17-55 2.8 DX -> Looking for some comments
- Thread starter rebbot
- Start date
- Status
rebbot said:Done that. Thanks!Just thought I see if there are any comments from the local CSers here. Am looking at getting it as a walkaround but yet find it limiting at 55mm as 1/4 of my pictures are taken between 55-80mm :think:
if you looking for that range at 55-80, might as well u get the 28-70mm f2.8, solid lens, sharp and fast. more costly by $200-300.
I am eyeing the 17-55mm myself...prefer the focal length.
rebbot said:
If that is the case, I think then you're not using a major function of your D2x.
2x Crop and Shoot in Max resolution. Either Large Fine JPEGs or NEFs.
rebbot said:Hi all,
Am looking to get the 17-55 soon. Searched through the forums but I dun seem to be able to find much comments or pictures from users using the lens.
Hope to hear some real life experience from any users here. TIA!
Cheers!
Here are my comments from 12 months of usage on 17-55. It has never come off my camera before ...
Give ya the cons first
Cons:
1) Flare control is quite bad. You will get streaks of lights in glaring sun. Whereas 17-35 controlled this very well. Using hand helps more than using hood.
2) Barrel distortion at 17-21 range is quite very obvious. You can see straight lines tilting inwards at this range, and I have to adjust my shooting techniques to overcome this. Again 17-35mm overcomes this.
3) DX lens. That means at the wide angle range, it cannot be used on film. But I've seen amazing results from 35-55 range on my f601.
Pros:
1) Color, sharpness is amazing. I especially like the color this lens gives. In fact i think the color is comparable to 17-35mm legend lens. 17-55mm gives very consistent color shades and sharpness at all aperture, and to me, the sweet spot is at f8.
2) Weight: slightly lighter than 17-35 which is good!
3) Range is good. You will find that 17-55 has the biggest advantage in digital cameras, being 1.5x cropped equivalent to 25.5- 82.5 which is an even wider range than 28-70 on a film. This range is useful almost for any occasions.
4) Durable built. Believe it or not, i actually dropped the lens twice. Filter broke, but lens is still ok :sweat: , thank God.
Hope this helps you to reach a decision!
rebbot said:Hi all,
Am looking to get the 17-55 soon. Searched through the forums but I dun seem to be able to find much comments or pictures from users using the lens.
Hope to hear some real life experience from any users here. TIA!
Cheers!
good color saturation, contrast and sharp lens.:thumbsup:
like it's range, good for general and landscape shooting.:lovegrin:
I really wonder when you guys keep saying "good color saturation, contrast and sharp", what lense do you guys compare to as a reference? :think:
scanner said:
I don't do reviews, tests, etc... only taking photographs and hope it turns out well... as close to its original mood... hopefully one day taking some that conveys great emotional impact!
So my guess about what people meant by "good colour saturation, contrast and sharp" is getting as close as possible to optimizing the properties of the camera and lens per se.
P.S. Sharpness is not everything. Likewise, having a lens that produces good saturation is not an end all. However, if you can afford and can get hold of such lenses / bodies, and IF YOU NEED ITetc... then why not!
Regards
Tempus said:Here are my comments from 12 months of usage on 17-55. It has never come off my camera before ...
Give ya the cons first
Cons:
1) Flare control is quite bad. You will get streaks of lights in glaring sun. Whereas 17-35 controlled this very well. Using hand helps more than using hood.
2) Barrel distortion at 17-21 range is quite very obvious. You can see straight lines tilting inwards at this range, and I have to adjust my shooting techniques to overcome this. Again 17-35mm overcomes this.
3) DX lens. That means at the wide angle range, it cannot be used on film. But I've seen amazing results from 35-55 range on my f601.
Pros:
1) Color, sharpness is amazing. I especially like the color this lens gives. In fact i think the color is comparable to 17-35mm legend lens. 17-55mm gives very consistent color shades and sharpness at all aperture, and to me, the sweet spot is at f8.
2) Weight: slightly lighter than 17-35 which is good!
3) Range is good. You will find that 17-55 has the biggest advantage in digital cameras, being 1.5x cropped equivalent to 25.5- 82.5 which is an even wider range than 28-70 on a film. This range is useful almost for any occasions.
4) Durable built. Believe it or not, i actually dropped the lens twice. Filter broke, but lens is still ok :sweat: , thank God.
Hope this helps you to reach a decision!
Thanks Tempus! That's really helpful
In this case I guess we did have to be careful about taking pictures at the wider end. :think: The flare issue is really that bad huh~
scanner said:
I would compare this to the 17-35 and 28-70. I have borrowed the both for trying out from my mates but am still lacking a 17-55 for extended usage. However, I tried a 17-55 out at Alan Photo the other day and I did say that they are comparable to one another. However, I find that the 28-70 is the sharpest of them all maybe by a little with slightly better bokeh but again I am nit picking.
Cheers!
rebbot said:Hi all,
Am looking to get the 17-55 soon. Searched through the forums but I dun seem to be able to find much comments or pictures from users using the lens.
Hope to hear some real life experience from any users here. TIA!
Cheers!
I sold of the 18-70mm and got this lens cause I needed the speed. Luv the colors and sharpness, no regrets.
Can view some shots here:
- Chinatown CNY Celebrations 2006
- Touch a Life this X'mas - Celebration @ Orchard
.
- Status
Similar threads
