Hi all,

"In that case I would advise to try to switch to "Single" instead of "continuous" and Focus priority, for a while ( and single point AF if possible) and see if it is still inconsistent."

I've not only done that, but used the 'fire only when in focus' feature with the D7000 which shouldn't allow the camera's shutter to work unless in focus, and used the software utility to check the focus spot to see if the focus is on the right part of the image (it _should have been_, but wasn't).

Nikon is puzzled and want's to look at the camera/lens - I'm willing to think it's the D7000, but frankly the 17-55 is squirrely with the D90 sometimes, too.

One of the sharpest lenses in my kit is the stock 18-105 - heresy for sure, but there it is. Granted, the bokeh isn't very narrow, but it is a sharp lens. Although I'm old I still do some events, and it is my go to lens for 'ought to get'em' when I want 'most things' in focus.

My best,

Mike

patrickdowns said:
I generally shoot AF on continuous, 51 points, and in low light I use the center point only, in Aperture priority. Sometimes I will use AF-auto mode.

Seems like whatever settings I use, the low-light, wide-open, wide angle AF is inaccurate half the time.

In that case I would advise to try to switch to "Single" instead of "continuous" and Focus priority, for a while ( and single point AF if possible) and see if it is still inconsistent. This way you can only release when your subject is""In Focus" othherwise ( continuous mode) you can also release when not totally in focus yet, and especially with wide open shooting this almost has lead to a number of "out of focus" shots....

I have the 17-35mm and the 14-24mm and tend to use my 14-24mm for journalism as I (and many journalists) often don't have the space to shoot from farther back. In reality it is a 21-36mm on my cameras. If I need wider my 10.5 does the job. Getting closer has usually solved the problem for me as the subject will take up more of the frame...

I've personally always had consistent results when I've used either the 17-55mm or 17-35mm in manual mode. However the D7000 seems to not always be the most accurate out of all of the bodies I've used as it will jump on highlights and stay there (but much more accurate than most of the canons I've used)

I generally shoot AF on continuous, 51 points, and in low light I use the center point only, in Aperture priority. Sometimes I will use AF-auto mode.

Seems like whatever settings I use, the low-light, wide-open, wide angle AF is inaccurate half the time.

Just thwo questions to this whole issieu :
- Do you shoot "shutter priority" ( and continuous AF) or "Focus priority" (Single AF) ?
- Do you use "Sngle focus point" or "multi focus points" ?
( You can make Viewnx2 show which Focus point was used, might be worth investigating..) .

I have a couple of lenses like that too, Not bad, range I want, but I just don't have the confidence in them. I would really like the 24-120 f4 (I have the older version - like the range - hate the lens) but on DX that 24 is just not wide enough.

Most zooms do have a soft spot somewhere in their range and with big glass, the shakes can take a lot off a photo that film hid. The other choice I have looked at is the Tamron 17-50mm VC that is rated quite well and it has VR. If you are in weather though, what you have is the best there is.

For me, I will move to FX at some point and I just don't want to spend much on DX lenses. For the most part I have my Tokina 24-70 2.8 and change to a Tokina 12-24mm for wider shots. I do find myself really wanting that FX 24-70 and am constantly fighting swapping lenses but, for the time being I don't have many choices that are robust and weather sealed. I have looked closely at the 16-35VR and am tempted to get that as what I mostly want is a 24-50is zoom. Mid range I have primes and the 70-200 on the far end.

That is what I'm suffering with. Like you have learned, with DX that old FX 24-70mm range is hard to get really good stuff for.

On a side note- you may want to try to send the lens in for alignment. I have done that with a few and got some very noticeable results. Usually it just runs $100 or so. Might be worth a try.

Well, after a few months using the 17-55 on my D7000, I second Mike Gunter... it's "trying." I find that nailing the focus at wide mm's when wide open is sometimes difficult and inconsistent. Sometimes, I have to zoom in and focus, and then go back wide to shoot. Not ideal. I find myself chimping too much to make sure I got it sharp. When it's sharp, it's super, but I hate missing shots. ANY TIPS out there someone would like to share?

I am thinking of selling it and getting the 27-70 or 24-120. I have gotten a D700 recently (unplanned gift from an amazing generous friend!) so the D7000 might become the tele body, and the 700 used for 24-70.

Best DX glass? From

I know...can of worms...

...but share your top 3 in the 16 to 200 range if you like... both DX lenses, and FX glass on DX bodies. Let's agree that the 14-24, the 24-70, and the 80-200 2.8 are gimmes, don't need to list. Also true for the 300/2.8 etc... all the long lenses.

