Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 06 Sep 2012 (Thursday) 08:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM?

 
pdrober2
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Durham, NC
     
Sep 06, 2012 14:15 |  #16

if you want to replace the 18-55 and budget isnt an issue, the 17-55 is the best choice IMO. enjoy it.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Leo_D
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
14 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 06, 2012 14:27 |  #17

I gave a lame reason as to why I think of the 17-55 and the 24-105 are a bit of an overlap. I happen to have a T3i and the 17-55. N a crop, the 17-55 field of view is equivalent to a 28-88 on a full frame, which is close to what a 24-70 or a 24-105 would give you on a full frame. So, in my mind, the purpose of the 17-55 is like that of a 24-105. I would stick with 17-55 if I stayed on the T3i or stick with the 24-105 if I planned to go full frame, but I wouldn't keep both, personally.


Leo | 5D3 | 50L | 100L | 17-40L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
10,636 posts
Likes: 1267
Joined May 2003
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
     
Sep 06, 2012 14:43 |  #18

Check the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. Review at http://www.the-digital-picture.com …C-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link). Personally I think the build quality is a bit better than the Canon. Doesn't hurt that it is less expensive either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photome09
Member
92 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Sep 06, 2012 16:02 |  #19

John from PA wrote in post #14956101 (external link)
Check the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. Review at http://www.the-digital-picture.com …C-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link). Personally I think the build quality is a bit better than the Canon. Doesn't hurt that it is less expensive either.

I tried this one, but it is slow in focus.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photome09
Member
92 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Sep 06, 2012 16:13 |  #20

Leo_D wrote in post #14956053 (external link)
I gave a lame reason as to why I think of the 17-55 and the 24-105 are a bit of an overlap. I happen to have a T3i and the 17-55. N a crop, the 17-55 field of view is equivalent to a 28-88 on a full frame, which is close to what a 24-70 or a 24-105 would give you on a full frame. So, in my mind, the purpose of the 17-55 is like that of a 24-105. I would stick with 17-55 if I stayed on the T3i or stick with the 24-105 if I planned to go full frame, but I wouldn't keep both, personally.

Definitely, I am not going FF, but considering what you said, now I feel there is an overlap with my 15-85 & 24-105...so, is it worth keeping then the 15-85 or the 24-105, or sell both & stick with 17-55?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Leo_D
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
14 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 06, 2012 18:02 |  #21

That's an interesting decision to make. I haven't tried using a 15-85, but I can speak about the 17-55 I have. I'm very pleased with its performance. I feel it takes warm, sharp shots. The focus ring moves smoothly (the zoom ring moves thru the focal range a bit quick, but I consider that minor). I like that I can set it to f/2.8 and it maintains that aperture for all focal lengths. And I'm happy that it has IS.

I think what would bug me about the 15-85 (again, never having actually used one) is the variable minimum f-stop. I guess that's being a bit nitpicky though.

I'd personally pick up the 17-55 and sell the 15-85 and 24-105, but that's because I don't tend to shoot telephoto, so I wouldn't miss the higher focal lengths. You could, though, then decide to get a wide angle lens or a telephoto lens to fill in whatever range you feel you might be missing out on on either side of the 17-55.


Leo | 5D3 | 50L | 100L | 17-40L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 06, 2012 18:27 |  #22

Leo_D wrote in post #14956053 (external link)
I gave a lame reason as to why I think of the 17-55 and the 24-105 are a bit of an overlap. I happen to have a T3i and the 17-55. N a crop, the 17-55 field of view is equivalent to a 28-88 on a full frame, which is close to what a 24-70 or a 24-105 would give you on a full frame. So, in my mind, the purpose of the 17-55 is like that of a 24-105. I would stick with 17-55 if I stayed on the T3i or stick with the 24-105 if I planned to go full frame, but I wouldn't keep both, personally.

Hmm? The 17-55mm is the crop 24-70mm, the 24-105mm for crop is the 15-85mm! Both have great optics on par with L lens.
If I was going full frame, I'd get a 10-22mm for the missing wide angle range on the 24-105mm, and keep using the 24-105mm or get a 24-70mm. 17-55mm is too much to spend on a lens if you want to go to full frame in the future.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Leo_D
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
14 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 06, 2012 18:37 |  #23

Close enough, 15-85 on a crop has the equivalent field of view of a 24-136. photome09 wasn't planning on going FF. Which 24-70 would you go for? The Tamron at $1,300? I wouldn't go for the Sigma.

