This is a great lens for photojournalism, weddings and general photography. I've not had the opportunity to shoot landscapes with mine yet but I expect it to excel in that aspect as well. Wide open, the lens is very sharp - When opening images in Adobe photoshop, there is often no need for sharpening.

The lens balances well on my Nikon D70, and is very comfortable to use - the zoom and focus rings are adquately sized and have a nice consistent resistance throughout their respective ranges. Additionally, the lens focuses very close (about a foot from the subject), allowing a lot of creative flexibility.

I purchased this lens as an upgrade to the D70 kit lens (18-70 f/3.5-4.5) and can honestly say it was worth it. I shot a low light wedding (my first) with this lens and an 85 1.8 and found the 17-55 indispensible. The fast 2.8 aperture is great for low light while the 17mm end (appears similar to a 27mm on film) allows for a much wider angle than comparable 28-7x lenses. I've heard of sample variation, but have had no problems with mine. Highly recommended.

This is the lens on my D2X most of the time.
Very sharp, quick focusing, solidly built, a joy to use.
Recommended!

This lens is ultra fast, ultra sharp and one of the best lenses that Nikon makes. It's heavy the first time you use it but once you get used to it you no longer notice it. Great lens, highly reccomended.

I just got one of these. I have to say it is the best lens and focal length you can buy for a Nikon DSLR like the D70/D200/D2X etc. It's not too big and built extremely well. It replaced my Nikon 18-70mm zoom. I love the f/2.8 aperture. Great for blurred backgrounds. You can't go wrong with this lens. Forget about the older Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8.

Very sharp wide open, excellent colors and contrast. Easily beats even primes in that range.

A bit heavy and big, not to mention pricy, it is worth every penny though.

In my opinion this is one of the best lens Nikon has made. Excellent build quality, rugged, good quality feel. This lens stays on my D200 body. Very fast & sharp. Will even give an amateur great professional results.

I've been using this lens for the past couple of years now, and it gave me nothing but satisfaction both in its usage and its photographic output. Everything about this lens just exudes quality. The mechanical build of this lens is as good as it gets. The auto-focus is fast and decisive, while the manual-focus is velvety smooth; the AF-S motor of this lens will of course allow you to manual-focus after auto-focusing (and vise-versa) without flipping any switch.

The optical design of this lens utilizes the most modern techniques in optics engineering, rendering very good sharpness and contrast wide-open (at f2.8) throughout its focal-length while controlling distortions and aberrations to their minimal effect. Extreme sharpness and contrast is achieved from f4 to f8, and starts to deteriorate at f11 (when tested with a Nikon D70, D80, and D200). The focal range of this lens (wide-angle to short-telephoto) is definitely the most useful for my type of shooting, and so as most of the amateur and professional photographers that I know.

I recommend this lens without reservation.

Fast, silent, well built, and with an aperture that will allow photography in lighting conditions that would have most other lens users reaching for the flash. If you're in photojournalism, wedding or landscapes - you can't get much better glass for your buck. Heartily recommended!

I have been using Nikon cameras for 30 years, and their digital SLR's for the past 5 or so...this is far and away one of the best Nikon lenses I have ever used - amazingly well built, excellent image quality, fast focusing, wonderful glass. The downside is primarily the price -- it's as expensive as a full camera, and the weight -- this is a two pound lens. If your budget can accomodate this lens, get it, you will be thrilled. If your budget can not, get the Tamron 17-50 which has similar image quality, weighs less than a pound, and sells for 1/3 the price of this lens. But wow...once you try this lens, you will kick yourself for getting anything lesser....Warning: filter size is 77, so most of your existing filters probably won't work, and do your self a favor and get yourself an UV filter/lens protector out of the box before you put your fingers on your 1300.00 lens.

I've had this lens since Nov of 2006. At first the weight and feel let you know this is not any kit lens. The dampening of the zoom ring is perfect, not too tight not too loose, again you feel the quality.

Then you put it on a D200 and you squeeze the shutter button to activate the auto focus. You start to wonder if it even responded because you didn't hear anything, so you start putting it to the test by quickly jumping between objects near and far. Soon you realize that the AF truly is silent and faster than anything you've used before.

Then you bring the pictures into PhotoShop and like another reviewer here stated, you realize the image doesn't need any USM (sharpening). It came right out of the camera razor sharp.

Then you try it in low light conditions and realize how fast it is. Then you get creative with the aperture wide open and it delivers beautiful creamy blurred backgrounds while your subjects are in perfect detail.

I could go on and on, but as the folks in California would say...it's all good.

If you can afford it, don't worry about the cost. IMHO it is worth every penny. Best lens I own. Of course I just ordered the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 ED IF AF-S VR zoom. It's due here this Friday, I have heard nothing but excellent reports on that lens too. This one may have to take second place when the 70-200 gets here.

