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

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

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.

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

John from PA wrote in post #14956101
Check the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. Review at http://www.the-digital-picture.com …C-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx. 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.

Leo_D wrote in post #14956053
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?

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_D wrote in post #14956053
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.

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.

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

Bryan

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?

photome09 wrote in post #14957768
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.

photome09 wrote in post #14957768
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?

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
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.

alazgr8 wrote in post #14958558
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.

Mornnb wrote in post #14958524
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?