How good is the new EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM?

[ds06]

How good do you reckon it will be?

Canon’s new, rather agressive, promotion of the 17-40 implies that they believe it is so good as to make it difficult for them to shift the 17-40 unless it is priced at (probably) half the EF-S’ price.

With a constant aperture of 2.8, a significantly longer reach compared with the 16-35 2.8L and an IS thrown in, should all of us croppers start thinking about trading our 17-40?

ds

[Livinthalife]

17-55 IS? that sounds weird, I got the kit lens which is 18-55, and I got the 50mm...I couldnt imagine IS helping much, if at all. though 2.8 sounds nice especially all the way through!

[ChopstickHero]

there are lots of threads on the 17-55mm ... do a search.

but it does look promising.

[Parkinho]

I love my 17-40mm... I also have to question - why would you want IS on a lens of this focal length? Perhaps I am asking that because I am still shooting the old fahioned way so would get a true 17- 55mm but even so - landscapes and handheld stuff surely?

[ChopstickHero]

I love my 17-40mm... I also have to question - why would you want IS on a lens of this focal length? Perhaps I am asking that because I am still shooting the old fahioned way so would get a true 17- 55mm but even so - landscapes and handheld stuff surely?

i think the combination of f2.8 and IS will be very useful in low light indoor situations. it can't be a fast prime with f2.0 or lower, but i'm sure it will do fine in low-light photography.