Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM

[divinemethod]

OMG! when I checked my lens today... i notices that the IS was not runnig when i took the pics last nights...

and to think I stood there in the cold out of my car hazard-parked on the top of the overpass... what an idiot i am!

[daniep01]

A couple of shots from a walk in the countryside near London. All handheld and no post-processing.

http://www.pjdaniel.org.uk/misc/18-55/img_0832.jpg

http://www.pjdaniel.org.uk/misc/18-55/img_0824.jpg

[syntrix]

Here's another pic from this fine lens:

http://www.swankmonkey.com/zack/041507.1.jpg

[bungee]

Here are some low light shots with a 350D and the 17-55 (now sold) ;)

55mm, f/2.8, ISO 800, 1/15 sec, handheld:

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4352/img4510me1.jpg

55mm, f/2.8, ISO 800, 1/30 sec, handheld:

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2510/img4495kd2.jpg


As you can see it performs well even at the wide end with the help of IS :cool:

All serious crop EOS owners should have one of these!

Wow sharp. Now go and buy it back - quickly :lol:

Is that a Maltese Terrrier ? My aunt used to have such a beast.

Here's a door.

[sanil]

sorta liked it. not to boast the capability of this lens

[dave_bass5]

I have a Hoya S-HMC Pro1 filter that I use :)

Yeah, i use that as well on all my lens's other than the 50mm and 35mm.
I do keep mine on all the time though, even with the hood on. It doesnt seem to cause any problems although if i get any flare i tend to take the shot again without it if i can but it makes no difference IMHO.

This is without hood and with filter.

http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/142608126-O.jpg

[dave_bass5]

Oh, and damn, some fantastic shots here guys.
Its one of those lens's that you can never blame for a bad shot. It does exactly what you ask it to. I trust this and my 70-200f/4 IS to always get a good focus and they do.

Edit: Hey, i just noticed ive gone over 1000 posts and am a senior member now. god, i hope no one has taken any notice of the rubbish that ive been typing ;-)

[JacobGibbs]

Well, you've convinced me!

I'm getting mine in a few weeks. :D

[ErikM]

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/april22_07/lakemedadsunset1.jpg

[bjannsen]

This is my walk-around lens - love it.

[bjannsen]

wow the 100k limit sure messes up the sharpness...

[ErikM]

That your house? Damn nice pad if it is!

[bjannsen]

hah! Just trying to get a shot of the cool clouds one morning - didn't know what else to put in the picture.

[dave_bass5]

One from the weekend.
No PP only C1
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/146517772-L.jpg

[cdhender]

Wow Dave that's terrific :)

[dave_bass5]

Wow Dave that's terrific :)
Thanks.
My son combined with the 17-55IS is a grat combo. makes me smile a lot:D

[bungee]

I guess it's right and proper to show the flaws of this lens too.

This is a shot of Battersea power station in London taken at 5:30am in very low light taken with a 400D ISO 200 f/2.8 28mm 1/5 sec handheld. Note the vignetting at f/2.8 (which I left in as I think it adds to the period feel of the b&w image)

That said this lens has no such problems at f/4 onwards and the fact that I could get a sharp handheld shot of a distant object at 28mm & 1/5 sec illustrates the real strength of this lens in low light. I could have gone to f/4 and upped the ISO but vignetting can be removed in PP much easier than noise.

As for flare, well I haven't had issues with this lens.

[dave_bass5]

I agree, it has its flaws.
I took this a few days after i got it (in fact i took 7 and they were all the same). This type of shot was one of the reasons i wanted IS. My Tamron is good but i figured the 17-55IS would be better. maybe i was wrong.
Before you ask, yes the was a Hoya pro1 UV filter on the front and no hood so maybe this caused the problem but i use my Tamron in the same way sometimes and ive never had flare from it.
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/128976868-O.jpg

[ErikM]

Dave, I strongly recommend you remove your UV filter before shooting into direct light. I never have flare problems like that with the 17-55! (I don't use filters often)

[dave_bass5]

Dave, I strongly recommend you remove your UV filter before shooting into direct light. I never have flare problems like that with the 17-55! (I don't use filters often)

Yes i agree it could be down to the filter more than the lens but the thing is i use the same type of filter on my Tamron and without a hood most of the time and i have never had flare with that lens.
Of course this isn't a proper test but i have other shots that have flare when i wasn't using a filter and i was using a hood.
most of the time its fine though but i find it odd that Canon make a big deal about flare reduction yet a lot of people complain the flare can be a problem with this lens.

[Coward]

This lens really looks incredible..

Should I buy it though?..
I've been considering getting the mucher lighter and much cheaper Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as my first walkaround lens for use on my newly-bought canon 350d, but the sheer IQ of the 17-55 is tempting me to push the boat out a little further... I'm not sure if it'd be right for me though, since I'm just a beginner.
Photography, really, is just going to be a little hobby of mine. I'm not wanting to bother with tripods, separate flashes, or other expensive equiptment either. I just want the best semi-decently-priced walkaround lens that money can buy. Something I can whip out of its case, take a picture with, and put it away, regardless of where I am.

As well as the picture quality I'm also drawn to the 17-55 by its image stabilisation and ability to cope with little light. Would this lens be right for me though? What do you think?

[syntrix]

Photography, really, is just going to be a little hobby of mine. I'm not wanting to bother with tripods, separate flashes, or other expensive equiptment either. I just want the best semi-decently-priced walkaround lens that money can buy. Something I can whip out of its case, take a picture with, and put it away, regardless of where I am.

As well as the picture quality I'm also drawn to the 17-55 by its image stabilisation and ability to cope with little light. Would this lens be right for me though? What do you think?

The IS will help, especially if you don't want to carry a tripod or even a monopod.

But the hood/lens will block the effectiveness of the internal flash at some ranges. I can live with that because I'll usually shoot strobes or a shoe flash, but that could be a huge disadvantage for you. Sounds like you are looking for a WA zoom in the f/2.8 range though :thumbup:

[constrict]

http://a641.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/13/l_d53e952961bb3c64514424a16db48a18.jpg
http://a373.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/35/l_8504790625bc4b64f41d8ed3cced128c.jpg
http://a234.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/44/l_5659aa317091aacd6517bc1d19fe5a69.jpg
http://a139.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/56/l_9a022e2a5486cb2bd4a60b9f7f856fc2.jpg

[dave_bass5]

This lens really looks incredible..

Should I buy it though?..
I've been considering getting the mucher lighter and much cheaper Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as my first walkaround lens for use on my newly-bought canon 350d, but the sheer IQ of the 17-55 is tempting me to push the boat out a little further... I'm not sure if it'd be right for me though, since I'm just a beginner.
Photography, really, is just going to be a little hobby of mine. I'm not wanting to bother with tripods, separate flashes, or other expensive equiptment either. I just want the best semi-decently-priced walkaround lens that money can buy. Something I can whip out of its case, take a picture with, and put it away, regardless of where I am.

As well as the picture quality I'm also drawn to the 17-55 by its image stabilisation and ability to cope with little light. Would this lens be right for me though? What do you think?

First off i would say IQ is very close on both the Canon and Tamron. You cant go wrong with either. Dont forgwt most if not all the images here have been edited, even if its just resized and sharpened.
From experience though i would say if you can afford the Canon get it now. If you get the Tamron now and find you do like it then you may well end up in my situation and end up losing money by selling the Tamron and replacing it as you have already expressed an interest in IS.
Of course its all down to what people want to shoot etc but IMHO the 17-55IS is THE best walkaround lens for a crop camera. sure, it wont do everything but in my eyes a walkaround is used to cover a lot of situations, not all of them. Its not the fastest, widest, longest etc but ive not found a situation i cant get a shot using it and any thing i do shoot will be nice and sharp. The focus is quicker than the Tamron/sigma's and i guess its a bit more acurate in low light although i cant complain about the Tamron really.
The fact that its got IS was a big selling point for me as, like you i dont want to carry a tripod around. I like to shoot at night and in museums etc (static objects of course) and the Canon beats the Tamron hands down.

I would say the biggest downside to the Canon compared to the Tamron is its size. with the hood on its a lot bigger. I had to get a new bag (Tamrac V9) just so i could keep the lens and hood on my 30D, ready to shoot. I must say though that its working well. The V9 is a very nice top loading bag and i can still get my 70-200F/4IS, 50mm f/1.4 and a few bits in it but its not a big bag IMHO.
AS mention you might have trouble with the on board flash. You cant use it with the hood on and you may need to zoom out to around 20mm even with the hood off if shooting indoors. I find i can use the hood if im just using the flash for fill in outside but if your relying on the flash the hood must come off.
Its a pain at first but you get used to it. personaly i dont use the flash that much (and never inside as i have a 420EX).

You say its going to be a little hobby but thats how we all start out;)


These two were shot using the Tamron. (its the first time ive looked at these sinse i callibrated my monitor, they look a bit red to me)
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/100895347-O.jpg

http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/99225314-O.jpg

[divinemethod]

Havent had a chance to take this thing outside till today...
Heres what I came up with..

http://divinemethod.zenfolio.com/img/p979328317-4.jpg

[suyenfung]

just got it today. here is a shot of my girlfriend's tea time at our favorite restaurant.

30d, 55mm, f2.8, 1/20, iso 1600, unsharpened. i am beyond impressed!

http://www.jarredwagner.com/photos/pcb/07.04.25_16.32.23.jpg

[PrOxY]

This lens really looks incredible..

Should I buy it though?........
As well as the picture quality I'm also drawn to the 17-55 by its image stabilisation and ability to cope with little light. Would this lens be right for me though? What do you think?

Although almost every image in this thread is simply amazing, there are some quality control issues to consider with this lens. Mine was funky from the get go:( SEE.......... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=307706&highlight=proxy But Canon service is very good!

Personally if I had to do it over, I would have looked harder at the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L USM (and or rented both before buying). However, I'm not at all slamming EF-S lenses (or even this one) at all (I love my 10-22), its just that out of all my gear (video or SLR) this is the only item that has had to go in for service (and from the tech notes clearly needed it)! Just something to consider;)

[bungee]

Although almost every image in this thread is simply amazing, there are some quality control issues to consider with this lens. Mine was funky from the get go:( SEE.......... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=307706&highlight=proxy But Canon service is very good!

Personally if I had to do it over, I would have looked harder at the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L USM (and or rented both before buying). However, I'm not at all slamming EF-S lenses (or even this one) at all (I love my 10-22), its just that out of all my gear (video or SLR) this is the only item that has had to go in for service (and from the tech notes clearly needed it)! Just something to consider;)

"One Swallow does not a summer make"

Anyway, what about a nice pic for the archive ? :)

[divinemethod]

This lens really looks incredible..

Should I buy it though?..
I've been considering getting the mucher lighter and much cheaper Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as my first walkaround lens for use on my newly-bought canon 350d, but the sheer IQ of the 17-55 is tempting me to push the boat out a little further... I'm not sure if it'd be right for me though, since I'm just a beginner.
Photography, really, is just going to be a little hobby of mine. I'm not wanting to bother with tripods, separate flashes, or other expensive equiptment either. I just want the best semi-decently-priced walkaround lens that money can buy. Something I can whip out of its case, take a picture with, and put it away, regardless of where I am.

As well as the picture quality I'm also drawn to the 17-55 by its image stabilisation and ability to cope with little light. Would this lens be right for me though? What do you think?

If you can afford it, buy it. if not or if you cant justify the price of it, then you may want to go with something else. Like you, I am a beginner, I had a 17-40 L before, it was good outside but inside under low light...sucked without a tripod. I sold it, chucked the extra and bought this. I am very happy with it, but the financial burden still hurts my wallet.

My justification was that, I will get better... and when I do i would want that extra sharpness and that extra bit of confidence in the glass... so why not get a better piece now and learn with it tooo....

[snake0ape]

Dang it. This thread got me to impulse buy this lense. The photos are awe inspiring. I am a newbie and I just dropped 1k. Boom.

[4g63photo]

Congrat Snake. I love this lens. It rocks.

[august23]

I'm on my 3rd buy with this lens. Hopefully my last. As much as I loved every piece of glass I owned I still love the 17-55 the best.

[jesusdelallata]

August, did I miss something? A couple of days ago you had the 5D, 35L and 24-70. Or am I dreaming? What in the world happened? Get me the link to the story.

[dave_bass5]

I'm on my 3rd buy with this lens. Hopefully my last. As much as I loved every piece of glass I owned I still love the 17-55 the best.

Do you mean your third copy because of problems?
Im no my second. the first, when wide open looked like a 50mm f/1.4 wide open out doors. very dreamy looking. no compliants with the second copy.

[ErikM]

No he has not bought 3 copies because of lens issues. They all worked fine!

[dave_bass5]

No he has not bought 3 copies because of lens issues. They all worked fine!

Thanks.
I just re read what he said and figured as he said "buy" he wasnt just getting them swapped.

[ErikM]

He is a lens hooker!

[syntrix]

He is a lens hooker!

Someone needs to change his title to that^^^^

[Gujustud]

Ahhh the 17-55.

Damn this thread. My 17-85 is on its way to being sold, as Erik's 17-55 is coming my way!

[forno]

ISO100 17mm f/2.8 1/250th
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6254/20070428img0517nl0.jpg
ISO100 55mm f/2.8 1/320th
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/599/20070427img0422kt2.jpg
ISO100 17mm f/11 1/15th
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2815/20070428img0536op3.jpg
ISO100 17mm f/9 1/13th (-EV)
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7310/20070428img0505kx8.jpg

[Coward]

Hey, forno, were you using a tripod for any of those? They're lovely.

[Pasukun]

Hey, forno, were you using a tripod for any of those? They're lovely.

Nah~ he probably hand held it.
17mm FL @ 1/13 of sec with 3 stop IS is very tolerable.
It equals to 1/104 sec.

[kenh]

I rented this lens for a wedding, This is one of my test shots.

1/8 sec @ f 2.8 Iso 400 51mm hand held no flash

[forno]

Hey, forno, were you using a tripod for any of those? They're lovely.

All hand held mate:)

[Marydoright]

My 1st outing with this lens.....my son at school

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/marydoright/Fox%202%20News%20at%20Wilde/Fox2NewsFeildTrip4-2007153copy.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/marydoright/Fox%202%20News%20at%20Wilde/Fox2NewsFeildTrip4-2007152copy.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/marydoright/Fox%202%20News%20at%20Wilde/Fox2NewsFeildTrip4-2007149copy.jpg

LOVING this lens!

[ErikM]

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/april28_07/sunnylakeontario1.jpg

F11, ISO 200, 1/100s, B&W CP, Hand-held

[august23]

What happened to the 1D Erik? :D

Awesome shot.

[ErikM]

Thanks bud. 1D deal fell through, then I realized how much I love this lens! There really is no other lens that can compare to it :)

[august23]

Erik I think your destined to be the keeper of the 17-55. While everyones pictures here are awesome yours stand out of the crowd. Plus, you seem to have no luck in getting from the 30D to a 5D or 1D. Seems the gods have fated you with the 17-55. :p

[ErikM]

Thanks man I really appreciate that comment. Yes I think I am going to keep the 17-55 for a long time coming!

Forno's pictures made me go and grab a CP, boy does that help when shooting at mid-day!

[august23]

Took me a while to figure that out too. When I got the 5D and 24-70 I couldn't believe my skies were still boring. Slapped a CPL on the front and BAM. mashed potato clouds and clear blues. btw, i love that term "mashed potato clouds." I think TMR coined that one. :p

[ErikM]

Yay mashed tater clouds are wicked... can't wait to get out and shoot more mid-day stuff now with this new CPL :D Wasn't cheap man thats for sure, $200 CDN!

[august23]

Yep. Roughly 165 USD? I'll venture a guess? B+W 77m MC Slim?

[ErikM]

Yep that is the one. I bought it at Henry's... so you'd have to add Henry's tax on there too! Man that place is such a rip off!

[forno]

Great shot Erik, CP rocks huh

[ErikM]

Thanks man. Yes it has made a huge difference... I don't know why it took me so long to get one!

[dave_bass5]

Ive never thought about a CP before but with the summer coming i guess it makes sense.
How easy are they to use when you have a hood on?
Im thinking of getting a Hoya one. are they any good?
Im in the UL so i think B+W is out.

[forno]

Thanks man. Yes it has made a huge difference... I don't know why it took me so long to get one!

Up and running now;)

[ErikM]

B&W, Heliopan or Hoya are fine purchases. Just make sure you don't go cheap.

As for a hood I don't really know... with a hood on you won't be able to turn the CP to get the desired effect. Yesterday, my first day using a CP I didn't bother with a hood.

[forno]

You can get a finger in around the corner of the hood to turn the CP

[ErikM]

Ya you probably can actually!

Here is another shot from yesterday. Basically the opposite view from the shot above.

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/april28_07/sunnylakeontario2.jpg

[dave_bass5]

Ok, thanks guys. looks like ill give one a try.
Some really nice shots here by the way.

[kennys350d]

what can i say? amazing! most of these shots leave me in aw. how would this lens be compared to the sigma 17-70? really makes me think about gettin a new lens. what do you guys think?

[anomie]

Nice one Erik - a perfectly metered shot!

[ErikM]

Thanks!

I had the Sigma 17-70 before I got the 17-55... it is a sharp lens but the focus is slow and loud and the lack of IS really hurts if you are trying to hand-hold low light shots. You really can't compare the Sigma 17-70 to the Canon 17-55!

[anomie]

Thanks!

I had the Sigma 17-70 before I got the 17-55... it is a sharp lens but the focus is slow and loud and the lack of IS really hurts if you are trying to hand-hold low light shots. You really can't compare the Sigma 17-70 to the Canon 17-55!

So true. I almost bought the Sigma but decided to pass and spend the money on the 17-55. I haven't regretted it though it did hurt the ol' pocketbook at the time. It was a wise decision, however.

[anomie]

A quick question - you guys that are using polarizers - are you getting thin ones for this lens or are you using regular ones. I know a regular one is fine but I also have a 10-22 and wanted to get an 'interchangeable' polarizer since I already have a UV on the 17-55. I'm thinking maybe I'll stick the UV on the 10-22 and get a CP for the 17-55.

[ErikM]

Anomie, I bought a thin B+W 77mm CP. Although I don't have the 10-22, I do plan on getting it soon! I am not sure if you mean you want to stack the CP on top of the UV but I would recommend not doing so. Use the CP by itself for best results :)

[anomie]

Anomie, I bought a thin B+W 77mm CP. Although I don't have the 10-22, I do plan on getting it soon! I am not sure if you mean you want to stack the CP on top of the UV but I would recommend not doing so. Use the CP by itself for best results :)

Nah, I'd want separate filters, I'd never try to stack them. I'd probably just use them on either lens when needed.

[kennys350d]

where can i find one these lens???? i sooo want it!!!

[ErikM]

They pop up in the classified section quite often or buy it for $1000 USD from b&h :D

[divinemethod]

ERIK, Can I borrow your CPL?

This shot would have been soooo much better with it on!
http://divinemethod.zenfolio.com/img/p933307469-4.jpg

[Jettin]

what can i say? amazing! most of these shots leave me in aw. how would this lens be compared to the sigma 17-70? really makes me think about gettin a new lens. what do you guys think?

I just got mine today, and my impressions so far after playing around with it for a short while is that its focus is very quick, extremely sharp, quite abit larger and heavier than the siggy and the IS is a bonus. :)

My siggy 17-70mm though it was my 1st lens that i purchased and seeing that it is very sharp aswell is sadly going to be for sale very soon. :cry:

[ErikM]

ERIK, Can I borrow your CPL?

Sure... $100 CDN per day :D

[2gDSM]

I just got mine today, and my impressions so far after playing around with it for a short while is that its focus is very quick, extremely sharp, quite abit larger and heavier than the siggy and the IS is a bonus. :)

My siggy 17-70mm though it was my 1st lens that i purchased and seeing that it is very sharp aswell is sadly going to be for sale very soon. :cry:

I'm in the exact same situation. Nice summer internship + several nice shooting opportunities coming up = opportunity calls. :cry:

[massimomb]

Hi,

my first post here,

From Italy, in Tuscany , Pontedera , the place where "Vespa" scooters are made.

Pictures taken in a little studio, with a 400D,

i LOVE my 17-55 IS, hope u guys like the pictures.


M.

[Mrcool1804]

I just got this lens about 3 weeks ago and I cant stand the flare! Its unreal! I do have a UV filter on it and lens hood and still get images like the following...any suggestions because this is my primary subject of photography being as I am a photographer for the Fire Dept.

[terriyaki]

Take off the UV filter when shooting in situations like this.

[jjmucker]

stunning lens. worth every penny.

[ErikM]

I have no flare problems at all unless shooting directly into the sun. Then again I never use a UV filter :)

I just got this lens about 3 weeks ago and I cant stand the flare! Its unreal! I do have a UV filter on it and lens hood and still get images like the following...any suggestions because this is my primary subject of photography being as I am a photographer for the Fire Dept.

[Mrcool1804]

I have no flare problems at all unless shooting directly into the sun. Then again I never use a UV filter :)

So I think everyone thinks I should take the filter off...I will do it, but if I still get the distracting orbes we have some work cut out for us! ;)

[ErikM]

Are you shooting with very small apertures when you get these 'orbs'?

I had another look at your posted shots.... those are definitely caused by your UV filter. I am guessing its a cheapie?

[Mrcool1804]

Yes Im shooting at 2.8 and the filter is a Canon UV Filter, not too cheap...

[syntrix]

Yes Im shooting at 2.8 and the filter is a Canon UV Filter, not too cheap...

Take the filter off, go shoot. You also have the hood, right?

[terriyaki]

From what I've heard Canon filters aren't that good. If you really want to stick to using a filter you should go with B+W, Heliopan, or Hoya multicoated filters.

[divinemethod]

I found that even the B+W filter I have on mine causes this lens to flare... I had used the same filter in similar situations on my old 24-105 L and then the 17-40L and I never had problems..

but on this lens with the filter off and a hood on it brings good results, but i wish this flare issue wasnt a problem with this lens.

[Mrcool1804]

I found that even the B+W filter I have on mine causes this lens to flare... I had used the same filter in similar situations on my old 24-105 L and then the 17-40L and I never had problems..

but on this lens with the filter off and a hood on it brings good results, but i wish this flare issue wasnt a problem with this lens.

I know I agree 100% with you! It dosnt seem like much, but if I cant get this resolved, then im going to start looking for a substitution lens. I think I will try those other filters. Thanks again everyone for all your help!

[syntrix]

I know I agree 100% with you! It dosnt seem like much, but if I cant get this resolved, then im going to start looking for a substitution lens. I think I will try those other filters. Thanks again everyone for all your help!


I rarely shoot with a uv. But I never have flaring issues. I do shoot with cp's and nd's all the time on this lens though.

[dave_bass5]

I found that even the B+W filter I have on mine causes this lens to flare... I had used the same filter in similar situations on my old 24-105 L and then the 17-40L and I never had problems..

but on this lens with the filter off and a hood on it brings good results, but i wish this flare issue wasnt a problem with this lens.

same here. i use Hoya Pro1 digital UV filters and while i cant see any problems regarding IQ i do get flare on my 17-55IS. I can understand how this happens but i do get flare without the filter and with the hood on.
Not a lot but more than with any of my other lens's

[ErikM]

Yes Im shooting at 2.8 and the filter is a Canon UV Filter, not too cheap...

2.8 is a LARGE aperture not small. Canon filters are some of the worst you can buy. Toss it in the garbage :)

[Mrcool1804]

So your saying im pretty screwed with this lens and lens flare?

[2gDSM]

It's just the weakness of the lens.

[dave_bass5]

So your saying im pretty screwed with this lens and lens flare?

Not screwed but you just have to adjust to using it.
I shot some pics outside yesterday and had terrible flare but i just recomposed a bit and they went away. I did have a filter on the front and i took it off and it made no difference to the flare (that i could see)
You can get some good night shots with this lens, just be careful what you how you frame.

[sootyvrs]

Not posted any pics yet so here goes. These are some from my recent Florida trip. No PP just resize.

ISO 100 1/160s @ F/11
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/DisneyCastle.jpg

ISO 800 1/3s @ F/11 hand held
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Universal.jpg

ISO 100 1/320s @ F/7.1
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/MGM.jpg

[dave_bass5]

Nice pics sooty
We have almost the same set up. how did you find the 17-55IS? Isnt IS wonderful?
I got mine for Florida and im really getting to love it now. I felt it was a bit big at first but ive got used to it.

[sootyvrs]

Nice pics sooty
We have almost the same set up. how did you find the 17-55IS? Isnt IS wonderful?
I got mine for Florida and im really getting to love it now. I felt it was a bit big at first but ive got used to it.

No regrets what so ever replacing my Tamron 17-50 with the 17-55 IS! This lens is fantastic! My pictures (all 1200 of them) have come up better than I could ever have hoped for from my holiday!

The ability to take hand held shots at ridiculous shutter speeds that I would never got away without IS is a godsend.

My only negatives are that it's a little large and to use the on board flash I have to zoom to 28mm.

I have a hood but decided it was too big so I left it off and had no major issues with flare but I was a little careful where I pointed the lens.

Here's some more

ISO 200 2s @ F/11 (I was asking too much @ 2s not to have some camera shake!)
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/MagicKingdom.jpg

ISO 800 1/15s @ F/4
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Universal2.jpg

ISO 100 1/500s @ F/11
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Busch.jpg

[ErikM]

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/may7_07/dundassunset1.jpg

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/may7_07/dundassunset2.jpg

[bjannsen]

Erik - great shots! Here's a couple from my town.

Love this lens.

Brian

[dave_bass5]

sooty
My findings exactly. I was a bit put off how big the lens is with the hood on but after a while i got used to it.
In fact it made life a bit easier as i kept the hood on most of the time so i didnt need a lens cap.
I took around 1000 shots in two weeks with my 30D and about 150 with my Fuji F31FD.
Here are a few. i bet we shot very similar shots

1/13 ISO1600 f/4
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/133976576-O.jpg

1/20 ISO1600 f/4
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/133980062-O.jpg

1/1000 ISO400 f/9
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/134597952-O.jpg

1/13 ISO400 f/4
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/134599003-O.jpg

1/20 ISO800 f/4
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/134600273-O.jpg

[anomie]

Here are some of my favorites with this lens:

http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p109797801-4.jpg

http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p460064086-4.jpg

http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p268036575-4.jpg

http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p875881325-4.jpg

http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p671624899-4.jpg

[slavik13]

I have been following this thread for days, and have yet to post anything...

1)
http://stevek.net/photos/xti2007/slides/IMG_6606.jpg

2)
http://stevek.net/photos/xti2007/slides/IMG_6810.jpg

3)
http://stevek.net/photos/xti2007/slides/IMG_6658.jpg

[ErikM]

Slavik, good shots man. I especially like the shot of your dog! Is it a rotti x lab or something?

[Pasukun]

Lovely shots!
Thanks for sharing them everyone!

I need to hurry up and post some of my own too. :)

[slavik13]

Slavik, good shots man. I especially like the shot of your dog! Is it a rotti x lab or something?

Thanks, we don't really know what he is :) he's kind of a foster dog from a family member who's now become more or less a permanent pet. But his origins are mysterious and unknown. Sometimes he looks like a lab, but most of the time I think he has a lot of pointer/setter/hound in him based on the shape of his head and muzzle.

Btw, I have been thoroughly enjoying your shots throughout this whole thread.

To add my 2 cents on the filter-flare discussion, I did get a nice B&W MRC UV filter for this lens and through accidental shooting discovered that it adds a great deal to flaring on this lens, especially on longer exposures. So no filter for me. But the hood is great even though it makes this lens look even further unbalanced on a tiny camera like the Rebel.

[ErikM]

Thanks man much appreciated! I do agree about the filter causing extra flare. I don't use a UV filter unless there is mud, sand or water flying at my camera!

I used my 17-55 a little while with my Rebel XT and I found that once I got a vertical grip it was much better balanced.

[ErikM]

Yes this is a real snake :) This is a Piebald Ball Python.

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/may4_07/bioticexoticspied1.jpg

[Pasukun]

You should finish painting that snake before taking picture.
Don't forget to double coat it too. ;)

Yes this is a real snake :) This is a Piebald Ball Python.

[terriyaki]

Whoa, did that snake just finish eating a wiener dog or something?

[ErikM]

haha ball pythons are short and fat... it did eat a rat the day before this photo was taken though ;)

[august23]

Can we get some portrait shots showing some bokeh from the 17-55 if anyone has them? I'd like to see them, as I never tried that kinda shot with it before. Any portraits with bokeh, greatly appreciated.

[dave_bass5]

Can we get some portrait shots showing some bokeh from the 17-55 if anyone has them? I'd like to see them, as I never tried that kinda shot with it before. Any portraits with bokeh, greatly appreciated.

Hmmm, maybe not ideal but this was taken at f/3.5
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/134595753-O.jpg

[sootyvrs]

Not traditional portraits but all taken wide open f2.8 from my last holiday

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Magic2.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/MGM2.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Universal3.jpg

[timmytimmytimmy]

17mm, f2.8, ISO1600, 1/8th

No PP, just resize JPEG. The sky has such a deep blue colour!

[Marydoright]

NO PP done, just resizing and quick border action.....
No flash
Focal Length: 55.0mm
CCD Width: 5.54mm
Exposure Time: 0.0003 s (1/4000)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO equiv: 400

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/marydoright/Fun%20Digi%20Cam%20Pics/zoo%20may%206th%202007/HnDbdayandZooPics052copy.jpg

I used my B+W Thin CP on this to eliminate the glass glare.....
again, NO PP work other then resize and border action....taken in jpeg
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 55.0mm
CCD Width: 5.54mm
Exposure Time: 0.033 s (1/30)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO equiv: 800
White Balance: Manual
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/marydoright/Fun%20Digi%20Cam%20Pics/zoo%20may%206th%202007/HnDbdayandZooPics091copy.jpg

[ErikM]

Here is an HDR from last night :D

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/may8_07/valeyHDR1.jpg

[unferth]

This is from Dismals canyon in Alabama

10 sec. F 20
28mm
iso 100
manual mode

white balance was the only PP

edit: and a 100% of the rock in the middle

[dave_bass5]

unferth
That's a lovely shot. Love the softness of the water.
Can i ask why you used f/20. was it to slow the shutter down?
Ive been meaning to get this type of shot for a while now.

[unferth]

unferth
That's a lovely shot. Love the softness of the water.
Can i ask why you used f/20. was it to slow the shutter down?
Ive been meaning to get this type of shot for a while now.


Yeah... it was at 1:50pm and I was in a cavern type thing, but it was still pretty bright... Also, I had an ND filter + a circular polarizer

I had tried this kind of thing without a tripod and with IS I managed to get to about 1/15 that was sharp enough, but that was still too fast to get that nice blur... I think anything over 3 seconds will do a nice smooth blur :)

...On a different topic, I've read things on photozone.de about diffraction and other bad things that happen at really tiny apetures but that doesn't seem to be a problem... just really huge depth of field :)

[bacchanal]

Here is an HDR from last night :D

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/may8_07/valeyHDR1.jpg

Pure awesome!

[ErikM]

Pure awesome!

Thank you so much!

[syntrix]

Thank you so much!

Love your shots Erik! Is that a merge of serveral exposures or a tone mapping (or both ;) )

[ErikM]

Thank you. I used 3 raw files, 2 stops apart and combined them with Photomatrix. I also used Photomatrix's tone mapping feature and added the finishing touches in Photoshop :D

[anomie]

This weekend I had the chance to go to Plimouth Plantation, in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Took my trusty 17-55 lens with me and it proved very handy in low-light situations while visiting the 1627 English Village.

f /5.6 @ 1/320 ISO 100
http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p566631692-4.jpg

f /2.8 @ 1/30 ISO 800
http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p987929052-4.jpg

f /2.8 @ 1/10 ISO 1000
http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p735005234-4.jpg

f /2.8 @ 1/30 ISO 800
http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p1005995386-4.jpg

f /2.8 @ 1/60 ISO 800
http://ddemelo.zenfolio.com/img/p998083516-4.jpg

Love IS - worth every dime which is why I'm saving my pennies for a 70-200 f/4 IS.

[dave_bass5]

Yeah... it was at 1:50pm and I was in a cavern type thing, but it was still pretty bright... Also, I had an ND filter + a circular polarizer

I had tried this kind of thing without a tripod and with IS I managed to get to about 1/15 that was sharp enough, but that was still too fast to get that nice blur... I think anything over 3 seconds will do a nice smooth blur :)

...On a different topic, I've read things on photozone.de about diffraction and other bad things that happen at really tiny apetures but that doesn't seem to be a problem... just really huge depth of field :)


Thanks for the reply.
I can get around 1 sec with IS but i agree, its still too slow.
I dont have a ND filter but im going to try out so slow shooting this summer so i might get a small tripod just for these sort fo shots.

[Logan7]

A few more for the archive. Enjoy!

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/mar26_07/fogrisingsunset.jpg

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/mar28_07/farmbarbwirefenceEDIT3.jpg

Is that second one with a polarizer?

[jylitalo]

This weekend I had the chance to go to Plimouth Plantation, in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Took my trusty 17-55 lens with me and it proved very handy in low-light situations while visiting the 1627 English Village.

f /2.8 @ 1/30 ISO 800
...
f /2.8 @ 1/10 ISO 1000
...
f /2.8 @ 1/30 ISO 800
...
f /2.8 @ 1/60 ISO 800
...
Love IS - worth every dime which is why I'm saving my pennies for a 70-200 f/4 IS.

I guess these shots were more or less posed, because normally I would expect to see more blur from people moving hands, etc.
Even if they were posed, they are still quite impressive show on what IS can do.

[anomie]

I guess these shots were more or less posed, because normally I would expect to see more blur from people moving hands, etc.
Even if they were posed, they are still quite impressive show on what IS can do.

They were not posed. We cannot ask the characters to pose for any photographs. I tried to capture them when they were as close to still as possible without introducing a lot of blur.

[ErikM]

Is that second one with a polarizer?

Nope, 3-stop ND grad filter :)

[crosswire80]

I just acquired the 17-55mm and was wondering if you could give me some tips.Im travelling to London,uk and wales this weekend for a week and have the 350xt.
Does the iso help with the image ;meaning does higher iso make image better to take in low lighting ? even by using the IS of the lens.? Since i know that withiout IS in low lighting, its hard.(eg kit lens)What setting do you usually take pics in low light areas in - TV or Av or manual.
I know i will be taking pics in dark areas like interiors etc of the my tour and wondering what setting i should be on.
I like evening landscapes or dawn and any tips would be appreciated.
thanks

PS: Hi ErikM - toronto here too.

[Logan7]

IS helps eliminate the blurring effect of moving the camera when using a long shutter speed, but it will not do anything to keep moving subjects from appearing blurred. Consequently, in a museum setting IS is ideal due to the non-moving subject matter.

A higher ISO means the camera's sensor responds to light more quickly and allows you to take properly-exposed photos in lower light with the same shutter speed and aperture you would use in brighter light. The trade-off is that noise levels increase when you raise the ISO.

As for your other questions, I can't really comment since I'm just learning this stuff myself ;)

BTW, after reading this entire thread, I've decided to drop the extra $ and get the 17-55 instead of the 18-50 Sigma. Nice photos all around, thanks to everyone for posting!

[El Duderino]

I just acquired the 17-55mm and was wondering if you could give me some tips.Im travelling to London,uk and wales this weekend for a week and have the 350xt.
Does the iso help with the image ;meaning does higher iso make image better to take in low lighting ? even by using the IS of the lens.? Since i know that withiout IS in low lighting, its hard.(eg kit lens)What setting do you usually take pics in low light areas in - TV or Av or manual.
I know i will be taking pics in dark areas like interiors etc of the my tour and wondering what setting i should be on.
I like evening landscapes or dawn and any tips would be appreciated.
thanks

PS: Hi ErikM - toronto here too.

So you know this much about photography and bought a $1000 lens?

[ErikM]

So you know this much about photography and bought a $1000 lens?

Who cares? Perhaps he makes a good amount of money and wanted good equipment to start off with?

Yes you will want to bump your ISO up if you want to take pictures at night or in low light, hand held. However if you taking landscapes at dusk or dawn I recommend using a tripod and keeping the ISO at 100 to obtain the cleanest image possible.

For low light, hand held shots I generally use manual mode.

[ErikM]

:D:D:D

http://www.netengine.ca/ccb/pilbarensis2.jpg

[TheGreatDivorce]

So you know this much about photography and bought a $1000 lens?

Jealous much?

[scotttnz]

This is a great lens! Here are a couple of my favourite shots with it:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/scotttnz/IMG_0955.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/scotttnz/IMG_2634.jpg

[breakdown]

I'm glad I looked through this thread. I didn't think f/2.8 at 55mm would be enough to really knock out the background. I see this lens does just fine.

[dave_bass5]

I'm glad I looked through this thread. I didn't think f/2.8 at 55mm would be enough to really knock out the background. I see this lens does just fine.

If you get close then yeah, f/2.8 is wonderful
EDIT: oops, sorry. this was taken at f/3.5

http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/142604909-L.jpg

[august23]

How does handheld for 6 seconds sound? Yeah, that's right, SIX SECONDS.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n316/yandoli/IMG_0363edited.jpg

[dave_bass5]

Ok, heres one at F/2.8
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/122499246-L.jpg

[ErikM]

From my trip to Vegas. All Hand-held :D

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/VEGAS/strip_paris_hollywood.jpg

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/VEGAS/redrock3_edit.jpg

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/VEGAS/NewYorkNewYorkWIDE.jpg

http://www.netengine.ca/photos/VEGAS/luxorsphinx.jpg

[metalsaber]

After looking at all the awesome photos here, I'm embarrased to post any of mine.

http://www.metalsaber.com/images/buildings/Grove_City_College4.jpg

http://www.metalsaber.com/images/buildings/Grove_City_College9.jpg

http://www.metalsaber.com/images/buildings/Grove_City_College8.jpg

http://www.metalsaber.com/images/buildings/Grove_City_College2.jpg

[Ronald S. Jr.]

A couple I took at a wedding last weekend, both at 2.8:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/remulac/1b.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/remulac/2.jpg

[blonde]

Ron, the first image of the ring is just amazing!!!i love that PP and the entire shot is just mind blowing to me (can i get a free PS lesson on how to do that?)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

You really want to know?

[forno]

So Ron,

You liking your 17-55?

Any comments in relation to all the bricks you had?

[blonde]

You really want to know?

no i am just joking... of course i want to know :)

weddings are not really my thing but i would love to know how you PP that shot.

[blonde]

btw, congrats on your new site, very nice!!!!

[Ronald S. Jr.]

So Ron,

You liking your 17-55?

Any comments in relation to all the bricks you had?

It's lighter, which is both good and bad. The IS helps a bit, but I find it frustrating when I try to follow a subject, forget to turn IS off, and get a blurry shot. However, I don't try those super slow SS's, so sometimes I just shut the IS off if I know I'll be panning. Seems a bit sharper at 2.8 than the brick, but I'm still trying to decide if the drop in contrast, color rendition, and bokeh are worth it.

no i am just joking... of course i want to know :)

weddings are not really my thing but i would love to know how you PP that shot.

Okie dokie, then.

RAW conversion first...the usual stuff. Then...
1.USM- 150, .3, 0
2.USM- 15,150,0 (this adds contrast..17-55 is a bit lacking there)
3.Duplicate layer
4.Desaturate
5.Levels- bottom slider up a bit to sorta "fade" the bw layer
6.Filter- Distort- Lens Correction- Vignetting
7.Flaming Pear plug-in called "Melancholytron", but reduce the power a fair amount. Adds that indefineable "tone" to the shot, as well as contrast and mood.
8.Erase through the bw layer to show the rings in color.
9.Tune the saturation down on the color layer juuust a bit, so that the rings don't scream at you and hit you in the face.
10.Save. :eek:

Other than that, just some healing brush to get rid of the scars and hangnails.

btw, congrats on your new site, very nice!!!!

Thanks..I've had a site for some time now, but it more or less sucked. So, I spent about 6 hours a couple nights ago, re-doing it. I like this much better. Sounds stupid, but I'm easily amused with the mouseover images. :lol:

[shakyhand]

I love this lens... one of my first shots out of this lens...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/320771833_20fdf7d569.jpg

[ErikM]

...Seems a bit sharper at 2.8 than the brick, but I'm still trying to decide if the drop in contrast, color rendition, and bokeh are worth it....


Ronald, I am not so sure that there is much drop in contrast and colour. Definitely not a HUGE difference between my 70-200 2.8 IS and my 17-55. Bokeh is definitely not AMAZING on the 17-55 but its decent. See a few of my shots above for examples :D