Klaus is right......Bravo Canon.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

I have had my new EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM about a month now, tested the hell out of the lens and I am very impressed with it, very happy.

That lens is in the sharpness/IQ league of EF-S 60, 85L and 135L or better.
The lens AF is a real ripper...fast, accurate and precise...typically 8/10 shots @f/2.8 attain critical focus. With other good L glass, f/2.8 and faster , I never get that.

The build, finish and in-hand feel is very nice, more than adequate for 99.99% applications. Excellent handling characteristics to boot.

The only shortfall observed is some light falloff in the image corners....not a big deal to me. However, I have not seen any flare problems whatsoever although I have been using the lens hoodlesss.

I agree with Klaus of Photozone....the lens is very sharp from f/2.8 onwards, in fact sharper than any other Canon zoom, L and otherwise, I own. OK , toss in the primes too....if not the sharpest then the zoom is certainly one of the sharpest pieces of glass in the entire EF lineup.

Yes, in my mind, the lens is worth every penny.....a major reason to keep a 1.6 sensor camera in my gearkit.

[ScottE]

I just got my 17-55 a week ago and I am very pleased too.

Now we need the next lens in the series.

50-200 f/2.8 IS EF-S. Keep the 77 mm filters for compatability. Keep the polycarbonate body which is light and durable. Keep the zoom that extends so that it is more compact for packing when contracted. Add type 2 IS so that we can pan for sports shooting. Include the tripod mount and lens hood in the box.

One other thing. I would like it before the cross country ski racing starts in November.

Will someone please forward this request to Canon?

[Lotto]

How much are you willing to pay for a 50-200 IS EF-S in black? $1500?

[grego]

EF-S in telephotos? Haven't see it yet. The 70-200 series is just so stellar, I doubt they'll change anything ever there.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

The Canon's EF-S team has given us 3 excellent lenses so far: 10-22, 60 and 17-55.
While I can not possibly guess the next one's specifics , I'd expect it to be yet another "goody". However, I'd love to see a very fast telephoto, be it a zoom or a prime such as EF-S 180 f/2.0 IS USM, priced at not much more than $2k.

[aliflack]

From all the recent news/rumous/releases it seems to me that canon are definately going down the EF-mount route for pro bodies and with EF-S for all other bodies.

So what we're now seeing (having had the relatively cheap and chearful 18-55 and 17-85 lenses)is EF-S lenses designed for the high-end non-pro users amongst us. I strongly suspect we'll be seeing a fast telezoom with IS in the next 6 months...

Kinda feeling bad about having bought the 16-35 L now as although it met my needs when I bought it (and the 17-55 hadn't even been announced), I'm unlikely to move to a pro body (or even FF) anytime soon... ah well, will just have to wait and see what appears next!

[ron chappel]

The Canon's EF-S team has given us 3 excellent lenses so far: 10-22, 60 and 17-55.
While I can not possibly guess the next one's specifics , I'd expect it to be yet another "goody".

It is looking very promissing isn't it :D :D :D

[Big Hands]

I just got my 17-55 a week ago and I am very pleased too.

Now we need the next lens in the series.

50-200 f/2.8 IS EF-S. Keep the 77 mm filters for compatability. Keep the polycarbonate body which is light and durable. Keep the zoom that extends so that it is more compact for packing when contracted. Add type 2 IS so that we can pan for sports shooting. Include the tripod mount and lens hood in the box.

One other thing. I would like it before the cross country ski racing starts in November.

Will someone please forward this request to Canon?

It would not surprise me to see everything you ask for EXCEPT for the lens hood to be packaged with a non-"L" lens. If they didn't package one with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I think you'll sooner see pigs fly than see a hood packaged with a non-"L" lens from Canon. JMHO..... sadly.

[Robin.B]

I just got my 17-55 a week ago and I am very pleased too.

Now we need the next lens in the series.

50-200 f/2.8 IS EF-S. Keep the 77 mm filters for compatability. Keep the polycarbonate body which is light and durable. Keep the zoom that extends so that it is more compact for packing when contracted. Add type 2 IS so that we can pan for sports shooting. Include the tripod mount and lens hood in the box.

One other thing. I would like it before the cross country ski racing starts in November.

Will someone please forward this request to Canon?