Paul
Hendersonville, TN

Reviewers below have already described how great this lens is -- I add my voice to the choir but wanted to write here about the decision process that led to 17-55. As others have also said, choosing the camera is relatively easy but choosing the lens (or lenses) is mind boggling. I spent the better part of two weeks researching online and going to photo stores. The 17-55 was barely in my peripheral vision when I started. Of course the first thing I considered was the 18-200VR. All the reviewers like it -- Rockwell was practically orgasmic -- and softly bashed the 17-55 as a heavy, expensive and overkill for most. I looked at many options and kept coming back to the 18-200 as the best all round but something wouldn't let me pull the trigger. And it's this: I like natural light. Many of my photos are references for painting, and I do a lot of portraits and some landscape. Getting the best color, in natural light is my highest priority. In amongst the 18-200 reviews there were a few hints about it being a bit dark at the 200 end (even with VR allowing slower shutter) and about "creep" of the lens when held vertically. I liked the possibility of a one-lens for all situations but began to wonder if I would get my use out of the 200 end without flash or tripod. Came to the 17-55 and dismissed it several times until finally tried it in a photo store. In retrospect, the reviewers suggest focusing on your priorities and for me the 17-55 made the most sense. I admit that I am partial to the simple feel of the lens -- phrases like "built like a tank" carry a lot of weight with me. I'm careful but do use the stuff. I also got an 85 1.8 for portraits so for the two lenses spent double the price of the 18-200VR -- not what I had planned on. But this selection focused the dollars to the heartland priorities and perhaps eventually I will bracket these with a 12-24 (third party) and a longer Tamron. The value of SLR, it seems to me, is to choose the options that match your needs.

I bought my 17-55 last month with my D200 - I had intended to get a 18-200 but they were out of stock in Indonesia. I had previously had a F3 and also a F90X and more recently also a D70 all of which were stolen. I used prime lenses with the F3 and lightweight zooms with the F90X.

At first I was shocked by the weight and considered trading it straight back in ... but my wife pointed out that the photos it took were simply stunning ... and compared to my 18-70 on my old D70 the results are wonderful - with superb definition amazing colours and contrast. It's fast too which means that the viewfinder is bright - this really helps composition in low light - and it's sharp all the way to 2.8. Remember kit lens are only really sharp from f8..

It helps me take better photos more than any camera body could. I love the lens now and would trade it for nothing else.

Now there are reviews out there implying this is a very expensive lens offering no real improvement over the excellent Nikon kit lens costing far less. As far as I can see they are unsupported by tests and should be read with extreme caution.

The 17-55 a piece of beautiful engineering and is a joy to handle and on reflection not so heavy . But the real beauty is inside where Nikon have done something almost magical........

I purchased this lense a little over a month ago and it hasn't come off my camera since. This is the first lense I bought since buying my Nikon D200, which came with the kit lense 18-70mm. The 17-55mm lense makes a huge diffrence in the quality of my pictures. The only negitive thing is, I wish it had a little more zoom.

I am a photojournalist and bought this lens to use with my Nikon D200 digital SLR. It has the best combination of focal length range, speed and quality of any lens available for the job. Yes, it is certainly a whole lot more expensive than the typical kit lenses sold with some of the other Nikon D-SLRs but to have an effective aperture of f2.8 across the entire zoom range is a tremendous plus especially in my line of work. This lens is also considerably larger and heavier than the slower kit lenses but it's a perfectly acceptable tradeoff for the speed and quality of build you get with it. Granted, this lens is not for everyone but it oftens makes the difference between getting the shot or not getting the shot. I am very pleased with this lens and highly recommend it.

This fast lens is a dream come true for ambient light event photographer! I love the lens and this is simply incredible.

I hate zoom lenses, I always feel they are soft. I have used dozens and there are few that I like (1 or 2). This is the best zoom lens I have used, IMHO it is heads, shoulders and knees above the performance of the 18-70mm kit lens (which I used for about 1 month) and the 18-200mm vr (which I rented for a weekend and thought it was garbage, it could have been a bad copy I suppose). Speaking of sharpness... I have the 50 f/1.4 and the Tamron macro 90mm f/2.8 which I consider to be my 2 sharpest lenses. If you are as picky as I am about softness then this lens is for you. It is as sharp as the fixed fifty (1.4) and the macro and both of those are known for being RAZOR sharp. I typically shot between 30 and 55mm with this lens and I am rarely disappointed. I suggest renting it for a weekend, that is what I did, shot a few hundred exposures, if you do not like it, don't buy it. Consequently if you get mugged while holding this lens it could be used to defend yourself, it is ridiculously well built and solid. In my opinion this is the best zoom lens for the nikon D series, good choice for those who are picky about sharpness.

I had purchased this lens for my D200 Nikon. Although this is not a cheap product, I am very satisfied with the outcome.

The 17-55mm F.8 Nikkor is worth every cent. Stick with Nikkor's Pro lenses, the other Nikkor plastics can't compete. By saving dollars with cheaper Nikkor lenses, you really cut the quality of what you really can achieve. There is no looking back after owning this lense-believe me! The lens is extremely sharp for my Wedding and Candid Photography. If I have to get closer, the marriage of the 70-200mm F.8 lens is its partner. Don't forget to spend a few dollars for the front end filter-don't go cheap here please! The lens is 100% in what it delivers - be amazed!!

Alan Russell
[...]

I bought this lens for my D100 just before leaving on a 2 week trip to Spain and France. Just got back and am amazed at the sharpness and picture quality I notice when processing the images - I love the natural light and speed I get at the 17 setting. I don't know if my other lenses will spend much time on the camera any more, except for special situations (like needing a longer zoom) as I was thinking about getting a new camera body, but this lens will keep me happy with the same camera for much longer now!

