Canon EFS 17-55: QUIT ASKING PLEASE!!!

CaliWalkabout wrote in post #14977193
Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.

Post of the week.


This forum bends over backwards to help people even when they ask the same questions week after week. This isn't a forum of 16 year old gamers who troll posts and worse.

If you haven't figured out that people want feedback on their specific situation, eve if it's related to similar threads, then you haven't been paying attention.

all this thread accomplished was to provide yet another thread with the 17-55mm IS in the title...

is it a good lens? how does it compare to a tammy 17-50?? does it work with a full frame?

:P

Hmm. I think the OP secretly wants more questions asked. When you tell someone, DON'T DO THIS! Guess what, they do.

So is the 17-55mm the best walk-around lens there is?

pulsar123 wrote in post #14976865
As somebody already mentioned, 24-105 f4 IS is the equivalent of 17-55 IS on FF.

f2.8 on crop camera is equivalent to f4.4 on FF cameras, and 17-55 FL is equivalent to 27-88mm (in terms of image noise and DoF). So in fact 24-105 on FF is more versatile than 17-55 on crop, with wider FL range and slightly more shallow DoF (for the same framing).

No it's not. No matter how you spin it, f/4 doesn't let in as much light as f/2.8 does.

cdifoto wrote in post #14978915
No it's not. No matter how you spin it, f/4 doesn't let in as much light as f/2.8 does.

the post you quoted did not state it let in the same amount of light, it said in terms of noise and DOF - which is true.

Christina.DazzleByDesi​gn wrote in post #14979126
the post you quoted did not state it let in the same amount of light, it said in terms of noise and DOF - which is true.

His first statement was that they're equivalent. They're not. Then he said f/2.8 on crop is f/4.4 on FF. It's not.

Christina.DazzleByDesi​gn wrote in post #14979126
the post you quoted did not state it let in the same amount of light, it said in terms of noise and DOF - which is true.

He changed the post to add "in terms of noise and DOF"...please see my previous post

What in the world does the lens or aperture have to do with "image noise" anyways? Somebody is talking out of the wrong end of their body lol

mannetti21 wrote in post #14979144
He changed the post to add "in terms of noise and DOF"...please see my previous post

What in the world does the lens or aperture have to do with "image noise"anyways? Somebody is talking out of the wrong end of their body lol

Ahha, earlier comment retracted then

Will the 17-55IS improve my keeper rate on my 5d mkII?

I don't understand such rants from the OP. What up with that?

Pingman wrote in post #14979217
I don't understand such rants from the OP. What up with that?

Newspapers do the same thing. And they end up getting the most readers. As for POTN, this thread got more hits then it deserves. The emo factor is part of our reality. Not to say its bad or good.

Truer words have never been spoken.

As a newbie I feel like I can offer some insight into the point of re-asking an old question that has been rehashed many, many times. The reason is to make sure a newer, better, cheaper, lens, tripod, or camera bag etc., has not come along since the last thread. With the collective, eye's, ears, knowledge and brain power of thousands of forum members there is probably nothing camera related that has not been seen, tested or tried. Because of the responses I recieved to my 17-55 inquiry, and the use of "search" I was able to buy in confidence my 17-55 the month before last. This week, again because of the responses I recieved to my 100 f/2.8L inquiry, and the use of "search" I will once again be able to march into Samy's Camera, plop down my hard earned cash with confidence knowing that I made a wise purchase. Why the confidence? Because of you fine people that don't mind patiently answering old, tired or dumb questions. I hope that I never see the day, that I become so jaded that I forget what it was like to be a newbie needing advice.

Thanks,

Rick

whmeltonjr wrote in post #14976618
The re-asking of questions is part of any forum I have ever been a part of. Unfortunately, so is the pointless complaining about the re-asking of questions. Just don't read the thread and move on.

alazgr8 wrote in post #14979549
Truer words have never been spoken.

As a newbie I feel like I can offer some insight into the point of re-asking an old question that has been rehashed many, many times. The reason is to make sure a newer, better, cheaper, lens, tripod, or camera bag etc., has not come along since the last thread. With the collective, eye's, ears, knowledge and brain power of thousands of forum members there is probably nothing camera related that has not been seen, tested or tried. Because of the responses I recieved to my 17-55 inquiry, and the use of "search" I was able to buy in confidence my 17-55 the month before last. This week, again because of the responses I recieved to my 100 f/2.8L inquiry, and the use of "search" I will once again be able to march into Samy's Camera, plop down my hard earned cash with confidence knowing that I made a wise purchase. Why the confidence? Because of you fine people that don't mind patiently answering old, tired or dumb questions. I hope that I never see the day, that I become so jaded that I forget what it was like to be a newbie needing advice.

Thanks,

Rick

The way I see it, lots of times, the same lens/body/tripod/bag/e​tc might come up, but no 2 scenarios are exactly alike. So people like feedback based on their specific set of circumstances.

I search here a LOT, but I still like feedback based on my needs, which I try to fully explain when I post a thread. And I always appreciate it when people give me feedback rather than just a canned response or a "do a search" answer.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14979144
He changed the post to add "in terms of noise and DOF"...please see my previous post

What in the world does the lens or aperture have to do with "image noise" anyways? Somebody is talking out of the wrong end of their body lol

In this case, since we're comparing across image formats, there's a grain of truth.

Consider an exposure on APS-C made with a 17-55 at f/2.8, ISO 100 and 1/500 sec.
Now the same exposure on full frame shot with a 24-105 would have to be at f/4, ISO 200 and 1/500 (holding the shutter speed constant).

If my understanding is correct, for equivalent framing, the 24-105 shot at f/4 on FF will have slightly shallower DoF than a 17-55 shot at f/2.8 on APS-C. For the sake of argument let's call it close to identical.

So, there's one stop of light less that hits the FF sensor because of the smaller maximum lens aperture- solution is to up the ISO. FF has about one stop better of noise performance, so in the end, it about evens out.

Functionally, the 24-105 on FF and the 17-55 on APS-C appear to work out fairly closely.