In fact, Sigma has acted before, and they're now bringing out a 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC HSM :)

[Mr. Clean]

In fact, Sigma has acted before, and they're now bringing out a 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC HSM :)
If that's true, that will cause me to completely realign my lenses. Well, not completely. It will make things a heck of a lot easier. I'd keep the 10-20 toss my 24-70 for a 17-50 or 18-50 or 17-55 and grab the 50-150 and not feel the urge for a 70-200. I hope that's true - I'm very very impressed by the idea.

Off to Google!

*edit*I just searched and couldn't find anything?

[LightRules]

Off to Google! *edit*I just searched and couldn't find anything?

That's bc it isn't true...

[condyk]

Maybe he means the 50-135mm 2.8 Tokina that is due?

[Mr. Clean]

See - I had a gut feeling it was too good to be true.

The 50 - 135 Tokina does sound promising though!

[condyk]

I have had my new EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM about a month now, tested the hell out of the lens and I am very impressed with it, very happy.


Any shots? Not seen many I care for so far, but one keeps an open mind, just hoping. Given the IS, speed and range it potentially makes a perfect walkaround for the caffiene addicted.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Any shots? Not seen many I care for so far, but one keeps an open mind, just hoping. Given the IS, speed and range it potentially makes a perfect walkaround for the caffiene addicted.

Here you go.;) Happy ?

[cdifoto]

Here you go.;) Happy ?

Hmmm...that actually sucks.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Hmmm...that actually sucks.

Although coming from a member who apparently shoots trucks :rolleyes: , I take this well thought out input seriously....well, kinda of :D ......the flaws in that image are due to my imperfect technique which I have been trying to better thru regular practice. No bad reflection on the lens should be implied.

[cdifoto]

Although coming from a member who apparently shoots trucks :rolleyes: , I take this well thought out input seriously....well, kinda of :D ......the flaws in that image are due to my imperfect technique which I have been trying to better thru regular practice. No bad reflection on the lens should be implied.

Sorry I shouldn't been so blunt. I meant the quality doesn't speak well for the lens. Looks like an extreme high ISO crop.

[jedwards]

Lithokephalos,

Glad to see someone else enjoying the lens. I have owned one for about a month as well and have been very impressed with the results. I don't know if I would class it with the 85L, but I know it is right up there with the 50 f/1.4 - above f/2.8. At f/2.8 the 50 has the advantage, if you can focus quick enough with the 50. The 17-55 has the quickest AF of my collection. Due to the range, the quick AF, and the IQ I think it is a superb lens for people photography.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Lithokephalos,

Glad to see someone else enjoying the lens. I have owned one for about a month as well and have been very impressed with the results. I don't know if I would class it with the 85L, but I know it is right up there with the 50 f/1.4 - above f/2.8. At f/2.8 the 50 has the advantage, if you can focus quick enough with the 50. The 17-55 has the quickest AF of my collection. Due to the range, the quick AF, and the IQ I think it is a superb lens for people photography.

The 17-55 AF is the quickest one in my "collection" as well, whatever that may mean in a mid range zoom. However, it is its AF accuracy and precision that I value much more than speed.

Talking about relative sharpness only, relative to the best Canon "shorter" lenses in my kit: the 17-55 is probably at least as sharp as my 85L, 135L and 85 f/1.8.
Very close to the 60 f/2.8.
Sharper than my 50 f/1.4, 35L and 24L.
Significantly sharper than my mid-range L zooms: 16-35, 17-40 and even 24-70.

My experience with the lens so far jives well with the Photozone findings.

[ScottE]

How much are you willing to pay for a 50-200 IS EF-S in black? $1500?
If the quality is up to the standard of the 17-55/2.8 I expect it will be more than $1,500. Probably around $1,700. That is the price of the 70-200/2.8 IS L listed in B&H. Similar quality will demand a similar price, regardless of whether or not they use a little white and red paint. The EF-S version should give a little more zoom range and be lighter and more compact, but the optical quality should be the same or better.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just wanted to point out,. it's near impossible to catch a swallow in action.. let alone it's food. :shock:

Could care less about lens IQ on a shot like that.. it's pretty amazing no matter what.

[condyk]

Just wanted to point out,. it's near impossible to catch a swallow in action.. let alone it's food. :shock: Could care less about lens IQ on a shot like that.. it's pretty amazing no matter what.