I am not a Pro, but as an enthusiast, most of my pictures are worth more to me than money. I feel like this lens was an excellent investment into capturing those special moments both inside and out.

This lens is all that people claim it to be and more. I use it with my Nikon D80 with it set to auto with manual priority (M/A) and I'm completely satisfied with its performance. It's , quiet, razor sharp, and extremely fast. When I say fast, I mean lightning fast. Lately I've been using it to take pictures of my nephews league football games (adults not kids so the action is fast paced). One minute I'm on the sideline talking to somebody not really paying attention to the game; then a play starts to unfold. I have to act quickly, so I'll raise my camera with the hopes of catching a shot. Man, it only takes a nano-second for this lens to focus! With the shutter speed set to 1/2500, everyshot is frozen and razor sharp. As for the weight that everybody, or most people, complain about, I don't get it. What's the big fuss. While shooting, I don't even notice the weight. Usually when I shoot, it's during the middle of the day and the sun is 12 o'clock high. The worst time of the day to shoot, but I just turn my back to the sun and fire away. With lens hood, which works perfectly well, I haven't experienced any flare. In addition, regardless of whether I'm shooting at a focal lenght of 17mm or up to 55mm, I haven't seen any distortion in any of my pictures. Everything works fine. The other nikon lens that I have are 50mm f/1.8D; 60mm f/2.8D macro; 85mm f/1.4D; 70-200mm f/2.8G

I have had this puppy for a week now (august 2007), and here is what i can tell you:

What they say is true: It is sharp, even at F/2.8. It focuses fast. Chromatic aberration is under control. Bokeh is great.

Who cares if it's heavy. If you want a light lens, you are probably willing to compromise image quality.

Drawbacks: There is significant distortion at 17mm. Correctible in PS(-3 does the trick), but I would expect more from such a pricey piece of glass. Also, I wish it had VR. Again, for the price that would make sense.

Overall, it is pro glass. you get what you pay for, and it will probably never leave the D200 body. Those who are considering this purchase should wait for a couple of months - nikon (and the rest) will be debuting new products before the holidays. I'd bet they'll roll out a VR version of this guy. So, this will model will probably drop in price. (just a guess)

p.s. (i like using parentheses)

It is perfect for what it does. Fast, not too big, with a zoom range equivalent to 25-88mm in 35mm terms. This lens is for portraits, small groups, indoor events where the lighting might not be so good. It is flattering to people with enough distance at the long end to keep the photographer from being too intrusive and also give you a shallow enough depth of field to isolate a subject from its background. Bokeh is excellent. At the wide end you can easily catch most of a dance floor or a band. Focusing is fast, sure, and quiet, even in dim light.

Wow......just got this today......don't know why I waited so long to replace my older film (albeit pro grade) lenses from the 1980's and 1990's that I was using with my 2006 DSLR camera. The images from this lens are like looking at the subjects themselves with your own eyes. Razor sharp and hyper-real. I mean flat out flawless color, clarity, contrast, sharpness, etc, etc. Distortion is not as bad as I had heard but many computer programs fix that stuff if you really care. I'm used to carrying around heavy f/2.8 lenses anyway (even on vacation) so the weight of this does not bother me. It is heavy as heck, however! The bokeh rocks! I am just blown away by this lens. I don't think it's comin' off the camera for a while. Do yourself a favor and just go ahead and get it. I promise you won't be disappointed.

This lens should compliment the 70-200 2.8 VR. I'm looking forward to using it.

After a long time to consider prices, features and availability; I purchased this lens about a week ago for my D-70 (I am on the waiting list for the new D300.) To date I have shot about 500 frames. Roughly half in-studio with lights and umbrellas, and half outdoors. This is an amazing piece of glass! The clarity and sharpness are better than anything I have ever used before. But I think the greatest strength it brings to the table is the amazing dynamic range it captures. Imagine a shot where contrast is high, yet the highlights are not blown out while the dark areas show every detail. This lens does that and then some. It is fast and dependable, not to mention it is build like a tank.
I want to address 3 negative comments associated with this zoom:
1. The price. What do you expect from professional-grade glass?
2. Too heavy. Give me a break! Consider starting a strength-building exercise program.
3. It will make you hate every lesser lens you own. I call that improvement.
And finally, when you buy a UV filter to protect it, don't skimp on the quality. I know the top of the line is expensive; but why buy a cheap filter to put in front of you expensive lens? I bought a UV B+W 77mm F-Pro and attached it to the Nikon lens right out of the box.

Super lens. No question. I purchased my D200 with the kit 18-70mm and was quite happy. Ignorance is bliss. After a time I found myself questioning the quality of the camera as all my shots required some sort of post processing to get to a point where I thought the shot looked like through the view finder. Frustrated, I turned to Amazon. I started reading reviews and checking prices. Like another reviewer stated, I was ready pull the trigger on the 17-200mm but reviewers on the site convinced me I would be making a mistake, at least at that moment in time. On the other hand, everyone who had bought the 17-55mm lens seems universally happy with their decision.

I'm one of them. This lens is incredible. When you hold it up against the kit lens, there is literally no comparison, both physically and perforance wise. Physically its MUCH bigger - its a brut. Performance wise, it really doesn't compare. This lens is a technological marvel. So there in lies the trade off. Tremedous performance or compactness.

