Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens - $1,030.00Nikon 17mm - 55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Autofocus Zoom Lens - $1,199.95.
The Canon has image stabilization. The Nikon does not have VR. Bothlenses get excellent reviews..
I am not a pro but the price range of these lenses would indicate to me they are for the pro and/or serious photographer..
My initial thought was Nikon made a mistake when they did not have VR in this lens. However, on a 17 - 55mm lens VR is not that critical in my opinion. On an 18-200mm lens it is..
Did Nikon take this savings and improve something else within the lens?.
I shoot with Nikon D200, 18-200mm VR lens..
FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...
If people really care about money, they need to add up the real world prices of the entire system they want to buy..
And then? So what? 10 percent difference on a system is less important than the differences that nudge a buyer to one brand or anotrrrrrr.
I think the 17-55 Canon is about the same optically, but a much poorer, more plasticy build quality. At that focal range, IS is not very important, IMO..
I think all in all, your view that this is more evident as an advantage for Canon is surprising. I think, in the consumer range, Canon lenses are like walking a mine field. Some are decent and some are simply awful, whereas most Nikon consumer lenses are pretty good, overall..
With respect to pro quality glass, the difference is not as great, but I think the advantage is still Nikon as far as optics are concerned. Build quality is a draw, I believe. Also, I think that Canon suffers a higher sample to sample variation..
Take a look at Nikon's new consumer zoom, the 16-85 vr. Go tohttp://www.photozone.de and compare the resolution of this lens against every Canon L glass lens in anywhere near this zoom focal length. Then take a look at Nikon's pro glass zooms. Compare Nikon's 14-24, 24-70, 70-200; even the 17-35 and 28-70..
Nikon glass costs a bit more on the average, but is well worth it, IMO...
I think the 17-55 Canon is about the same optically, but a muchpoorer, more plasticy build quality. At that focal range, IS is notvery important, IMO..
Take a look at Nikon's new consumer zoom, the 16-85 vr. Go tohttp://www.photozone.de and compare the resolution of this lens againstevery Canon L glass lens in anywhere near this zoom focal length.Then take a look at Nikon's pro glass zooms. Compare Nikon's 14-24,24-70, 70-200; even the 17-35 and 28-70..
Nikon glass costs a bit more on the average, but is well worth it, IMO..
It looks like no one sees any kind of compromise in locking myself in to Nikon lenses vs. Canon lenses. So maybe I can relax and stop second-guessing my camera order..
Now I'll just be second guessing my lens order. :-o I chose the 16-85 VR, and it's set to arrive Wednesday. But I'm already thinking I'd eventually want to repace it with something faster, so maybe the 17-55 makes more sense. It doesn't have quite the range, but it would give me the flexibility to shoot with less light. Decisions... Decisions.....
Again, I'm no real fan of VR, but the 16-85 has it and should be usable in as low light conditions as the 17-55. I think you'll have a winner here...