Nikon's 17-55, F/2.8 Opinions Please?

[autofocus]

I am thinking about purchasing this lens and would like some opinions only from you folks that own it please. I've heard that sharpness tends to fall off at the outer edges..not a particularly good quality for a fairly expensive lens especially when shooting a fairly large group wide.

Thanks

Vinnie

[Jim Bryant]

I've always said Nikon glass is made from recycled Sapporo beer bottles.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

I've always said Nikon glass is made from recycled Sapporo beer bottles.

OK, you Canon devotee, big help you are (haha)...I can't say anything about Canon because I own one of them too (and it still gets plenty of use from me, mainly because my wife has claimed ownership of the D300)

[jdepould]

It's not bad, but it isn't amazing either. If you're shooting wide open, the corners will fall off a little, but stopping down helps. It's still better than most of the cheaper glass out there though. If you want something comparable but cheaper, check out the tamron 17-50.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by jdepould

It's not bad, but it isn't amazing either. If you're shooting wide open, the corners will fall off a little, but stopping down helps. It's still better than most of the cheaper glass out there though. If you want something comparable but cheaper, check out the tamron 17-50.

Thanks Jamie...I'd really like to get the 24-70, but it's ~500 bucks more or so. We've set up a tight little studio area and mostly use our 50mm F/1.4. With the room we have to work in, the 50 sometimes is just not wide enough. I thought something that gave us a little zoom capability would help the cause, however, I am concerned about sharpness. Our 50mm is fantastic in that regard...you can literally count the eyelashes. Here are a few shots of our setup. I've since added a second light, a small softbox used with my SB800 that is used on the opposite side of the main light.

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd vote for the 24-70, just because it's drool-worthy

The 17-55 is great as long as youre not focusing at infinity or shooting totally wide open.

[sk66]

I *owned* one...as has been said, it's fine. Wide open it falls off in the corners, but who cares just leave a little room for cropping....
I wouldn't suggest the 24-70 for your studio setup if 50mm is sometimes too long. I'd suggest the 35mm f/1.8 dx (and I don't normally suggest primes). It also suffers from a little falloff, not the greatest bokeh, but it is SHARP, it would be "normal" for a dx body and wider than your 50. Plus it's CHEAP.
Or if you must have the zoom you can get a used 28-70 f/2.8 for about $900

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'd vote for the 24-70, just because it's drool-worthy

The 17-55 is great as long as youre not focusing at infinity or shooting totally wide open.

Hey thanks OS, yeah, the 24-70 is the one to lust for. I'd have a problem then with the 17-55 as the wife loves to shoot wide open.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by sk66

I *owned* one...as has been said, it's fine. Wide open it falls off in the corners, but who cares just leave a little room for cropping....
I wouldn't suggest the 24-70 for your studio setup if 50mm is sometimes too long. I'd suggest the 35mm f/1.8 dx (and I don't normally suggest primes). It also suffers from a little falloff, not the greatest bokeh, but it is SHARP, it would be "normal" for a dx body and wider than your 50. Plus it's CHEAP.
Or if you must have the zoom you can get a used 28-70 f/2.8 for about $900

Thanks SK...have given some serious thought about the 35, and also the Tokina version which seems to be as good or better than the Nikon. Why not the 24-70 (if price were no object, and of course it is)...it'll give us 36mm - 105mm on out D300? It's just that shy of two grand price that kills you.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Why not the 24-70 (if price were no object, and of course it is)...it'll give us 36mm - 105mm on out D300? It's just that shy of two grand price that kills you.

Because from 50-70 would be even less usable in your studio... As a general lens, hell yes...but for your particular problem it's a lot of money for a partial solution...
Your original 17-55 choice would be better.