Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8
© 2004 KenRockwell.com

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED. I'd get it here or here

All other Nikkor lenses tested here

INTRODUCTION

This is a $1,250 professional lens for digital cameras only. It was introduced in July 2003. Here's the press release. Used on a digital camera it's similar to a 26-82mm zoom used on a 35mm film camera.

In some ways the cheaper 18-70 mm and 18-55 mm lenses do the same or more and cost a lot less. This professional 17-55 just feels more solid and inspires more confidence and is a stop faster. The images aren't any different.

Sorry, this will not work on a 35mm camera and is NOT an ultra-wide zoom. On a film camera you will get corners cut off. The 17 mm end is just a mild wide angle on a digital camera. (PS - I'm told that so long as you don't go wider than 24mm that it does work on film. I'll have to confirm that.)

SPECIFICATIONS back to top

Optics: Fourteen elements in ten groups. Three aspherics.

Size: 3.4" (86mm) around by 4.4" (110 mm) long

Weight: 27 oz (760 g)

Diaphragm: Nine-bladed rounded diaphragm stopping down to f/22

Close focus 14" or 0.36m, very good, but not as good as the 11" of the plastic $150 18-55mm.

Filters: Profesional standard 77 mm filter thread.

Nikon Product Number: 2147, in catalog as of spring 2008.

PERFORMANCE back to top

It works great, which it had better do for $1,250. It feels right: it's solid metal with engraved markings. Don't pay extra for it if you're hoping distortion would be gone: the $150 plastic 18-55 mm has similar distortion at the wide end and much less distortion at the long end!

Zooming

Zooming is excellent because it's very linear. That means that as you turn the ring the amount of zoom is about the same for the same rotation of the ring anyplace in the range. On the 18-70 it's a little tough to get to the exact focal length you want at the wide end, and on the 17-55 mm it's nice and easy.

The front of the lens pumps in and out a little as you zoom.

Note to techies: when I say linear I mean logarithmic, of course. An equal amount of rotation anyplace gives the same percentage change in focal length.

The cheap plastic 18-55 mm is as good, but of course doesn't feel anywhere near as precise as this metal beauty.

Distortion

Distortion is more than I'd expect for such an expensive, limited range zoom.

At 17mm it's not much less than the 18 - 200 VR or 18 - 55 at 18mm. The good news is that the 17 - 55's distortion is trivial to correct completely in PhotoShop CS2. Use the figures below and plug them into the right place explained on my page on fixing lens distortion. If you do that the distortion cancels completely.

17 mm: Barrel. Use +3.4 to correct as I explain in fixing lens distortion. By comparison the 18 - 200 VR or 18 - 55 at 18mm only have a little bit more, requiring +4.0 correction. The distortion of the 17 - 55 corrects completely while the 18 - 200 still has a little bit of waviness after correction.

24 mm: Neutral, no distortion.

35 mm: A little pincushion. Correct with -2.0.

55 mm: A little pincushion. Correct with -2.0.

If you worry about distortion and don't have Photoshop CS2 then shoot at 24mm.

I offer these figures as the results of lengthy research to help you get great results. Use them all you want for your photography, but this research is all copyrighted it is forbidden to make any other use without explicit permission.

I'm disappointed; one of the main reasons I'd get the 17-55 would be if it was flatter (less distortion) than other lenses. Only the 18-70 has significantly more distortion at 18 mm. The 18-70 is better at the longer range and the $150 18-55 is much better above 24mm. Weird.

If you really care about distortion you ought to shoot a 4x5" view camera as I do.

SUMMARY & FINAL SUGGESTIONS back to top

Buy one if you need to look tough and have a lens you can use for self defense. Personally I prefer my lighter 18-55mm kit lens, which gives about the same results optically for digital, even the D2X. Digital isn't very tough on lenses compared to what we did with 35mm film. I'm not particular to needing f/2.8 for low light; I use slower lenses and crank up the ISO.

I'm a sucker for wide angles, so if you're on a budget I actually own the 12-24mm and keep my kit lens that came with my camera.

Remember that 17mm in digital is only about a 26mm lens in 35mm, not a very wide angle at all. There isn't any real difference in angle between 17mm and 18mm lenses. It's insignificant. On the other hand, there is some small difference between 55mm and 70mm on the long ends.

If you want a solid professional metal mid range zoom this is your one choice. You know who you are; have fun!