Agreed ... I have never managed it, or at least to the quality I would want. This is an interesting shot, but it doesn't show anything to me about the qualities of the lens. Maybe the gentleman needs to shoot some Ducks to satisfy such demands :p

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Just wanted to point out,. it's near impossible to catch a swallow in action.. let alone it's food. :shock:

Could care less about lens IQ on a shot like that.. it's pretty amazing no matter what.

Nothing beats the experience, huh.:D
Yes, it's a prank.Practically speaking, that shot could not have been taken with any mid-range zooms, regardless how good it was. In fact, I used the MkIIN and the 200 f/1.8 stopped down, if memory serves me right. Clearly I did not try to shoot the bug which I obviously could not even see....I was servo tracking and firing at the barn swallow and the ill-fated bug just turned up on one of the frames.:oops:

[Robin.B]

That's bc it isn't true...

I'm not entirely sure if it's true, but I saw it here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/428957

[dave carriger]

Any shots? Not seen many I care for so far, but one keeps an open mind, just hoping. Given the IS, speed and range it potentially makes a perfect walkaround for the caffiene addicted.LOL Makes you wonder how anyone ever took a usable photo without IS. I can see the benefit of IS for handheld at longer focal lengths, but not very useful at 55mm and less IMHO. Nice marketing to sell more expensive glass by canon though.....how much would the 17-55 be in non IS.......$300-$500 less? If canon made one without IS, I bet you could not tell any difference in the shots taken compared to the IS lens 99%+ of the time. Canon needs to give us cleaner iso3200 and beyond and leave the IS for longer telephotos where it is very useful. If a photographer has hands that are shaking badly enough for IS at 17mm, they need to find a new hobby. Just my $.02

[jedwards]

Dave,

I didn't think IS would be useful at the range at first, but after using it I find it allows me to shoot at a lower ISO than I normally would. Also, shooting from a not so stable platform is possible. I agree that IS is more useful at longer focal lengths, I would also add it is useful at all focal lengths.

[LightRules]

I'm not entirely sure if it's true, but I saw it here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/428957

Robin, I may have spoken too soon; I repent in dust and ashes. The link looks very promising. Thanks for the heads-up; that would be a superb piece of glass and would sell extremely well.

[In2Photos]

Robin, I may have spoken too soon; I repent in dust and ashes. The link looks very promising. Thanks for the heads-up; that would be a superb piece of glass and would sell extremely well.

It also might help keep the price of the Tokina down to a reasonable level.

[ron chappel]

While i'm wrapt to see canon offering absolutaly world class EF-s lenses i have doubts that we'll see many EF-s dedicated tele's.
For a start there is simply no need for them.The 17-55/2.8IS came about because they need at least one great lens in that focal range with IS,however in the tele range they allready have a stunner- the 70-200/2.8IS.
Yes a dedicated EF-s 55-125(ish) tele would offer slightly smaller weight and size,plus it would eliminate the focal length gap but frankly i'd choose the longer 200mm zoom any day.

[ScottE]

You are ignoring the design advantages of EF-S. Since it does not have to cover a full frame it can be designed to optimize the resolution in the central part of the frame instead of at the corners which are not needed. That is why a lens like the 17-55 can out-perform lenses such as the 16-35L and 24-70L in the overlapping portion of their ranges. The smaller image circle also makes it possible to have an extended zoom range, so a 50-200 or similar range should be possible. That is the reason the zoom range on the EF-S 17-55/2.8 is greater than the range on any comparable EF lens. Also, L lenses have a commitment to heavy metal bodies and internal zoom, rather than modern polycarbonates and extending length. This means that an EF-S lens can be designed to be both lighter and more compact, both of which are virtues for those of us who travel.

I love my Canon 70-200/2.8, but it is a big heavy lens and the gap in the zoom range just where I want to do some of my photography (88 - 112 on a full frame, and 100 mm was always one of my favorite full frame lengths). I would gladly trade it for something designed to use the advantages of the EF-S mount.

[Jon]

Design advantages of EF-S only really come into play with wide angles. With wide angle lenses the major difficulty in design is suppressing optical distortion like pincushion/barrel distortion, and the shorter the lens, the harder it is. This is why EF-S lenses are wide - because making a wide EF-S gives you the easier design solution (since smaller image circle). With teles, you don't need to put the effort into suppressing optical distortion; chromatic aberrations are the bigger problem, and since you don't have as wide an AoV, corrections aren't anything like as radically different for image circles of the two formats.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

That lens is in the sharpness/IQ league of EF-S 60, 85L and 135L or better.





hahahahahahaha

worst case of "fool myself" ive ever seen.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

hahahahahahaha

worst case of "fool myself" ive ever seen.

