Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:13 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 ED
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 am
Posts: 409
Location: LA California
I have to say after reading ken rockwell
I was surprised to see how much he bashed on the 17-55mm
But after endless research i finalized my sale
and bought myself one
First impressions were that it was a bit heavy but very sturdy
almost entirely metal
the grip is a little tight and hard to move
sometimes for a weird reason it makes a grinding noise
It dose not affect performance at all
at maximum aperture 2.8 the lens is very sharp
smooth lines and vivid colors seem to pop right out of the picture
at low apertures such as f/22 the lens starts showing that its not the 24-70mm
Ive used both as my friend has the 24-70mm and i have to say its a sharper lens but it also cost $600 more
It is a very fast and silent lens
focuses take fractions of a second and can only be heard if you put your ear up very close
I bright light and dim lighting it never fails
though in extremely low light like a museum or aquarium
i still bring my 50mm 1.8

_________________
I have a variety of gadgets that capture and create light... people tell me their cameras, lenses, strobes, and speedlights...who knows


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:08 pm
Posts: 1626
Location: New York, US
Ken Rockwell can be....wrong! There, I said it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Shagrath wrote:
Ken Rockwell can be....wrong! There, I said it.

Oh yes.

_________________
Nikon D90 (Primary), Nikon D40 (Backup)
AF-S DX 35mm f/1,8
AF-S 60mm f/2,8 micro
AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR
2 x Speedlight SB-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Solok wrote:
Shagrath wrote:
Ken Rockwell can be....wrong! There, I said it.

Oh yes.

+1, Ken rockwell is a pixel peeper, old complainer first flass. Still, he writes some sensible things.

Congrats on your lens :)

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:34 pm
Posts: 2176
Location: Athens, Greece
I think it's time Google and all major search engines removed KR from the search results. Period.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:55 am
Posts: 43
Location: Hong Kong SAR, China
Everyone has their own opinion but honestly, I would not go with what ONE person says in their review. But I would rather take his word and then go do some research on my own and see if the lens itself suits my need.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 16-35 | 50.8 | SB-600 | OP/TECH PRO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 am
Posts: 409
Location: LA California
thats exactly what I did
but for some reason everyone praises him

_________________
I have a variety of gadgets that capture and create light... people tell me their cameras, lenses, strobes, and speedlights...who knows


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:54 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:35 pm
Posts: 1983
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Congratulations on the acquisition! Nothing like getting new gear :-)

Not sure why some in this thread are saying that Ken Rockwell is "bashing" the lens...is there anything factual he says that is not true?
- high price
- distortion rather thigh compared to cheaper alternatives
- excellent zooming
- good construction
- no discernible difference in image quality from the kit lens

He's calling it a "beauty", but says he prefers the kit lens because it produces the same images at 15% of the price, but acknowledge that the construction is much better. For him, not a difference that matters.

Cheers :- )

_________________
Nikon stuff and other stuff, but not nearly as much stuff as I really want!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group