It's what some have implied.
Just here to set the record straight.
What? What lacks VR? The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lacks VR? What the flying freak kind of statement is that?
I'm afraid you're just looking for a fight, and I'm not going to give you one. If you read what I said, I never said the Canon EF-S 17-55f/2.8
LACKS VR. Try to read more carefully, please. Here's my exact quote, with translation:
"...although I will add that the USM motor is a Canon trademark (ultrasonic motor) and other lens makers use other names for similar... the Nikkor AF-S is the equivalent. It does lack VR, or as Canon likes to call it... IS."
translation: USM is a Canon trademark..., not ultrasonic motor. And the equivalent Nikon, the Nikkor AF-S,
it does lack VR,
which Canon calls IS. So, we're really saying the same thing, that the two lenses have similar features---ultrasonic/silent wave AF motors and constant f/2.8 apertures. The Canon has IS, the Nikkor does NOT have VR... does this help clear my meaning up at all??
I said ultrasonic motor, not UltraSonic Motor. It's the generic term, not the trademark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_motor
Just like in-lens stabilization is a generic term.
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a standard zoom, with constant f/2.8, in-lens stabilization and an ultrasonic motor.
The AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED DX is a standard zoom, with constant f/2.8 and an ultrasonic motor.
The SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) is a standard zoom, with constant f/2.8 and in-lens stabilization.
The EF-S 17-55mm is unique in that it has those 3 key features that the others don't have.
I think we all get that... but thanks for clearing all that up...
That is sort of what I was actually saying all along...
Every system you choose will have compromises in some aspects. You learn to deal with it and work with what you have.
It's not that complicated.
No... it's really not! I'm glad you realize this, and can state it so emphatically so we all can know that you do realize this.
It's a simple reply to you saying "The Nikkor 17-55 is designed to be sharp wide open and is at its best from f/2.8 to f/8" like it was a very special feat.
And so by my saying the truth about my own experiences with my own equipment somehow threatens your... what? Do you always take offense when someone else who happens to like his non-Canon equipment tells it like it is for themselves? Their own personal experiences? How does this make any difference to you? The question was about recommending a lens that would fit on a Nikon... What is it about that you don't quite get? Sorry, bro, but the guy can't put the Canon on his Nikon, even if it's the best freakin' lens in the world... so sorry about that. If it will make you feel better, I'll say it... Your lens is better than my lens. Your lens is bigger than my lens. Your lens is prettier than my lens. I secretly wish I had your lens... but I'm stuck with my crappy old Nikkor... There... can we stop this now??
He can make the decision himself with what everyone has said.
So the point of your post was to help in which way...?? You won't even make a recommendation, but you get upset when others do? If I didn't know better, I'd almost swear you were trying to start some stupid Canon/Nikon battle by complaining about others' "implied" meanings against Canon without naming names, and by being defensive.
There is no one suggestion. "Everything has compromises, deal with it." Life isn't perfect.
Of course a person asking for suggestions would hope someone offers a suggestion, if they feel they have something to offer. I made a suggestion. You didn't like it. I don't know what the "compromises, deal with it" stuff has to do with anything. Maybe that's something VirtualRain's friend might have to consider, but for me there is no compromise by not having IS/VR or any other brand of stabilization for a wide-normal fast zoom. I actually prefer to not have it... simple as that. Clearly, others feel differently, and that's why there are choices in this world...
Be brave, what would you tell someone who want's a Canon 17-55 equivalent in Nikon mount? After all your complaining about my opinion, surely you have an opinion of your own. Put it on the line, what lens would you recommend as the equivalent of the Canon 17-55 in a Nikon mount. That was the whole point of the thread, and all you've done so far is try to pick a fight with me, so let's have it. Either put it out there, and give your reasons, or stop criticizing those who do because you feel some kind of "implied" insult aimed at you... I don't even know you. Honest, you weren't on my mind at all.