Glad to have made you lough so heartily.:rolleyes:
However, you may wish to consider the fact that I both own and use all of the lenses I am talking about and then some.
Based on your current gear list, I do not see that to be your case.

No real motivation either for 'fooling myself"...the last thing I need is yet another mid-range zoom....however, I could always find some room in my wee bag for a truly exceptional lens which IMO the 17-55 has turned out to be.

I think it is always best to anchor one's gear assessment/critique on personal, first-hand experience.

[condyk]

No real motivation either for 'fooling myself"...the last thing I need is yet another mid-range zoom....however, I could always find some room in my wee bag for a truly exceptional lens which IMO the 17-55 has turned out to be.


Agreed ... I do wonder tho' if the results that count are any better than with the kit lens I note you have in your bag? I see it is not so wide and I know there is no IS, but for taking interesting and well composed images it should do the job as well, assuming you are not shooting in a darkened room. Some may think this loughable of course, but I am interested in your thoughts, if you have any?

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Agreed ... I do wonder tho' if the results that count are any better than with the kit lens I note you have in your bag? I see it is not so wide and I know there is no IS, but for taking interesting and well composed images it should do the job as well, assuming you are not shooting in a darkened room. Some may think this loughable of course, but I am interested in your thoughts, if you have any?

If one is purely and extremely after individual expression thru photography devices other than "mechanical" image quality, then the 18-55 can probably do the job comparably well. However, that's almost like asking ourselves if all those thousands of hexameters in the Iliad are really required when a four line haiku poem can arguably describe the world.
Why would one possibly contemplate sinking $1000 or so on a gleaming Gaggia when a $10 stove-top pot can do a perfectly adequate job of caffeine self-intoxication ?

[stewie-lives]

LOL Makes you wonder how anyone ever took a usable photo without IS. I can see the benefit of IS for handheld at longer focal lengths, but not very useful at 55mm and less IMHO. Nice marketing to sell more expensive glass by canon though.....how much would the 17-55 be in non IS.......$300-$500 less? If canon made one without IS, I bet you could not tell any difference in the shots taken compared to the IS lens 99%+ of the time. Canon needs to give us cleaner iso3200 and beyond and leave the IS for longer telephotos where it is very useful. If a photographer has hands that are shaking badly enough for IS at 17mm, they need to find a new hobby. Just my $.02

Dave, how is taking a picture at 20mm with a 1/6 shutter speed worthless? How is taking an indoor picture at 100 ISO instead of 400 worthless?

Are you physically capable of taking sharp pictures at 1/10? 1/20? I'm not!

[Salleke]

How much are you willing to pay for a 50-200 IS EF-S in black? $1500?

For $ 1500 you can order me one right now.

:D :D :D

[Salleke]

LOL Makes you wonder how anyone ever took a usable photo without IS. I can see the benefit of IS for handheld at longer focal lengths, but not very useful at 55mm and less IMHO. Nice marketing to sell more expensive glass by canon though.....how much would the 17-55 be in non IS.......$300-$500 less? If canon made one without IS, I bet you could not tell any difference in the shots taken compared to the IS lens 99%+ of the time. Canon needs to give us cleaner iso3200 and beyond and leave the IS for longer telephotos where it is very useful. If a photographer has hands that are shaking badly enough for IS at 17mm, they need to find a new hobby. Just my $.02

The IS in ALL lenses for me its a big advantage. I'm 57 years old and somewhat shakey.
I've had the 24-70 f/2.8 and it was a fine lens but I could'nt hold it steady.
And IMHO there are not so many photogs who can hold still a camera equipped with heavy lenses.
Even the younger then me sometimes I see very shakey in holding such a combo.
So for me I buy almost any lens with IS. I would like that Canon would bring out the 50 f/1.4
and the 85 f/1.8 with IS. I have both lenses and handhold I'm not heaving a high keeperratio
due to my shaking.