I was recently in Honolulu, a place I go often. I like to hike Diamond Head, a great hike if you haven't done it. The thought of tugging this camera and lens along was daunting. I decided not to. I'd taken the pictures from the site with many different cameras over the years so my motivation wasn't as strong as it would have been had it had been my first climb. Still, I'd think twice about dragging the lens/ body out for just any old event. If its special, well, yeah I will, otherwise I'm back to a NEW Canon point and shoot!

If your focus is the highest quality you can get and don't mind the girth - don't hesitate, buy it. You won't regret it.

With all the FX talk and full frame sensor thrashing, you need to focus on objectives and purpose for your needs. This lens is constant 2.8 through the entire focal range. That affords a profound differenece for me, shooting in shade, under objects, on my kneepads in the early morning, walking through urban alleys before sunrise. This is a DX lens you can trust, solid, well built like a tank--if you could choose only one lense, this is it. The "walk around" zooms are fine, but my first 10 years of BW photography utilized a single 50mm prime lense. And these shots remain the most graphic and satisfying. I compose by using my legs and eyes, get your body in position. For me, this lens offers the ability to lock in 35 mm or 50mm (and its prime sharp), plus wide angle for those intermitant shots when I desire to capture a wider composition. Each photographer has their own preferences, but for my purposes, this is an invaluable lense, and the constant 2.8 delivers in so many ways. With my 70-300 VR, 60mm micro and 50 1.8, this completes an amazing foursome that I am thrilled to travel with or handle inside my studio.

After one year with my trusty D80 I finally jumped and got this lens.
I have to tell you that probably some of you will argue that for less money people can get a f/2.8 Tamron (click here:Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood for Nikon-D DSLR Cameras) or a f/2.8 Sigma (click here: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro Lens for Nikon DSLR), but such comparisons are completely off track.

First of all, a $800 difference it's not just marketing. It is reflected by a totally different image quality, a better build (metal and sealing), the speed of the AF system and the overall feeling of holding a real pro lens.

Secondly, the Tamrons I was contemplating into buying all had some problems with flash overexposure on TTL and TTL BL modes on my SB800 + D80 combo. I am not quite sure why it happened with the Tamron, but I have no such problems with the DX 17-55. Moreover, Tamron has inferior AF speed and this can be observed especially in lowlight. Try focusing with the 17-55 in ambiental light from a 60W light bulb and you will have no problem. Then try the same with a Tamron and you will.

Another thing that is annoying is the CA I've noticed with the Tammy, even when the lens was stopped down. I personally hate strong CA because it makes my photos look very P&S-like.

However, the 17-50 Tamron is a good contender and may be an option for anyone on a tight budget. Please keep in mind that I saved for the Nikkor and I got it actually one year after my first decision, but I believe the waiting was worth every penny.

Now back to the 17-55DX:
My experience with it is connected to a D80 camera.
The lens is very, very, very sharp, even wide open at 2.8. It is almost too sharp at f5.6 which should make you never use the in-camera sharpening at other setting than normal and this may create some problems for portraiture work if you will like, for example, to soften a bit some undesirable details on your model's face... The sharpness is due mainly to the superb optics of the lens but also to the excellent microcontrast this lens is able to render. The overall microcontrast translates into very natural-looking images and excellent rendition of difficult hues and tones as skin tones have (for example).

Under direct bright sun, it tends to exhibit a slight magenta cast but this is easily correctable either with a filter or by postprocessing (pp) when using raw (NEF) files. I'm not sure if this is due to the lens alone or - more probable - the lens + antialising filter + sensor of the D80, so results may be different with other nikon cameras. The lens is quite obviously coated for neutral gray rendition on a 6000K color temperature, the one you will get with flash, for example. BTW, it is a good ideea to use manual white balance on 6000K when using D80 + 17-55DX + SB800 and A mode on the flash. I got best results with these settings.

Also about camera settings, the 17-55DX is a very contrasty lens so this may give you some hard times when shooting jpegs on a bright sunny day with huge image dynamics. My advice is to set your camera tone settings on low or lowest (-1 or -2) and mode I or III sRGB. No problem on raw as dynamics could be corrected in Capture NX. These issues are nonexistent with filtered or diffuse light (cloudy, diffusers etc).

Overall, this lens makes for each penny you spend with it. It has a superb build quality which will impress you from the first moment you'll hold it in your hands, excellent sharpness, color rendition and image quality that equals the actual scene characteristics in naturalness and color. It is environmentally sealed (internal and at the flange with a rubber ring), the AF runs extremely fast and it is a good investment in a superb optical system.

LOVE this lens. It is so much more infinitely better then the kit lens (18-70) that is isn't even comparable. It is super sharp, fast focusing, and just a great all around lens to have.

It may be a bit heavy and large for travel, but for events, weddings, etc, you can't go wrong.

Not cheap, but a great lens. Images are very sharp. And the versility of a lens with this zoom range is very useful. I had heard that some of the older 17-55 lenses don't zoom smoothly, but mine (a recent one) does. No complaints about this lens.

i bought it at$1100, and feel much much better than my kit lens 18-135. it is very very , even at aperture=2.5 and 17mm.

