2.8 lens, ED glass and sharp to super sharp thoughout the range.

None really...but this is a fairly big lens and pretty expensive. However you do get what you pay for with this lens!

This lens and the Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8 are the two sharpest lenses that I own...by far. Have a Nikon 24-120 VR and 24-70 but these lens pale in comparison. Must stop down at least two stops(from widest aperture) to get anything useable...very soft wide opened. However the 17-55 2.8 remains sharp wide opened and razor sharp two stops down.

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

Just about all Nikon lens.

Sharp Optics Better range than the 17-35mm

None

I watited too long to buy this lens. It is incredible! It is very sharp, even wide open. The colors and the contrast are perfect. I know that a lot of people worry about Nikon offering a full frame but I don't think that it will ever happen. I think that the future is with the DX lenses and smaller sensor. I have used the 17-35mm and this lens is better and it offers 20mm more on the long end. It is a no-brainer.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 20-35mm (very good) Nikon 17-35 (good for film)

Very sharp and contrasty. Light weight compared to 28-70mm F2.8. Top notch build quality. Maintains similar performance of the awesome 28-70mm F2.8.

You have to be a firm believer in the longevity of the DX format. If Nikon ever changes their standard and goes to a bigger sensor, this lens will lose its value. Still heavy and bulky, but again, lighter than their 35mm equivalents. Not very affordable, but priced in the usual range.

For those of us who are firm believers of the 28-70mm focal range (35mm equiv), REJOICE! I took a chance and traded in my AFS 28-70mm 2.8 for this one, as I have never shot a single roll of film ever since I went digital. When I was shooting film, my 28-70mm used to live on my F100. It was my favorite lens....very sharp, bright, excellent contrast, fast and silent. However, when I got my S2, I found myself constantly frustrated using this wonderful lens. It just didn't go wide enough for me (only 42mm film equivalent). So I found myself using the 17-35mm more, but still not happy because this lens, although wonderful in itself, didn't go long enough for my portrait shots. Let me tell you, it is a pain in the arse having to constantly change lenses when going from a portrait shot to a group shot. I almost gave up on the DX format, until Nikon finally introduced their 17-55mm DX lens. With a 35mm equiv. range of 26mm-83mm, this lens is even WIDER and LONGER than the lens it replaced. At the time of purchase, my only concern was with its optical performance and build quality, as this was not a cheap lens. First off, let me allay all concerns about this lens. Optically, this lens is every bit as good as the 28-70mm 2.8. I was so thankful for this! Distortion is well controlled at both ends. Some minor barrel distortion at the wide end and very slight pincushion at telephoto. Not any more than the 17-35 and the 28-70. Really, the only time you can really measure this is when you shoot a grid. For its intended uses, this is not a problem. Sharpness is outstanding. I frequently shoot wide open to get my nice bokeh and find that my images are still very sharp. I would say that the sharpness seems to peak at around the F5.6 to F8 range, but that is only my subjective opinion. This lens is nice and contrasty and gives a pretty decent bokeh, very similar to the 28-70mm lens it replaced. Overall, the lens performance is pretty identical to the 28-70mm. I always have the lens hood on and don't ever include the sun in my images, so ghosting and flare have never been problems. Build quality is excellent. Although it does not have the nice crinkle finish of the 28-70, it has a finish similar to that of the 17-35. A solid build. The rotation of the zoom ring is noticably stiffer than both the 17-35 and 28-70. That can be a good and bad thing, depending on personal taste. To me, I prefer the smooth and silky rotation of the 28-70, however, this is of minor consequence. Of course, the silent focussing works perfectly and is not better or worse than the other AF-S lenses. The one thing that this lens wins over the 28-70 is that it is definately and noticably smaller and lighter. I always thought the 28-70 was a huge monster. That's not to say that the 17-55 is a lightweight, because it definately is not. It is still big (with the lens hood on) and heavy... but not to the extremes of the 28-70. All-in-all, I believe that the 17-55mm is the best thing Nikon has ever done for the DX format. Definately worth its weight in gold.

Similar Products Used:

The following Nikkors: 24mm 2.8, 60mm 2.8 micro, 50mm 1.4, 17-35mm 2.8, 28-70mm 2.8, 80-200mm 2.8, 12-24mm 4.0

Built, sharpness, weight [for a 3x f2.8 zoom, effective range [25-82mm] on a Nikon digital SLR.

Not much. VR would increase the potential of this already very nice lens. G lens design may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it is time to get use to it. DX lens leaves film Nikon user out.

Just got the lens today, earlier than I thought, Nikon said they will start shipping around April. First impression is good. Very well built, size and weight fall between the 17-35mm and the 28-70mm. It is internal focus, but not internal zoom, it is like the 28-70mm AFS design which the zoom works with the lens hood to offer max. effect. The lens hood has a locking bottom like the one for the 70-200mm VR. The lens is sharp, a little better than the 12-24mm and the 17-35mm in the similar focal length and f-stop, too close to call when compared to the 28-70mm AFS. A straight 20mm AF-D and the 50mm f1.4 AF-D have slightly better resolution as expected, but I don't think is fair to compared a zoom to a fixed focal length. It is a great lens to leave it on the camera, should cover 90% of general news assignments.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 12-24mm, 17-35mm, 20-35mm, 28-70mm, Canon 16-35mm, 17-35mm, 17-40mm, 24-70mm, 28-70mm, Sigma [Nikon] 15-30mm and 24-70mm.