Good luck to all of us. Shakey or not ... ;)

[jjcharity]

I knew sooner or later, as i read this thread, I would read statements from the skeptics. The 17-55 is a great lens. Try it you might like it and if you don't who gives a hoot. I know I don't. You know who you are, you constantly knock this lens. Get a life, don't worry be happy! :evil:

[grego]

Design advantages of EF-S only really come into play with wide angles. With wide angle lenses the major difficulty in design is suppressing optical distortion like pincushion/barrel distortion, and the shorter the lens, the harder it is. This is why EF-S lenses are wide - because making a wide EF-S gives you the easier design solution (since smaller image circle). With teles, you don't need to put the effort into suppressing optical distortion; chromatic aberrations are the bigger problem, and since you don't have as wide an AoV, corrections aren't anything like as radically different for image circles of the two formats.

And then most people like the extra reach the EF lens give for the telephoto realm. It's nice to have a FOV of 320 on Canon's 200 2.8 or 70-200 IS at 200mm. :)

Crop is disadvantage to the wide angles, but not tele's.

[condyk]

I knew sooner or later, as i read this thread, I would read statements from the skeptics. The 17-55 is a great lens.

Well said. Good to see another owner stepping up to the mark. Be good to see some of your shots and so prove all those doubters wrong. Looking forward to it. Thanks :D

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Im not saying its a great lens,but its not as shrp or sharper than the lenses you mentioned. I dont own that lens ( I do own the 85 and 135 L). I did how ever see hundresa of samples and can decide its not sharper. But if YOU see it sharper, thats ALL that matters. YOU use it! YOU decide.

[jjcharity]

Well said. Good to see another owner stepping up to the mark. Be good to see some of your shots and so prove all those doubters wrong. Looking forward to it. Thanks :D

I don't have to prove anything. I just get tired of the naysayers.

Here's a few, you know you baited me don't you?:)

http://i.pbase.com/g4/10/608810/2/61734274.STTPCwVh.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/g4/10/608810/2/61664741.c5XIgaBY.jpg



http://i.pbase.com/g4/10/608810/2/63259011.YancEu2F.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/10/608810/1/62327671.KjYN1Fx5.Jeren.jpg

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Im not saying its a great lens,but its not as shrp or sharper than the lenses you mentioned. I dont own that lens ( I do own the 85 and 135 L). I did how ever see hundresa of samples and can decide its not sharper. But if YOU see it sharper, thats ALL that matters. YOU use it! YOU decide.

Another commonly held fallacy is that relatively minor IQ differences for various lenses can be determined based on sample images posted on the web, typically done by different photographers, of different subjects, under different light conditions, using different cameras, pods or no pods , different methods and degrees of post processing etc. Let us not even talk about the obfuscating effect of that dreaded copy-to-copy variability for a particular lens model.

Even when shooting conditions are largely normalized, relatively small lens IQ differences do not come accross readily on the web. For example, do take a look at hundreds of his daughter's portraits posted here by that local photographer celebre. It is not that easy to tell which ones were shot with 85L, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, etc.
Another extreme example is with the EF 50 f/1.0L USM. The web has quite a few images shot with it, some of them posted on POTN recently. Alas, the manifest quality of many "sample" images would hardly justify $35 let alone $3,500 sunk into the lens. However, if one takes a look at Gary Huff's shots with it he had posted in the past on FM forum, the impression of the lens IQ starts to shange dramatically. So what is it ? The lens copy variability, a unique Gary Huff's skill or something else ?

[condyk]

Here's a few, you know you baited me don't you?:)


Yeah, of course.

I remember seeing these before. They look soft and very oversaturated to me, but that may be just the post processing. Too much saturation does tend to soften a shot. I do like some of the compositions which is more important to me.

Hey, if you guys like this lens and don't mind shelling out for it then cool. I have seen some very good shots with it, but I just don't like seeing people overguilding a lily when other people take stuff they read here as gospel. It is just opinion ... just like what I am saying here is ;) People just need to decide which opinions are more credible and that is up to them.

[LITHOKEPHALOS]

Yeah, of course.

I remember seeing these before. They look soft and very oversaturated to me, but that may be just the post processing. .

The colours indeed appear richer than in nature. I doubt that is the lens. All images appear of sufficient sharpness and are generally quite nice.