I love it

I just had to have this lens, so I bought it. In retrospect, it was a good move. It's a relatively fast lens, and is very sharp. It goes great with my Nikon D300 as an everyday lens. It should work good in available light with a high ISO. If you're thinking about buying it, just realize that it's not a small light lens. Rather, it's somewhat hefty. But it's solid as a rock and a quality product, to be sure. The only question now is what lens do I buy to cover the longer focal lengths? The 70-200 VR?

This is great for those landscape shoots. The 2.8 aperature helps with low light. Some may find its weight and cost to be negative. But I find the weight a plus as it help prevent camera shake and cost is the price for quality pictures. Many heads turned when I pull out my Nikon D80 with the monster 17-55mm lens in Patagonia. Imagine shooting with this lens while everyone else holding P/S cameras.

Pros: - WOW! One of Nikon's better designs. This is a must have lens for the professional or serious amateur. Haven't had the lens long enough to really give it a complete test. Initial captures in architecture, groups of people are excellent. Should produce good results in weddings, landscape and panorama.

Cons: It's big, heavy and "spendy". Would I buy it again? You Bet!!

This Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ... Its the sharpest Nikon Lens up to date ... the highest quality !!!! and its f/2.8 !!

the facous rearly no sound at all (super silent and very fast) im using it withs Nikon D300 ...

Nothing to worry about this lens ...

I'm a professional photographer and since I received it, I'm like a child. It's a very very good lens with a incridible build construction. The best quality I expect from Nikon.
And about the pictures ? I'm so glad... My exemplary is so sharp and so homogeneous. I like to work with it. Really

This is a case of you get what you pay for and what's promised. As the spec's & everyone says it's big, solidly built, smooth, fast focusing, etc. It handles well on my D200, should be the same on a D300 and probably OK on a D80. Smaller bodies might be overwhelmed. Optics are top notch. You just use the aperture & focal length you want and pay no attention to the few weak points. There's a hint of color fringing at 17mm but it's gone at 18-19mm. It's also auto-corrected in Capture NX and presumably in D300 .jpgs. So if you see lens tests that sample each extreme plus a middle focal length they'll underrate this lens. Yes there's barrel distortion at the wide end. I'll differ with one review in saying that the distortion is regular & easy to correct when you need to. Lower level zooms often have mustache or other hard to correct distortion.

Many 17-55 owners use it as their work-horse. It is an intimidating sight to your subjects with the hood mounted. I'd recommend a high quality UV filter to have the option of reducing the visual impact. VR and a little more zoom range would help on paper but in use you just mount the lens, get the shot & don't worry about what you don't have.

I have the 18 - 55 kit lens and was dissatisfied due to the softness and the very slow focusing times. I also do a lot of available light photography and could not get the shutter speeds I wanted. So I started using primes exclusively.

I debated buying this lens because it wasn't a full frame. I have a D80 and D300, but aspire to full frame one day. I made the right decision in buying this lens. It's lightening fast. I haven't had a problem in focusing, except in very low light. The results are as sharp as my 35mm and 50mm primes. It's built like a tank, but no so heavy that I couldn't carry it around all day.

There are two issues. First, I get a fair amount of lens flare when pointed directly at a source of light (common for available light, when a street lamp or candle is in the frame). Not 100% of the time, but where the shooter needs to be aware of this issue. Also, when using the built in flash with either the D80 or D300, the lens hood will shade the lighting. You can solve the problem by removing the lens hood when using the built in flash.

Still, this is a 5 star lens. I tend to be reserved with my reviews and give low ratings when there are serious issues, but I recommend this lens without reservation.

best purchase ive done lately...i have several nikon lenses ranging from 12mm till 200....this is the best so far and stays on my nikon D300 most of the time...sharp in all aspects..Razer sharp...heavy though....but youll get used to it, it came with 5 yrs nikon us guarant
best about thats its a weather proof lens.ive used it in a rainy day...all shots went great...u better have one in ur camera gear one day

The lenses I've owned in similar ranges are the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Comparing this lens to the 18-70mm is probably a bit unfair, so I won't mention it again. However, there are many people looking for alternatives and the Tamron 17-50mm is as close as it gets so I'll base this review as a comparison to the Tamron. Having owned the Tamron for a few weeks before offing it, I can tell you this. If you're looking for a lens that equally matches or even exceeds the 17-55mm in terms of image quality, then by all means, go for the Tamron. Equality pretty much ends there.

The advantages of the Nikon 17-55mm are the following:
BUILD QUALITY - You immediately notice the build quality as soon as you handle and inspect the 17-55mm. It's encased in metal and nicely sealed so dust, moisture (which leads to fungus) will hopefully be minimized. "Built like a tank" is a good cliche.
FAST FOCUS - The Silent Wave Motor is not only fast, but extremely quiet.
SHARP WIDE OPEN - Using an aperture of f/2.8, this lens is very usable. Another advantage is that is focuses more accurately in low light. This is an aspect that was inferior in the Tamron.
COLOR RENDITION - I've found colors out of the lens are very satisfying with little need to "tweak" during post processing. The Tamron had a warmer color, but this may vary among copies.
MINIMAL CA - CA didn't bother me much in the Tamron, but it's much more controlled on the 17-55mm, especially wide open.
BETTER QUALITY CONTROL - This was the deal breaker with the Tamron. I received a copy that overexposed which is in line with the experiences of many people with that particular lens. Although sample variance exists with Nikon, it's much more controlled.
SIZE/WEIGHT/BALANCE - Some people mention this lens is too bulky and heavy. I find the size and weight actually helpful and helps balance and control on the majority of camera bodies.

