Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED DX - will it get VR?????

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED DX - will it get VR?????

(14 posts) (8 voices)

Tags:

nikon lens 17-55mm VR f/2.8

thedunnyman

new member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3
offline

Hey guys,

I'm currently an owner of a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and planning to get the Canon T1i/500D soon.

However, I've been eyeing the Nikon d5000 lately and am being pulled in by its articulating screen and also I think image quality may be better.

So the equivalent Nikon version of my lens is the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED DX but this doesn't have VR....

Does anyone know whether or not a VR version will come out?
Anyone tried out both the cameras and can offer me any information regarding if the VR is noticeable?
And is Nikon's focus loud? (i.e. because it doesn't have USM)

Any advice welcome please!
Maybe I can be sucked in to being a Nikon supporter ;)

Posted 4 years ago #
nemezote

junior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 9
offline

You doomed yourself from the moment you said the "C" word...

Posted 4 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

nemezote - no comment kiddo, sooner or later You will learn some respect to others

thedunnyman - first thing - Nikon D5000 doesn't support non AF-S lenses (USM lenses in Canon); second thing - at this focal range Yo don't really need IS; as for loudness - it's normal (o difference to Canon); as for VR version of 17-55/2.8 I doubt Nikon will release it soon, as there is more need for VR version of 24-70/2.8 which is really a great lens.

Posted 4 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

USM is just a Canon trade mark, but everyone one else has it, Nikon AF-S, Sigma HSM ...
Do you really need VR on 17-55?
Nikon 17-55 is build like a tank, not cheap and plastic like Canon.
If you want something to compare to your Canon try Nikon 16-85.

Posted 4 years ago #
nemezote

junior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 9
offline

Geez man, it was just a joke...

More to the point. Its rare for nikon to include VR on such a short lens. But who knows right? Maybe sometime in the future...I know Id like to have it.

Personally ive shot with the nikon lens several times in the past, and though im not entirely convinced by its optical performance it does feel like you could build a wooden house using the lens as a hammer.

Regarding the loudness of the focus, I dont really recall it being unbearable. And im the picky type.

Hope it helps.

Posted 4 years ago #
thedunnyman

new member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3
offline

Ohhh...I didn't realise AF-S was the equivalent for USM.

I actually care more about the IS more than anything though.

I actually do need it because I always tend to shoot photos (esp. portraits) in low light conditions such as in the house, restaurants..etc.

And I take my shutter speed down to 1/15 and without the IS, it does blur a bit....

So yeah it's a shame...hrmm...will still think about it

Posted 4 years ago #
nemezote

junior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 9
offline

Well its really an even field out there, among Canon and Nikon. Have you considered getting a large aperture prime lens? Like the 35mm 1.8, or the 50mm 1.4? They work great for me in those conditions.

Anyway, if you need it, you need it. If you ever happen to pass by a photo store and can try the 17-55, do it and let us know what you think.

Posted 4 years ago #
Rselby

new member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1
offline

I'm curious why you would need VR for the 17-55mm???? Look at 85mm primes lenses, I don't see any with VR/IS. With the correct holding technique there isn't a problem even down to 1/10 sec. I say forget the VR on this lens and build Ultra fast primes with apertures at f/1.2. I own this lens and can tell you it's fantastic, near silent operation, lightning fast AF, very sharp, build quality is superb and the focal range is perfect for my needs. I almost bought the "28"-70 f/2.8 but found the 17-55 so appealing on wide end of this lens. I rented the 24-70mm for a wedding, what a tremendous piece of glass, WOW! Yes, it's better than the 17-55mm optically in nearly every way.... except on the wide end. I can get by without the reach of the 24-70mm f/2.8.
My dream set up would be the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 with 2 bodies so I don't have to change lenses....(PLEASE GOD!!!)
NIKON WE WANT FAST PRIMES NOW!

Posted 4 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

I agree with people talking about fast primes. The 35mm f/1.8 DX is a great deal at only a couple hundred dollars, and will get you better low light shots than either the Canon or Nikon zooms you mentioned, especially when combined with the D5000's great low light performance (assuming that's the same as the d90)

Posted 4 years ago #
Henry Nikon Fan

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 152
offline

I use to have a AF-S 17-55mm DX lens for several years and never had any issues with it not having VR especially with the higher ISO's in the newer bodies. Also, I have taken many indoor photographs with it.

The only reason I sold it is because I bought a AF-S 24-70mm and currently use it on a D300, but anticipate going to a full frame body in the near future. Plus I bought prior to the Nikon lens price increases.

Posted 4 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

Hay guys, I really meant what I said before, Canon 17-55 lens is just not in the same class as Nikon 17-55, VR or not. It is plastic non professional glass and it would be like comparing Mercedes and Daewoo, both have engines of about the same horsepower, but that’s it. I am not saying all Canon lenses are cheap, but this one is.
On the other hand Nikon 17-55 is the lens from the previous era, when Nikon made only DX high end models, and I am almost sure they will never make another one like this, there is no market for them anymore, and everyone will rather spend couple on hundreds more on FX lens. Maybe they will eventually make something cheaper and plastic and with VR and surely a bit different to avoid direct comparison, just like Canon did.

Posted 4 years ago #
QuadraPixel

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 245
offline

If you buy into Nikon, then your really buying into a better camera system overall.

Posted 4 years ago #
thedunnyman

new member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3
offline

When you say Canon uses non-professional glass, what exactly do you mean?

Does that mean image quality is of lesser quality from Canon's glass

Posted 4 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

It is not the just a glass actually, to see what I was trying to say go to the nearest shop and ask them to show you Canon and Nikon 17-55 and compare them for your self.

Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED DX - will it get VR?????

Reply