I am interested in publication/pro quality sharpness, and consistency from wide open to 3-4 stops down. In the meantime, I will search the forum. Thanks!

HI all Thanks for taking the time to reply. I do have a lot of experience as a photog, in the analog days and currently, but not with this newest digital gear for pro usage. I have owned or had assigned to me everything from 18mm to 600f4, including the fastest and best glass Nikon made and many of the zooms, in addition to Leicas and Hassys. I will do some more testing. As I said, I have a few more days before I have to Fed-Ex this lens back, and this whole process starts over (it's already taking too long).

>> Mike Gunter replied: "I have the same lens and feel that it gives some 'trying' results.
It's a big sumbitch, which causes me some problems, and I own those, but I do use a tripod. In my discussions with Nikon support (a 45-year-old love/hate affair), I'm told that the noise I hear - and has concerned me - is reasonable (and it hasn't been too bad).
It is somewhat inconsistent - it at least needs a lot of care in focusing." << Thanks for weighing in Mike. Maybe I'm NOT crazy :)

This is getting frustrating, but I will re-read the manual and play with the autofocus settings more. I am considering starting to shoot some weddings and kid/senior portraits, and the reason I bought this lens was to have a 2.8 zoom. BUT... it must be acceptably sharp, at least, when wide open, and the focusing issues just won't fly. I have one friend who do great wedding work (he was the #2 White House photog for Pres. Bush and still does work for him, and before that was a colleague at the LA Times) and he shoots with FX (5D MkII) and primes.... the 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 Canon mainly. He can stop down one stop and be at f2 and tack sharp, shooting available light. If I have to stop down with the 17-55 I am @ F4, and then must bump my ISO one step higher in low light, and the D7000 sensor may be very good but it's not FX-sensitive. I suppose I could use the 24 f1.4 as a 35mm equivalent. Hmmmm? I'd still need a zoom, and that means getting the 24-70 or 17-35... another extra $2k! Grrrrr.

Thanks again! I may post some links to files (RAW or Jpeg are better?) later today.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

I have the same lens and feel that it gives some 'trying' results.

It's a big sumbitch, which causes me some problems, and I own those, but I do use a tripod. In my discussions with Nikon support (a 45-year-old love/hate affair), I'm told that the noise I hear - and has concerned me - is reasonable (and it hasn't been too bad).

It is somewhat inconsistent - it at least needs a lot of care in focusing.

I've tried to fine tune it and their best advice was not to do that. Others post that fine tuning was a boon. If I had only prime lenses (most of my lenses are), I likely would think so, too. But Nikon support suggested (told me) that it was really only a fix for something broken, not a way of doing business.

I'm made my peace with it, but it isn't the best lens I have, just the priciest.

My best,

Mike

Kind of glad I didn't spring for it when I got my 105 macro.

Hi,

I have the same lens and feel that it gives some 'trying' results.

It's a big sumbitch, which causes me some problems, and I own those, but I do use a tripod. In my discussions with Nikon support (a 45-year-old love/hate affair), I'm told that the noise I hear - and has concerned me - is reasonable (and it hasn't been too bad).

It is somewhat inconsistent - it at least needs a lot of care in focusing.

I've tried to fine tune it and their best advice was not to do that. Others post that fine tuning was a boon. If I had only prime lenses (most of my lenses are), I likely would think so, too. But Nikon support suggested (told me) that it was really only a fix for something broken, not a way of doing business.

I'm made my peace with it, but it isn't the best lens I have, just the priciest.

My best,

Mike

Thanks folks. Yes, purchased new so I can exchange it (being VERY careful with it to keep it "as new"). I think I will do a test chart or newspaper page and do stepped exposures, at consistent image size through the zoom range and at different f-stops. I may post some files to my public Dropbox folder and post the link here, for anyone who wants to take a peek. Thanks!

PS: I may just be over-thinking this or have unrealistic expectations. Just want to be sure....$1500 is a lot of dough, and if I need to exchange it for something like the 17-35 or 24-70 for a bit more, I know those lenses have a superb rep.

Just how bad is it? Can you post or link to some pictures? Sometimes lack of sharpness is really due to expectations- after all, you are dealing with an extreme retrofocus, large aperture zoom lens, all of which make the lens much more difficult to design than say a 50mm prime. If you are used to the 50/1.8, you could very well find the lens a little soft for your liking.

Still, I'd say to do some systematic tests- probably with a test chart of some sort against a wall, and shoot it at different focal lengths and apertures. If you notice any that are soft, try reshooting and see if you get the same conditions. I'd also check for side-side alignements- both sides should be similar in sharpness. In case of significantly poor performance, it could be a QC issue, and I'd suggest exchanging it.