[ScottE]

Design advantages of EF-S only really come into play with wide angles. With wide angle lenses the major difficulty in design is suppressing optical distortion like pincushion/barrel distortion, and the shorter the lens, the harder it is. This is why EF-S lenses are wide - because making a wide EF-S gives you the easier design solution (since smaller image circle). With teles, you don't need to put the effort into suppressing optical distortion; chromatic aberrations are the bigger problem, and since you don't have as wide an AoV, corrections aren't anything like as radically different for image circles of the two formats.
Sorry Jon, I do not agree with you. If you compare the lines per mm resolution capabilities of quality large format, medium format and 35 mm lenses of similar focal length, you will find that as the medium gets smaller, the lenses can resolve more. There is no reason to believe that trend ends at 35 mm and does not continue to lenses designed for APS-C sized sensors. The greater the diameter of the image circle, the more lens design has to be compromised at the expense of centre resolution to make an affordable lens that has good sharpness at the corners.

If you look at the back of almost any zoom lens the rear element comes right to the back of the lens mount at some point in the zoom range, usually at the widest angle. For example a Sigma 50-500 has to be locked to greater than 100 mm with a Sigma teleconverter in place so that the rear lens element does not contact the front element of the converter. The EF-S mount allows the rear lens element to come closer to the sensor, which is an advantage in lens design for a wide range zoom lens that only has to provide an image circle for the smaller sensor. This advantage is greater with wide angle lenses because there is less necessity for a retrofocus design, but it is useful in designing telephoto zoom lenses too.

[jj1987]

The colours indeed appear richer than in nature. I doubt that is the lens. All images appear of sufficient sharpness and are generally quite nice.
oh yea sharp............
http://i.pbase.com/o4/10/608810/1/62327671.KjYN1Fx5.Jeren.jpg

[mfunnell]

Agreed ... I do wonder tho' if the results that count are any better than with the kit lens I note you have in your bag? I see it is not so wide and I know there is no IS, but for taking interesting and well composed images it should do the job as well, assuming you are not shooting in a darkened room. Some may think this loughable of course, but I am interested in your thoughts, if you have any?Well, you do like to wind the possum, now don't you.

Can't speak for others with this lens - I'm still getting used to mine and haven't yet fully formed my opinions. I'd be the last to disparage the kit lens - I've taken what I regard as some good shots with the kit lens, and shots I probably wouldn't have otherwise been able to get. For example:

http://www.mikefunnell.com/Newcastle_Sunrise-3-web.jpg

Nonetheless, to my eye the kit lens has some problems. Sharpness can be a problem (but do note it wasn't a problem in the shot above: sharpness was the last thing I was after). But I do think that the lens has other weaknesses - especially, and to my eye, in harsh light (it seems to me that the kit lens tends to emphasise harsh contrast and, at the same time, give "off-looking" oversaturated colours in that circumstance) and I also find it doesn't "take" to a polarising filter - I'd like the effect, but with the kit lens I don't like the effect, if you'll allow.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.mikefunnell.com/lakes-entrance-view-4-web.jpg

And, yes, the kit lens is not as sharp as it might be in some circumstances where I might want it to be (around 30mm wide open, for example, which I often want for indoor people shots).

And yet... I like the range of focal lengths provided by the 18-55. I would like "better" colour and other optical characteristics. I'd like better low-light performance, DOF control and sharpness (who wouldn't). The 17-55, according to all reports, offers better performance in all these regards including the obvious (max aperture, IS) and the reported (sharpness and distortion, according to test charts). Given all that, and the fact I like this focal length range but have been under-using it (because the kit lens wasn't up to it in many circumstances), I decided that the 17-55f2.8IS looked like a lens I would like, even at the rather substantial, perhaps even inflated price (especially with the hood I had to order internationally and am still waiting on).

I'll be interested to see how the new lens works in practice, once I get used to it. Early indications look good, but we'll see.

You got a problem with any of that? :rolleyes:

...Mike

[kram]

If the same photog has used many lenses and identified one as being much better - I would take that as a review. So, if someone has used a 501.4 and a 17-55L and feels the 17-55L snaps have better contrast or color, it has to be true at some level.

There's too much 'prove it to me' that I see on many lenses - for example, its beyond me to explain precisely why I feel my 70-200 is better than my 28-75. It is what it is. Read a few 100 such comparisons and one has to come to their own conclusions.