I do hear good things about the 10-22.


Leo | 5D3 | 50L | 100L | 17-40L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bps
Cream of the Crop
7,607 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Mar 2007
Location: California
     
Sep 06, 2012 20:34 |  #24

The 17-55 is an outstanding lens! It gets my vote.

Bryan


My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photome09
Member
92 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Sep 06, 2012 22:00 as a reply to  @ bps's post |  #25

from what I gather now, having a 15-85 & 24-105 is a redundancy.
hence, solution, get rid of both & get the 17-55...is that right?

So, if I get rid of these 2 lenses that are deemed a redundancy, would most of you agree that if I have the 17-55 lens, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II & 50mm f/1.4...that's it for me?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tedyun
Member
56 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2011
     
Sep 07, 2012 00:56 |  #26

photome09 wrote in post #14957768 (external link)
from what I gather now, having a 15-85 & 24-105 is a redundancy.
hence, solution, get rid of both & get the 17-55...is that right?

So, if I get rid of these 2 lenses that are deemed a redundancy, would most of you agree that if I have the 17-55 lens, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II & 50mm f/1.4...that's it for me?

I have these three lenses (except my 70-200 IS is a mkI) and they pretty much cover everything I shoot. The 17-55 and 70-200 are great for outdoor shots and action shots. I primarily take portraits of my family, and some action shots of my kids playing sports. The 50mm is also a great lens if I know I'm going in a low-light situation, and also a great portrait lens. Even though it's the cheapest in the arsenal, it gets used a lot.

If your do macro or wildlife, you might want to look at something different (although the 70-200 can be impressive), but I am pretty content with those three lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 07, 2012 02:36 |  #27

photome09 wrote in post #14957768 (external link)
So, if I get rid of these 2 lenses that are deemed a redundancy, would most of you agree that if I have the 17-55 lens, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II & 50mm f/1.4...that's it for me?

Well, there's a gaping hole under 17mm, don't shoot wide angle often?


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alazgr8
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Orange County, CA.
     
Sep 07, 2012 03:01 |  #28

I think the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L lens would be a better match up to the performance of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and better than the EF 24-105 f/4.0 L by virtue of being faster. All you have to do is get a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, and you are pretty much covered without any overlap. Of course you have almost $5k in glass, but you are set.

Regards,

Rick

Leo_D wrote in post #14956053 (external link)
I gave a lame reason as to why I think of the 17-55 and the 24-105 are a bit of an overlap. I happen to have a T3i and the 17-55. N a crop, the 17-55 field of view is equivalent to a 28-88 on a full frame, which is close to what a 24-70 or a 24-105 would give you on a full frame. So, in my mind, the purpose of the 17-55 is like that of a 24-105. I would stick with 17-55 if I stayed on the T3i or stick with the 24-105 if I planned to go full frame, but I wouldn't keep both, personally.


Rick S.
My Gear = Canon 50d ~ EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM Macro ~ EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ~ EF-S 17-55 IS USM f/2.8 IS ~ EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ~ EF 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photome09
Member
92 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Sep 07, 2012 08:13 |  #29

alazgr8 wrote in post #14958558 (external link)
I think the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L lens would be a better match up to the performance of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and better than the EF 24-105 f/4.0 L by virtue of being faster. All you have to do is get a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, and you are pretty much covered without any overlap. Of course you have almost $5k in glass, but you are set.

Regards,

Rick

Rick, my problem is, my hands shake, that's why I opted for the 24-105, the IS helps a lot for me. The 24-70 is really my choice, but until Canon comes out with an IS version of the 24-70, I can't go with it. I got frustrated when Canon came out with the 24-70 MKII version, but still missing the IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photome09
Member
92 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Sep 07, 2012 08:15 |  #30

Mornnb wrote in post #14958524 (external link)
Well, there's a gaping hole under 17mm, don't shoot wide angle often?

I take mostly landscapes & night shots. Is that really a big of a difference between the 15mm & the 17mm?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,379 views & 0 likes for this thread
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is henry65
885 guests, 254 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.