Patrick,

What are the chances you'd try another 17-55mm if you sent that one back? I wonder if there's a mechanical issue in the lens that causes it to occasionally stop short of sharp focus. As for me, the decision to sell my 16-85mm and buy the 17-55mm was one of my best decisions. The only time it's not sharp for me is if "I" screwed up somehow - even at f/2.8.

After seeing Papermans response I'd like to add that perhaps there might be some variance in the production of these lenses even at the high cost. I'm assuming it's a brand new lens. I got lucky and bought pre-owned on Ebay - saved $400. The lens is so sharp it seems to add a certain dynamic that I didn't get with the 16-85mm although I must add that I do have a B&W UV-Haze filter on it. Good luck with your decision.

I discussed sharpness ( or lack of it ) of the 17-55 f2.8 and 17-35 f2.8 on DX bodies based solely on lab tests in 2 different threads last year. As far as I remember , both threads were closed due to language getting too hot . Resolution / sharpness of expensive glass is a touchy subject in NR ; somehow it is not open to discussion. Good luck with yours .

You asked about sharpness. Those two win.

SquamishPhoto said:
Shoulda got the 14-24 and paired it with any one of the Nikkor 50mm prime lenses.

No, but thanks.

14-24 too big, doesn't take filters...I am in the weather all year. 17-35...maybe, and in fact that is the other option if I get rid of the 17-55, as it's an FX lens. The 14-24 is a great lens I hear, and would compliment the 24-70, but I don't shoot that wide on FX generally...17 is wide enough as I don't do architecture or super-wide landscapes.

I need something like the 17-35 or 17-55 on the camera for reportage, weddings, general zoom use where 75% of my typical daily shots are taken (in the 24mm to 85mm (FX) range).

I will add the new 50mm 1.8 soon, and some other primes if I get an FX body. I have the 70-300VR too...great lens for the price.

Shoulda got the 14-24 and paired it with any one of the Nikkor 50mm prime lenses.

Hi: I just got a D7000 and 17-55 2.8 (after deciding that a 2.8 was worth the extra $$ over the 16-85ED, my 2nd choice). I have about 5 days to decide if this lens is sharp enough across the board to keep, or try a different one. I really wanted the 24-70 but with the crop factor it isn't wide enough. For me, the lens need to be acceptably sharp at 2.8. If not, and I have to use it at f4 then I've spent a lot of extra $$ for 2.8 only to not have confidence in it.

About me: I was a staff photog at the LA Times for 20 years, but left just before digital took over. I've shot 35, 2-1/4, 4x5 for nearly 30 years, but I've never been a lens tester per se. If I got the results I wanted, the gear was fine (oh, I miss the Mamiya 6 and 7 and chrome...so freaking razor sharp it's almost freaky). If not, lenses got replaced. I have had a Canon 20D for about 5 years and have been just shooting that for fun, easing into digital. I am not (so far) a pixel peeper, but I am now interested in getting the max from my files, and lenses, and may start freelancing again. I know I know...FX is the way to go but I am awaiting the D800 and more money!

QUESTION: It seems like the sharpness and focus is inconsistent cross the various focal lengths. I have been testing it mainly at 2.8 and 4 and 5.6. Why? Any theories? (I am shooting mainly at ISO400 and both RAW and JPEG/highest files). I am looking at them using Picasa...haven't upgraded to PS or Lightroom/Aperture just yet.

Details: I have been informally testing the sharpness around the house, in/outside, and went to Walmart and shot some shelf displays...items with fine print on the packages. I just shot some cereal boxes on the counter at 24 and 35mm, my CD rack, and other items with detail at 2.8 and 5.6 (camera resting on counter). All seem very sharp to the corners of the frame, and show excellent detail. Then, I shot some frames at 24mm outside at 2.8 and 5.6 and at 24mm the sharpness seems inconsistent. At 18 and 55mm it's good, or seems so though I don't have a reference standard to compare it to except for some of my old prime lenses like the 55 macro and 105/2.5 which is good. I just shot some things in the house using flash, at 24mm, and they all seemed too soft but the other day I shot the exact same thing and they were sharp! Grrrrr.

Does anyone have a good lens test protocol? Should I just put a sheet of the newspaper on the wall, camera on tripod, and shoot at various focal lengths and f-stops? If I go from 17mm to 24mm for example, should I move the camera so that I am filling the frame the same at all focal lengths?

I would gladly post some images to my public Dropbox folder if anyone wants to take a look and let me know what they think? JPEG Fine or Raw?

All suggestions welcome....the clock is ticking.