From what I have seen on the 17-55L, I have seen reviews from experienced photogs who have many other great lenses and they seem to be equally awed of the lens. There has to something really good and consistent about it. Of course, I dont have the money to spend on it nor do i need somethign for that range - was just rambling....coz there are too many "dont buy expensive lenses" opinions around. I'm sure no one here takes lens advice on 1000$ lenses as gospel :)

[jerrybsmith]

My bet is the next EF-S Canon releases will be comparable to the 70-200 2.8L IS. That would really give the 1.6 group a complete lineup.

[Jackal]

oh yea sharp............

There is way too much photoshop done to that picture. She doesn't even look real anymore. It looks like it was tremendously blurry then you tried to apply sharpening x1 billion.

Also, why are people posting 600x400 shrunk down pictures to compare sharpness?

I'm glad people are happy with this lens. I wouldn't buy it, though.

[stewie-lives]

There is way too much photoshop done to that picture. She doesn't even look real anymore. It looks like it was tremendously blurry then you tried to apply sharpening x1 billion.

Also, why are people posting 600x400 shrunk down pictures to compare sharpness?

I'm glad people are happy with this lens. I wouldn't buy it, though.
Yeah, I was going to post a picture, but once I shrunk it to less than 100 Kb, it just looked like a nice picture.

Why do people feel the need to always state, or delcare, that they won't buy this lens anyway? I don't mean anything by this to you, but obviously I don't care what lens anyone won't buy. Sure, what you'll buy is interesting, but what you won't buy isn't very interesting at all. There's a slew of Nikon lenses I won't be buying.

What I think your real point is, is that you disapprove of this lens. And in that regard join the club. I've never been flamed on this forum before until I announced my intention to purchase this lens.

Something about exquisite glass that costs money without a red stripe that really infuriates people.

I'm happier then a pig in crap of course. I'm taking 1/8 shutter speed pictures at 100 ISO that are tack sharp. This lens is nothing short of stellar, pricey sure, but people spend a lot more then 1100 on other lenses... those aren't rips offs though because they have a red stripe or white tube...

Someone should start a thread to let all of the passionate EF-S haters get it off their chest in one stroke.

[jjcharity]

Yeah, I was going to post a picture, but once I shrunk it to less than 100 Kb, it just looked like a nice picture.

Why do people feel the need to always state, or delcare, that they won't buy this lens anyway? I don't mean anything by this to you, but obviously I don't care what lens anyone won't buy. Sure, what you'll buy is interesting, but what you won't buy isn't very interesting at all. There's a slew of Nikon lenses I won't be buying.

What I think your real point is, is that you disapprove of this lens. And in that regard join the club. I've never been flamed on this forum before until I announced my intention to purchase this lens.

Something about exquisite glass that costs money without a red stripe that really infuriates people.

I'm happier then a pig in crap of course. I'm taking 1/8 shutter speed pictures at 100 ISO that are tack sharp. This lens is nothing short of stellar, pricey sure, but people spend a lot more then 1100 on other lenses... those aren't rips offs though because they have a red stripe or white tube...

Someone should start a thread to let all of the passionate EF-S haters get it off their chest in one stroke.
Very well stated! I am in 100% agreement. There are thousands of things I won't buy, who cares. Efs haters, get over it. Life is too short for the dumb stuff.

[jj1987]

Yeah, I was going to post a picture, but once I shrunk it to less than 100 Kb, it just looked like a nice picture.

Why do people feel the need to always state, or delcare, that they won't buy this lens anyway? I don't mean anything by this to you, but obviously I don't care what lens anyone won't buy. Sure, what you'll buy is interesting, but what you won't buy isn't very interesting at all. There's a slew of Nikon lenses I won't be buying.

What I think your real point is, is that you disapprove of this lens. And in that regard join the club. I've never been flamed on this forum before until I announced my intention to purchase this lens.

Something about exquisite glass that costs money without a red stripe that really infuriates people.

I'm happier then a pig in crap of course. I'm taking 1/8 shutter speed pictures at 100 ISO that are tack sharp. This lens is nothing short of stellar, pricey sure, but people spend a lot more then 1100 on other lenses... those aren't rips offs though because they have a red stripe or white tube...

Someone should start a thread to let all of the passionate EF-S haters get it off their chest in one stroke.
well no offence but I can post 600x400px versions of most every lens out there and its going to look TACK sharp.

100% crops are the only way to compare. I've posted several from this lens.