The 17-55mm doesn't have any major flaws for me. I'm not a professional nor am I a pixel peeper. I'm just an enthusiast that likes good image quality. However, if I were to knit pick, here are the flaws:
SMALL ZOOM RING - It's annoyingly small at first, but you get used to it.
FLARES EASILY - Point it at a light source directly or even indirectly and this lens has a propensity to flare. You can certainly use the massive hood to mitigate flare.
DISTORTION AT WIDE END - Some say the distortion at the wide end makes this lens unusable for landscape/architecture work. If you're looking for a lens specifically for that task, you may want to consider a true wide angle lens like the 12-24mm or 14-24mm or go Sigma 10-20mm. However, I find this lens quite usable at the wide end.

One peculiarity with the 17-55mm is that it's at its shortest length almost fully zoomed at around 45mm and longest and fully extended at 17mm. I found this amusing since I haven't experienced other lenses with this characteristic.

In my research, I also considered the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. This lens should definitely be on your list because it offers the latest technology and it's a full frame (FX) lens. I ruled it out because it's not only $500 more than the 17-55mm, but also because it's not wide enough for my purposes. Also, I happen to be under the opinion that DX has at least a few more years before it becomes obsoleted/deprecated by FX. People are beginning to recommend against investing in DX lenses, but IMHO, affordable full frame bodies are years away.

Ultimately, I selected the Nikkor 17-55mm over the Tamron 17-50mm because of its superior usability wide open. The hit on my pocketbook was rather significant, but I have no regrets of getting such a excellent lens with a great usable range. If Nikon ever added VR to this lens, then it would be a dream come true. I state this because I often need to use a shutter speed of 1/30 or slower when shooting in low light and I rarely use a tripod. VR would come in extremely handy in this situation to prevent camera shake.

I highly recommend this lens. It's on my camera 9 times out of 10. Okay, I'll stop now.

Absolutely love this lens. At the end of a wedding however, my arm did notice that is is heavier than the Tameron 2.8 17-55mm.

This is a really nice lens. I've had the Canon equivalent and it had 'IS' which this one does not. Personally, I can't tell what actual differences there are in the photos from each. For the (higher) price of the Nikon, it should at least offer image stabilization.
When I called Nikon, their tech said that a new model may offer IS? However, when that happens, the price of these expensive non-IS lenses will take a hit when selling to be sure. For all that has been exclaimed about Nikon's lensmaking capabilites, they don't seem to try and justify the costs for their lenses. Sure, their quality is a big factor-but what average person can tell when viewing a picture? They make $10,000+ lenses, but what does that have to do with the average consumer? If Canon can make a similar type lens with IS, why can't Nikon?
When I asked a local Nikon camera dealer why their pricing is so high for a non IS lens...all he could come up with was "a lot of people buy them so they must be good!" And that's from a business owner Nikon retailer so called "salesman". Does anybody have any self respect anymore?
In truth, I think I liked the Canon lens better just for the extra IS feature. I shot my daughter's Wedding and the pictures were fast and furious and hardly one had a blur on them. This Nikon takes great pictures also, but I miss having that extra feature.

I really wanted to believe. I read the reviews and I was extremely optimistic. I wanted to try & buy the lens locally but it wasn't available so I didn't get an opportunity to feel the lens.

I got the lens (wow, it's big and heavy) and eagerly put it on my D300. When I tried zooming, instead of that nice, smooth silky ball-bearing feel, the zooming felt like cheap, rough plastic-on-plastic.

My wife tried it out and she yelped "Oh My God, that's rough".

What's worse it that the zoom ring is right next to the body and even with my small hands, my hand kept bumping up against the built-in flash. Why did Nikon switch the order of the rings? The rings on the Nikon 18-200 VR lens are in the "correct" order.

Unfortunately, I just sold my $1200 Canon lens (with IS) since I wasn't using the Rebel XTi anymore. Now, that was an incredibly smooth lens. I really miss that lens.

I tried a number of lens and the quality of the photographs didn't impress me. I didn't see a significant improvement over my lesser lenses.

The lens does focus quickly and quietly, but it's too painful to zoom so I'm sending it back.

When Nikon comes out with an IS lens with smooth zooming action (and without zoom creep like on the 18-200mm lens), I'll try again.

Try before you buy! It's going to cost me about $50 to ship back the lens and filter.

An amazing lens! Images are sharp. Wide angle encompasses most of your scene while the telephoto gets you pretty close. It would be nice if Nikon made this lens with VR, but for the most part, it gets the job done. The price is a little steep for most people, but the quality is by far worth the price. The f2.8 will give you a wide enough aperture to photograph under lower lighting with a decent shutter speed (under most circumstances) and without a flash.

I read many of the reviews, and I was on the fence regarding this lens. I tried a sample in a local camera shop, and felt the 'roughness' in the zoom ring that another reviewer mentioned. Having no way to try before I buy on Amazon, I crossed my fingers, bit the bullet, and placed my order. I've used it over the weekend at a local zoo (National Zoo, Washington D.C.) and...wow. No way is this going back to Amazon. I know that the kit 18-55mm lens is tack sharp and a fraction of the cost, but let me tell you there is no substitute for fast glass. The depth of field and fast autofocus this provides is astounding. I uploaded an image of an iguana to this review, but it really doesn't do the lens justice. The best compliment I've received with a photo from this lens is "Did you really take that?" They think I stole it from Nat'l Geo! If you can swing it, buy this lens. Forget the naysayers, put your faith in fast glass.

