Anthony at the Park with my Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8

Last November, I posted about the then-new 70-200 zoom I'd just received, and about how it had focus problems.

I actually got two lenses that day; here are some test shots I took with my at-the-time new Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, after having headed back to the playground with Anthony.

Parking His Ride -- Kyoto, Japan -- Copyright 2006 Jeffrey Eric Francis Friedl, http://regex.info/blog/
Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 17mm — 1/1250 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
Parking His Ride

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 55mm — 1/320 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
New Friends
It's fun being a kid -- Kyoto, Japan -- Copyright 2006 Jeffrey Eric Francis Friedl, http://regex.info/blog/
Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 48mm — 1/250 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
It's fun being a kid

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 48mm — 1/250 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 48mm — 1/250 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 55mm — 1/180 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
Hello!

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 17mm — 1/1500 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
Hello!

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 26mm — 1/320 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
Awww, Cute Kitty....

Nikon D200 + Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 @ 38mm — 1/320 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
Skip the cat, check out the ice cream!

This lens, officially the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor, has by far become my most-used day-to-day lens, while my 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 collects dust.

When helping Anthony get dressed in the mornings, I mention to him when I notice that the shirt he just put on is inside out. Invariably, he dismisses me with a casual “it's okay,” and indeed it is.


All 9 comments so far, oldest first...

I,too,noticed the inside-out shirt and knew he’d probably dressed himself. And indeed it is “O.K. He is such a beautiful uninhibited child, so genuine. He seems like he never met a stanger or someone he dislikes. And in nearly every pictire of him with other children, the girls are always smiling at him. This may give you and Fumie some anxiety when he becomes a teenager. Your mother is speaking from experience.

— comment by Grandma Friedl on March 19th, 2007 at 12:56am JST (10 years, 3 months ago) comment permalink

J.

Just in the off chance that you hadn’t seen this:

http://lwn.net/Articles/225652/

Some of your already amazing pictures might get even more complex 🙂

— comment by Madhu on March 22nd, 2007 at 3:38pm JST (10 years, 3 months ago) comment permalink

Hey, you’re right. That tree disappeared!

— comment by Nils on March 22nd, 2007 at 11:29pm JST (10 years, 3 months ago) comment permalink

Would you like to sell your 18-200?

No, because it’s an excellent one-lens solution when you need to travel light and value the zoom range over max aperture. I’m sure it’ll come in quite handy some day. —Jeffrey

— comment by kevin on March 25th, 2007 at 2:12pm JST (10 years, 3 months ago) comment permalink

Hi Jeffrey,

Great blog, love the care and attention you pay on the images! Thanks!

I’m in love with the 70-200VR and am ordering it to complement my 18-200.

I was intrigued by your comment that you use the 17-55 f2.8 instead of the 18-200 on a daily basis…can you say more, why? I would think the longer zoom would be better to crop out background, even on a fast-moving kid.

I would have never thought I’d abandon the 18-200, but the extra aperture (2/3rd of a stop at 18mm, and 4/3rd stop at 55mm) and better build quality are just too good to pass up. I do hate to change lenses, which is a bummer, but if I want to go to 200mm, I almost certainly don’t want to give up even more max aperture, so I would likely switch to the 70-200 anyway.

Have you looked at the new 14-24 f2.8?

Mildly, but unless I get a D3 it appears to offer little over the 17-55. However, since the 17-55 is DX, the 14-24 makes a lot of sense for the D3. —Jeffrey

Dave

— comment by Dave Story on September 7th, 2007 at 5:08am JST (9 years, 10 months ago) comment permalink

I don’t understand, actually the picture is not sharp. What’s proud about 17-55?
I can take the same picture with 18-55.

At f/2.8? That would be a trick. —Jeffrey

— comment by daniel on November 27th, 2007 at 2:53pm JST (9 years, 7 months ago) comment permalink

of course 18-55 doesn’t have 2.8. my point is those pictures are not that good, especially under the bright light. 18-55 can take the same picture with no problem(different f of course). the purpose is taking a good picture. if just for big f, f/1.8 or f/1.4 50mm would do better job than “your proud super” 17-55. it’s outdoor and under the sun light.

I’m searching for a reason why you’d want to come and put words onto my post (I never said “proud” or otherwise hyped the lens or the pictures I posted), then attack me for them. Perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder and are taking it out on me? Perhaps feel a bit inferior? I dunno. . All I did is post some pictures of my kid — pictures that I happened to have taken the first time I used a new lens — and posted them for my family to see. You’ve got a real problem. Try a vacation, or something. —Jeffrey

— comment by daniel on November 28th, 2007 at 12:22pm JST (9 years, 7 months ago) comment permalink

Hi Jeffrey,

Thank you for your nice reviews. I also have 18-200 with my D40x and considering 17-55 with exactly the same reason you have. I’ve been studying reviews in web and it seems the reputation of 17-55 is amazingly polarized. At least it seems to have quite variation among lenses. One of the reported issues is sharpness. Your pictures taken by 70-200 is just stanningly sharp (albeit the focus problem), while those by 17-55 seem softer. I wonder if you did the same test you did for your 70-200. What is your opinion about overall picture quality of 17-55? Is brightness the only advantage over 18-200?

— comment by susumu on January 5th, 2008 at 11:48am JST (9 years, 6 months ago) comment permalink

You are right about the extra aperture, just that little bit makes all of the difference. I do the same thing as you do with the lenses (just on a Canon instead :p).

I love reading your posts, they are providing me with a lot of information.

Thank You,
Brent

— comment by Brent on July 22nd, 2010 at 12:47pm JST (6 years, 11 months ago) comment permalink
Leave a comment...


All comments are invisible to others until Jeffrey approves them.

Please mention what part of the world you're writing from, if you don't mind. It's always interesting to see where people are visiting from.


You can use basic HTML; be sure to close tags properly.

Subscribe without commenting