Summary: Expensive but... excellent quality all around

Comment: 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.

Summary: high quality build!

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

Summary: Better than Leitz/Leica

Comment: 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).

Summary: Outstanding General Purpose Professional Grade Lens

Comment: 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. While there are other Nikon lenses in this zoom range for considerably less money, this one fits the needs of photographers requiring outstanding optics and the speed of a fixed aperture f2.8 lens. (Most kit lenses are variable aperture, meaning the aperture gets smaller as you zoom in.)

This lens is professional grade - built like a tank and relatively heavy. It is much larger than similar kit lenses and it weighs considerably more. The added weight 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.

Summary: Nikon 17-55 f2.8 ED-IF - A Superb Lens

Comment: 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.