[jj1987]

http://jamesg.net/misc_stuff/message_boards/all_boards/06_july/17_55_sample/100_percent_leaf.jpg


100% Crop there. Notice there is definatly some CA, and its a tad soft. We are talking 32inx 40 something inches wide so I wouldn't be too worried about it either.

[jj1987]

http://www.jamesg.net/misc_stuff/message_boards/all_boards/06_july/17_55_sample/bowl.jpg
http://www.jamesg.net/misc_stuff/message_boards/all_boards/06_july/17_55_sample/glass.jpg
http://www.jamesg.net/misc_stuff/message_boards/all_boards/06_july/17_55_sample/kitchen.jpg
http://www.jamesg.net/misc_stuff/message_boards/all_boards/06_july/17_55_sample/lens%20cap.jpg
http://www.jamesg.net/misc_stuff/message_boards/all_boards/06_july/17_55_sample/pillow.jpg
all 100%. Been pouring, so no interesting subjects yet.

F/2.8 handheld with IS, ISO800 and various focal lengths.

[cwphoto]

There is way too much photoshop done to that picture. She doesn't even look real anymore. It looks like it was tremendously blurry then you tried to apply sharpening x1 billion.

Also, why are people posting 600x400 shrunk down pictures to compare sharpness?

I'm glad people are happy with this lens. I wouldn't buy it, though.

I agree the colours in that picture are way too saturated. The 17-55 looks good - I wouldn't buy one either but only because it wouldn't fit on my camera!

[cwphoto]

My bet is the next EF-S Canon releases will be comparable to the 70-200 2.8L IS. That would really give the 1.6 group a complete lineup.

If Canon release an EF-S version of the 70-200 f/2.8 you can have mine free.

EF-S only exists to add wide-angle capability to cropped cameras. Canon's future is FF so their investment in EF-S lenses will be the bare minimum to support the format until FF becomes mainstream.

The exception is the 60mm Macro which is more a statement of legitimacy for the format than a pointer to longer FLs in the EF-S mount.

[cdifoto]

Is that you in your avatar, C-Dub? :)

[jjcharity]

I agree the colours in that picture are way too saturated. The 17-55 looks good - I wouldn't buy one either but only because it wouldn't fit on my camera!

The client and her family loved the picture, so your opinion is just that, your opinion. There are different techniques that can be used in photography, in this case over satuation was the perferred method.

[cdifoto]

The client and her family loved the picture, so your opinion is just that, your opinion. There are different techniques that can be used in photography, in this case over satuation was the perferred method.

Did you show them a more natural look to compare to? If not, then they probably didn't know what was possible...

BTW it's obvious you cut her out of another scene and put her on that background....

[kram]

Something about exquisite glass that costs money without a red stripe that really infuriates people.


Well, then there are people who are infuriated by anything that HAS a red stripe ;)

And then some who hate any expensive lens and some more who hate any cheap lens. :lol:

And then some who hate Canon lens and some more who hate anything non-Canon.

Guess what, no lens is ever gonna make everyone in this forum happy....just shoot away and enjoy

[jjcharity]

Did you show them a more natural look to compare to? If not, then they probably didn't know what was possible...

BTW it's obvious you cut her out of another scene and put her on that background....

So what, what do you care?

[cdifoto]

So what, what do you care?

Well that answers that question! ;)

[Lotto]

Well, then there are people who are infuriated by anything that HAS a red stripe ;)

And then some who hate any expensive lens and some more who hate any cheap lens. :lol:

And then some who hate Canon lens and some more who hate anything non-Canon.

Guess what, no lens is ever gonna make everyone in this forum happy....just shoot away and enjoy

Great Points!!

[young_einstein]

Here are some of the shots I've taken with my 17-55 - http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&w=25047883@N00&q=17-55&m=text

[cwphoto]

Is that you in your avatar, C-Dub? :)

That's "Dirty" Harry Callahan, Punk!:lol:

[cdifoto]

That's "Dirty" Harry Callahan, Punk!:lol:

Well I was about to say...you bear a striking resemblance! :p

[cwphoto]

The client and her family loved the picture, so your opinion is just that, your opinion. There are different techniques that can be used in photography, in this case over satuation was the perferred method.

Sure over-saturation is a technique - in this case it looks crap but hey that's just my opinion.:rolleyes: