Canon kit 18-55 vs 17-55 2.8

So I have searched on here and cannot seem to find what I am looking for.

Currently I have a Canon T2i. I have the kit 18-55 IS lens, the 50 1.8, and a 70-300 non IS.

I was considering buying the Canon 17-55 f2.8, but a, wondering if the image quality is any better than the kit lens that I already have, or is the only diff the fact that I can shoot @2.8 through the full range of zoom?

I know that if I can shoot at 2.8 through the full range, that I can shoot at I believe up to 3 stops lower than the kit lens which def is good in lower light, and make the background blurry in most photos.

At my local shop the lens sells for $1099 CDN, and I am not sure if I really need the 2.8 or not....

Most of my shooting is action of my 16 month old shots, cars, and motorcycles mostly stationary, and some landscape.

I looked through the thread showing samples of this lens, but I am hoping that someone can tell me if this lens makes a pic quality diff over the kit one.

Thanks!

I have both these lenses.

The 18-55 IS is a remarkably good lens for the price but the 17-55 f/2.8 is better in many ways.

It's sharper than the 18-55, particularly at the edges of the frame. The field of focus is flatter, important for shooting anything flat such as documents or paintings. The 17-55 is sharp enough wide open that I never feel I should stop down for more sharpness - I select the aperture depending on the light level and the DOF I want.

But there's more to a lens than sharpness. The 17-55's focus is very fast and very accurate, much better than the 18-55. Manual focus is also much better with full-time manual focusing (you don't have to turn off the AF switch to focus manually).

Zooming and focusing are much smoother too.

And of course it's two stops faster at 55 mm, which makes a big difference to me - I like to shoot without flash when possible.

And the build quality is better than the 18-55.

When I got my 17-55 I kept the 18-55 IS for those times when I need a compact or light package. Anyway, I couldn't get much for it used...

If you can afford it I heartily recommend the upgrade to the 17-55.

-js

For landscape, difference is not huge. Stopped down, both are sharp.

The benefit is faster glass, better IS, and faster AF. If the subject is moving, you need background blur, or it's dark, it will help. A lot. For stationary shots where you want depth of field in good light, not as big a help.

5150studios wrote in post #14344504
... and a 70-300 non IS.

There's no such Canon lens, as far as I know. If what you have is a 75-300, then that is the lens I'd be replacing, rather than the 18-55 IS. That would give you a noticeable image quality improvement. The EF-S 55-250 IS is a prime candidate.

xarqi wrote in post #14344639
There's no such Canon lens, as far as I know.

Maybe it's a Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Pretty good lens.

-js

number six wrote in post #14344643
Maybe it's a Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Pretty good lens.

-js

Yeah, I wondered about that, which is why I added "Canon"
The "non-IS" description did bias me toward it being a Canon lens as "IS" is a Canon term. If it were a Sigma lens, the poster may have written "non-OS".

The zoom lens I am talking about in the 75-300mm is a canon

Holding it in my hand right now.

Canon zoom lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM it does not have IS

I rarely use it. Only mentioned it to cause it is part of my line up.

I really appreciate the feed back on the canon 17-55, it's really got me thinking I want it. I really just wanted to make sure that there would be some image quality improvement (not that I am not already happy with what I got).

However I do see now that there are other benefits outside of the f2.8.

If anyone has time, a sample pic from both the kit 18-55 and the 17-55 of the same subject under the same lighting conditions with no post work done would be greatly appreciated.

But I do appreciate you guys all stopping by and tossing info tome.

Thanks

5150studios wrote in post #14347403
The zoom lens I am talking about in the 75-300mm is a canon

Holding it in my hand right now.

Canon zoom lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM it does not have IS

Yup, that's what I figured.

In that case, ignore what I said above about replacing it - there'd be no point if you don't use that focal length range much.

Any image quality improvement is going to be minimal as the 18-55 IS is optically very good. Additionally, if you are happy with it, would the considerable upgrade cost make you that much happier?

If you have some money to spend, are there any things that actually are limiting you that could be addressed? Do you have a decent flash and tripod/head? What about studio lighting? Macro lens?

I have a Metz flash and a decent tripod. Not interested in any macro really.

Studio lighting.... Don't think so.

When I shoot with my 50 I usually leave it on 2.8 and love the results. But because of the crop sensor on my cam the 50 requires me to be further from subjects than I can normally be.

Which is why I thought that the 17-55 2.8 would allow me to shoot at 2.8 all through the range and achieve the same results as my 50 but not have to be as far from subjects

All I can tell you is I love my 17-55 - worth every penny. Better AF, f2.8, better overall feel to it. I feel that like so many things, you get what you pay for.

I have one for sale if you decide to bite the bullet

Check Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 as an alternative.

saintz wrote in post #14344632
For landscape, difference is not huge. Stopped down, both are sharp.

I think the kit lens gets close in centre sharpness but not in the corners and the colour/contrast & CA it looses out a lot.

I've not used any 18-55 kit lens much, have used the 17-55 and its a stunning lens, selling this week , will miss it a lot but wont fit a 5d...

I looked at the 17-55 and really liked it. The focus is very fast. After comparing it to the Tamron 17-50 I bought the Tamron to save a couple hundred bucks. The focus is not quite as fast but the build quality and image stabilization was more powerful. As a walk around lens they are very useful. I had the Tamron out last night taking prom photos of my daughter and the range was fantastic. It was essentially a bunch of people with phone cameras and PnS cameras trying to get back far enough to get all of the kids in and the 17mm on my lens was great up close so I could light them all up with my flash.

The 18-55 is still in my quiver and it is very sharp for a hundred buck lens, just not very fast in light or focus.

5150studios wrote in post #14350036
When I shoot with my 50 I usually leave it on 2.8 and love the results.

How so? I'm guessing you like the shallow DoF effect.

And that is probably not a bad thing, from the viewpoint of perspective.

Yes, it'll do that for you, for sure.

From a DoF point of view, that's true, other things will be a bit variable. The 50 may be a tad sharper, the 17-55 may have better bokeh.

Thought about a 35L?