
size would be smaller, you'll be surprised.
- The Gap. With this lens and a 70-200mm in your kit you're covered, except for that 55-70mm gap. For some folk, that could be a critical missing range.
- Excellent optics.
For a lens that's likely to be sitting on your camera most of the time, you want performance, and the 17-55mm appears to deliver it in almost every respect. What small weaknesses it has generally don't show up in prints.
- The 28-80mm for the digital world. Yes, the mid-range zoom is back in full force. If that's what you wanted, this is the lens to get.
Yep, you can use it as an 26-55mm zoom on your full frame
or 35mm bodies, though almost any filter will still vignette