Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it?

[surge]

Hmm.. beg to differ. My 35F2 is very sharp wide open. And so it my 17-55. Perhaps it is a variation in the actual pieces we own. As much as my 17-55 gives me good colours, my 35F2 gives me that extra brightness that the zoom doesn't. Also the distortion in the 17-55 sometimes makes me slightly frustrated. It is not that obvious but I still see it and it bugs me. My 2c..

i find the colour and sharpness of the zoom better. but the prime gives a very life like image....thats why i still keep it

 

[STEV]

Think no more, sell yr 17-50mm and get e nikkor 17-55mm, worth every cents....:bsmilie:

 

[surge]

Think no more, sell yr 17-50mm and get e nikkor 17-55mm, worth every cents....:bsmilie:

best answer! x2

 

[satan_18349]

You will always be thinking about the 17-55 since you have thoughts on it, so just get it. Like me, I have stop looking at other similar range.

 

[sammedia]

if you have the budget why not? I use to use 3rd party lens long time ago, when i have the $$$ to buy the original, i soon find out what i have been missing with 3rd party.:bsmilie:

 

[cybertron]

AF-S 17-35mm can support FF

 

[rahul]

It really depends on your use.

I find my Tamron excellent. Am very happy with the sharpness and colours from F4 up. Focussing is fast enough for my normal usage. Never used it for sports or fast action where instant focus might be required.

But if you are making money from your photographs, certainly go for the Nikkor.

So bottom line is that the Nikkor is a huge step up in terms of cost but not such a massive step up in quality. If you can afford it, certainly go for the best. Otherwise save the money for something else.

 

[spazzer]

my tammy 17-50mm offers good sharp images so for me i would not change for u i donno...

 

[MÝ Ðë©ËMBëR®]

got myself one! ehehe... well what can i say? PR status on ma cam! :bsmilie: