Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

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. Update, June 4 2012 First, thanks all for the comments. I'm glad this overview of the decision process was helpful. Now, about five years later, I can update and say that I love the lens -- love how fast it is, how easy to use, the quality feel of it and of course the quality of the photos. I am not a professional -- not even a very highly skilled amateur. I use the camera mostly for personal use, reference photos. But my photos of our kitchen (we just remodeled it ourselves) were high enough quality that This Old House used my photos in a feature they did on our kitchen. And the key to why the kitchen looked good in the photos is that they were all taken in just the natural light from one large east window. No tripod either. I will say that the lens is heavy and the D200 is bulky with this lens (and I sometimes add a hood). I took this camera and lens on a trip to Trinidad, and found it was a challenge to lug it all around on jaunts into the forests. I was envious of other people on the trip who had cute little cameras -- their photos seemed fine (and of course we were taking these outdoors with plenty of light). I may eventually get a little camera for trips. I felt kind of ridiculous with the big lens and the Nikon, actually. And it was not the right match for this birding trip. There were folks with huge telephotos to shoot the birds and sloths in the trees. But a fabulous wide angle was just not that much of a brilliant match for what I needed to be doing here. But very, very glad I got this lens. It is just very satisfying to use such a wonderful piece of gear. And my photos look like I know what I'm doing, even though much of the time I'm not doing a whole lot more than pointing and shooting.