'Nuff said.

This is my favorite lens for weddings and full length portraits. It is built for professionals, and can produce fantastic results, (in the right hands). Images are tack sharp with great color and contrast. The fast fixed aperture is perfect for low light photography at all zoom lengths. Great for those times when you can't use a flash.

Before making your purchase consider that any of the the affordable "kit" lenses, (with a nearly identical zoom range), may fit your budget better. For example, the Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II is really a terrific lens. If you have any doubt, get the less expensive kit lens, and try to outgrow its usefulness by becoming a better photographer.

Like all photographic tools, the more expensive "professional" models won't make you a better photographer. This lens just allows you a greater range of flexibility in certain situations where the kit lens will fall a tad short. Every lens in the right hands can produce "professional" results, but this one will make the professionals life just a little easier. If you are truly ready for a lens like this, the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED won't disappoint.

This is simply a splendid lens. On my D 200 it has produced miracles. Indeed color rendition is simply superb as is contrast. I thought initially it was going to be a bit expensive but my friendly camera store convinced me othewhise. It is a great allround lens that can be used for everything despite its size. The only problem is that at 17 mm and even before, the built-in flash on the D 200 will give a shadow of the lens on the bottom so yuo will probably be better off using a separate flash (that I have still not bought but that I now recommend all my friends to buy with these Nikons). I also never use the sun shade since the lens then simply becomes enormous. I had been using some older autofocus lenses on my D200 before but this has now become my standard lens.

I have recently switched from a Canon 1D Mark IIN to a Leica M8. Then, missing all of the features of modern SLRs I switched again to a Nikon D300. A very good move! An almost perfect camera!

First off, I love big, fast glass that is sharp, sharp, sharp. And this lens delivers. I did a lot of research before buying this lens and it is the only lens I saw that had 5 stars on Amazon. I care a lot about what my peers think. So I took the plunge. I had this weekend to play with it and the results are stunning. It is as clear as any lens I have ever used. Just as good as my Leica Summicron 50. And I thought that lens would never be topped.

Some Leicaphiles may dismiss that statement and think I just didn't know how to use it. Maybe... but the Nikon 17-55mm DX lens should not be dismissed.

If you like fast lenses and don't care about weight (by the way, my previous lens was a Canon 24-70mm L f2.8 you wanna talk about weight!) than this is the lens to get.

Do your research and I think you'll ultimately wind up back here placing this in your shopping cart.

The lens is built like a tank and looks beautiful. It focuses like lightning and again, is sharp, sharp, sharp. I am adding images taken with this lens to my website [...] soon.

GET IT!!

I initially owned the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens after purchasing my Nikon D300 body earlier this year. The 18-200 of course is a do-all mid-line lens and shouldn't be too critically compared to the professional line of Nikon glass. I used the 18-200 briefly as I became more familiar with my new D300 and found the images from the 18-200 were adequate, although not as crisp and sharp and high contrast as many of my Canon lenses had been before I migrated over to the Nikon side after 12+ years of using Canon gear. When I recently got a wedding shoot to do that required only available light and no flash for the entire 1 hour ceremony I now had the reason to consider purchasing the 17-55. Considering the Nikon 18-200 falls well short of a large enough aperture for low light photography and in reviews, is softer in resolution over-all anyway compared to the 17-55, this was my motivation to sell my 18-200 and pick up the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens. (I've also added a 70-300mm Nikon VR to my bag to fill the telephoto void, I posted an excellent review on Amazon for this lens as well). The wedding was very recently shot, with most all images during the available light ceremony shot wide open at 2.8 due to the very low lighting in the church. Much to my relief, the images all turned out superbly and were very sharp, had excellent contrast and color saturation even wide open (I always shoot RAW for most important photo jobs). I was also absolutely delighted in the lens regarding how quick the focus was in the low light (basically instant with no hesitation as soon as the shutter release was pressed to take the photo. Many shots required a large shift in focus from far to very close-up and the 17-55 didn't fail me even once, frame to frame. In many cases I had to quickly raise the camera to my eye and fire off a burst with no lag time to spare for the focus to occur if I was to capture a perfect shot and not miss the opportunity. The lens never filed here even once. They say, you get what you pay for and considering the 17-55 goes for around the $1200 mark, you're getting the excellent optical quality that only a high end Nikon lens can give you. If you need to shoot in low light levels, or just simply want the very best images that your camera can give you, a high-end lens is the ONLY way to go. This lens will not dissapoint you once-so-ever.

Having made the decision to move from film to digital, I purchased this lens along with the excellent 70-200 f2.8 VR for my D300 body. I prefer to use a flash as little as possible so the faster f2.8 lenses are a must for me.

This lens is much larger than similar kit lenses and it weighs considerably more. It actually provides a nice balance for the D300 with MB-D10 attached. The autofocus is very fast and precise and the images it produces are tack sharp. I use it as my everyday general purpose lens with outstanding results.

As others have stated, more expensive equipment doesn't necessarily mean you'll get better photos. The premium price reflects features and build quality. A $200 kit lens may very well provide comparable image quality at your backyard barbeque. But for those who need and will take advantage of the wider aperture in low light settings, this lens has few equals among standard zooms.

Bottom line: If you plan to take advantage of the wide aperture, this lens is an uncompromising must-have. It is an outstanding lens for those who need its capabilities. However, if most of your shots are outdoors in daylight, or you're used to using a flash inside, this lens might be more than you need. Save your money and get the excellent all purpose AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED or the less expensive AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR.

Note that this is a DX lens and is intended to be used specifically on the smaller DX sensor cameras (everything from D40 to D300). Anyone with a D700 or other full frame (FX) sensor should look at the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70 f/2.8G ED. Of course anyone with an FX camera should already know that. But anyone considering upgrading to an FX camera in the near future might want to rethink purchasing this $1200 lens.

if you have a DX body, want a pro grade lens then this is it.

I have been a photographer for over 40 years, beginning in high school sports for the newspaper. I used a 50mm f2.0 Summicron lens, for years considered the sharpest lens available for 35mm photography. I switched to digital several years ago, with the Leica digilux. Then I got smarter and purchased a Nikon D80, with the 17-55mm as my basic lens. This is a masterpiece for me: sharper, less distortion, and better color than any of my old leitz lenses, including the 35f2 aspherical, 24f2.8, 50f2, 90f2.8, and the 135f4. My 11X14 prints show amazing detail. I estimate the resolution at better than 80 lines per mm (the point at which the human eye can no longer "see"additional detail).

I bought this as an upgrade to my existing 18-55 lens. Not a professional photographer but I have been working photos since Photoshop version 2.5 and I know a good shot when I see it. My 18-55 really did a nice job considering the cost and size.

When I got the 17-55, first thing I did was try to setup something to compare both lenses. I did a hand-held shot of a grouping of fallen leaves with both lenses sans filters at same apertures and focal lengths. The shutter speed ended up being just slightly different due to either change of outdoor lighting or brightness of the lenses for proper exposure. When examined zoom out... the photos were very close in appearance which was surprising. However, when zoomed in... the differences became clear. The 17-55 produced more detail in some of the leaves mainly the veins of the leaves. If you were buying this lens alone for this reason... the price might not justify it. Further research shows the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II to just about out perform most of the other offerings from competitors in this zoom and price range which could explain why images were very close. So... why pay the price?

Ok, the other thing of note is the extra f/stop down to 2.8. At 55mm the 18-55 is at 5.6 with widest aperture setting while the 17-55 can still hold it at f/2.8. Even at this wide open setting... I was amazed how much detail it captures. I shoot a lot of landscapes and often would go for aperture settings of f/8 -16 to maintain detail and DOF on the slower lenses but... I have been surprised how much DOF I could get at even f/3.3-4 which has been nice on those evenings when sun is dipping low and I don't feel like getting the tripod out.

The lens is big... and it is a bit heavy... but everything about it says quality to me. It feels like a solid and well built lens in hand that can probably withstand a fair amount of abuse from traveling and the environment. I would probably prefer the zoom ring and focusing ring to have swapped places as the focus ring is in front and zoom in back but that is probably just my personal preference. I am throughly happy with the lens and its the most used lens I have at the moment on my D200. I look forward to getting more f/2.8 Nikkor lenses now.

Wedding photography is challenging, partly because of low-light situations, such as in a church when no flash is allowed or in a reception hall when the house lights are dimmed. For those situations this is my lens of choice.

And this lens also produces some very sharp images. If I am shooting portraits in the 17-55mm focal length range then this is the lens I grab. I also own a 50mm prime lens but I tend to gravitate toward this one.

Another bonus is the vibration reduction. I've hand held this lens for as long as 1/30 of a second without noticeable camera shake blurr.

If you are shooting Nikon with a DX sensor professionally or if you just want your images too look professional then this is the lens you need. If you need a lens for a D3 or the new D700, which use the FX format then this is the wrong lens.

I bought this lens to mate with my new Nikon D300 and upon opening the box, I was stunned at that build quality, heft and it having a literally silent motor. Optically, you can tell the pictures are sharper and clearer but I have to disclose that I upgraded from using entry level Tamron lens worth about a tenth of this price. My goal was to end up with a professional level camera and optic that would leave no excuses other than user error for picture quality. Now the pressure is on me. I must warn that with the lens and a D300 body, you weigh in at just over 4 pounds. I invested in a neoprene strap to take the weight and have had no problems. The mm range is perfect for light landscape photography to general picture taking. I have no complaints and my extensive research showed that this is a top notch lens. I'm an advanced amateur photographer with about 30 years of amateur experience - upgraded from a D70s with a Tamron 28-105 (and other lenses) to this outfit. Very satisfied.

Canon offers similar lens with image stabilization for about 20% less.
By not offering image stabiliztion in-body, both Canon and Nikon extrorts permium each time you buy a lens. As far as this lens is concerned, for most users are better of with two fast primes and will be cheaper as well. Unfortunately, 50mm F1.4 is only Nikon prime that auto focuses on sub-D90 bodies. Current generation of Nikon bodies are best of the breed, but they don't lens selection Canon offers.