(Buy with this link and support me!)
I rent many different "pro" zooms when I'm hired to shoot an event. I finally found a rental place that has the 17-55 DX!!! (Both of my regular, local camera shops don't rent it, though they do rent the 12-24 DX...)
For once, I have some other lenses with which I can do a real professional comparison! I'll be comparing the highly-acclaimed 17-55 f/2.8 DX, (pictured at left, extended at 17mm) The venerable Tokina 17mm f/3.5, (pictured at right) and the "old-fashioned" Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS, which was used to take this picture.
Nikon D70, Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX @ 17mm, 1/90 sec. @ f/2.8, ISO 200, handheld.
All of these images are full-resolution. In fact, they are interpolated from the D70's 6 megapixels to 17 megapixels in Adobe Photoshop CS2's Bridge RAW converter. I have a "Lens Test" preset RAW conversion saved, so each one of these images received the exact same processing.
All of these images are full-resolution. In fact, they are interpolated from the D70's 6 megapixels to 17 megapixels in Adobe Photoshop CS2's Bridge RAW converter. I have a "Lens Test" preset RAW conversion saved, so each one of these images received the exact same processing.
Nikon D70, Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX, 1/60 sec. @ f/3.5, ISO 200, handheld.
Nikon D70, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX @ 50mm, 1/90 sec. @ f/2.8, ISO 200, handheld
Nikon D70, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS, 1/90 sec. @ f/2.8, ISO 200, handheld.
The DX lens, with it's state-of-the-art lens coating, obviously beats this AIS lens' contrast by far. Having said that, if you zoom in ridiculously close, you can see that the AIS lens takes the sharpness lead...
The DX lens, with it's state-of-the-art lens coating, obviously beats this AIS lens' contrast by far. Having said that, if you zoom in ridiculously close, you can see that the AIS lens takes the sharpness lead...
Didn't believe me, did you? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, my early-eighties manual-focus lens is slightly sharper than a state-of-the-art 2003 DX ED lens.
There used to be a large voice from photographers who insisted that primes always have been and always would be sharper than zooms, but I haven't heard much from that "camp" lately, with the release of lenses like Nikon's venerable 17-35 f/2.8 AFS and "beast" 28-70 f/2.8 AFS and 70-200 f/2.8 AFS VR...
If you view images at native resolution (six megapixels in this case) and 100%, the difference between zooms and primes has gotten pretty close to nill. But it's still there, aparently.
Having said that, if I may go on a tangent, I'll say that it's quite ludicrous to conclude that one must always shoot with a 1980 prime lens just because it's slightly sharper. Try shooting someone's wedding with a bunch of primes and just one or two camera bodies. It's a nightmare! Zooms like the ones I mentioned are awesome, high-performance alternatives that, in my opinion, are by far the way to go in most conditions.
There used to be a large voice from photographers who insisted that primes always have been and always would be sharper than zooms, but I haven't heard much from that "camp" lately, with the release of lenses like Nikon's venerable 17-35 f/2.8 AFS and "beast" 28-70 f/2.8 AFS and 70-200 f/2.8 AFS VR...
If you view images at native resolution (six megapixels in this case) and 100%, the difference between zooms and primes has gotten pretty close to nill. But it's still there, aparently.
Having said that, if I may go on a tangent, I'll say that it's quite ludicrous to conclude that one must always shoot with a 1980 prime lens just because it's slightly sharper. Try shooting someone's wedding with a bunch of primes and just one or two camera bodies. It's a nightmare! Zooms like the ones I mentioned are awesome, high-performance alternatives that, in my opinion, are by far the way to go in most conditions.
Nikon D70, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX, 1/250 sec. @ f/8, ISO 200, handheld.
Nikon D70, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS, 1/250 sec. @ f/8, ISO 200, handheld.
Nikon D70, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX, 1/750 sec. @ f/8, ISO 200, handheld.
Nikon D70, Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX, 1/750 sec. @ f/8, ISO 200, handheld.
In this case, there is almost no difference at all between the two images, if you view them at 100% and 6 megapixels. The only difference is the noticeable chromatic aberration in the Tokina image, which can be completely corrected at 100% and 6 megapixels.
However, if you interpolate the image to 25 megapixels and view it at 100%, you discover that the Tokina is "much" sharper. Hover your mouse over this image to see an animation comparing the two:
Again, this is a pretty ludicrous comparison, considering that I interpolated to 25 megapixels. This blatant difference you see now might be non-existent in even a 16x20" print...
Before I get into the more boring test images on the next page, I'll give my opinion on this lens... The focal range is definitely perfect for shooting events and such. Having only owned and rented 35mm film SLR lenses until now other than the 12-24 DX, I've never experienced what it's like to have true wide angle and mid telephoto coupled into one zoom lens. This lens gives about 25mm to 80mm in 35mm terms of view angle, which is about "standard". I like that about the lens, and I like the constant f/2.8 apeture and the quick, silent AFS focusing. But here's what I don't like: I don't like how heavy and expensive the lens is. I know it's a professional lens made to last many years, but it's a little too much for me, especially considering that it's only 3.2x worth of zoom. I guess that's an improvement over the older 28-70 f/2.8 AFS, but I disliked that lens even more. I also don't like how small the zoom ring is and how much effort is required to use it. The lens has such a small opening in the back for air to pass through that when you zoom it with the lens detached from the camera you can feel it blowing in your face. You just can't zoom with your fingers alone very quickly, you have to really "crank" with your wrist if you want to zoom in real quick. This is something I'm really not used to. I can see why some people are absolutely in love with a lens like this. It's solid, it's wide-apeture and fast-focusing, and it's professionally sharp at all focal lengths. But it's definitely not the lens for me...
In this case, there is almost no difference at all between the two images, if you view them at 100% and 6 megapixels. The only difference is the noticeable chromatic aberration in the Tokina image, which can be completely corrected at 100% and 6 megapixels.
However, if you interpolate the image to 25 megapixels and view it at 100%, you discover that the Tokina is "much" sharper. Hover your mouse over this image to see an animation comparing the two:
Again, this is a pretty ludicrous comparison, considering that I interpolated to 25 megapixels. This blatant difference you see now might be non-existent in even a 16x20" print...
Before I get into the more boring test images on the next page, I'll give my opinion on this lens... The focal range is definitely perfect for shooting events and such. Having only owned and rented 35mm film SLR lenses until now other than the 12-24 DX, I've never experienced what it's like to have true wide angle and mid telephoto coupled into one zoom lens. This lens gives about 25mm to 80mm in 35mm terms of view angle, which is about "standard". I like that about the lens, and I like the constant f/2.8 apeture and the quick, silent AFS focusing. But here's what I don't like: I don't like how heavy and expensive the lens is. I know it's a professional lens made to last many years, but it's a little too much for me, especially considering that it's only 3.2x worth of zoom. I guess that's an improvement over the older 28-70 f/2.8 AFS, but I disliked that lens even more. I also don't like how small the zoom ring is and how much effort is required to use it. The lens has such a small opening in the back for air to pass through that when you zoom it with the lens detached from the camera you can feel it blowing in your face. You just can't zoom with your fingers alone very quickly, you have to really "crank" with your wrist if you want to zoom in real quick. This is something I'm really not used to. I can see why some people are absolutely in love with a lens like this. It's solid, it's wide-apeture and fast-focusing, and it's professionally sharp at all focal lengths. But it's definitely not the lens for me...
in this box: