FF 17-55 equivalent?

If one has gone FF, what is the best replacement for EF-S 17-55?
I really would like to get something that has IS yet still have the wide angle + 2.8 or better.

I currently have a 17-40L and keep finding that it just doesn't cut it in low light situations, even if when bumping up the iso.

The nearest thing would be the 24-70/2.8L, but it doesn't have IS.

24-70, I would imagine is going to be the closest thing for you for low light in a zoom on FF. Unfortunately, no IS to be found on a short, fast zoom for full frame.

No such animal in the Canon line up, unless you want to push it out to 3.5 - 5.6 on the 15-85?

Yes the 24-70 2.8 from canon or Sigma versions or the 28-75 from Tamron, but the Canon with USM and best build and optics is the closest thing to the 17-55 IS
For low light situation Fast Primes lens are still king even without IS, but the f2.8 and High ISO capabilities of todays FF cameras like 5D2 you should be able to tackle many situations

Lone Rider wrote in post #13290518
No such animal in the Canon line up, unless you want to push it out to 3.5 - 5.6 on the 15-85?

The 15-85 is not a FF lens, is a EFS lens and the Op refers to the FF equivalent to the 17-55 2.8

what about a 16-35?

borism wrote in post #13290528
The 15-85 is not a FF lens, is a EFS lens and the Op refers to the FF equivalent to the 17-55 2.8

Apologies I missed that

NivoMedia wrote in post #13290530
what about a 16-35?

This would be a far shorter lens.

Madweasel wrote in post #13290498
The nearest thing would be the 24-70/2.8L, but it doesn't have IS.

The Brick also has excessive field curvature on the wide end... Bokeh and color are great though, as is sharpness if you can get one that is dialed in.

There really is no FF equiv of the EF-S17-55 f/2.8 IS.

I should also mention that I have the 24-105L as well. Just took a look at the 16-35 and OUCH, that is not a cheap piece of glass. Guess I will just have to keep practicing my breathing technique when shooting in low light and hope for the best.

I recently upgraded from a 30D to a 60D. My 17-55 f/2.8 IS was the reason I chose the 60D over the 5DII. I did not want to give this lens up.

BrentBoshart wrote in post #13290631
I recently upgraded from a 30D to a 60D. My 17-55 f/2.8 IS was the reason I chose the 60D over the 5DII. I did not want to give this lens up.

Yep, the 17-55 is one of the reasons I like the crops too.

Mr. Bill wrote in post #13290581
I should also mention that I have the 24-105L as well. Just took a look at the 16-35 and OUCH, that is not a cheap piece of glass. Guess I will just have to keep practicing my breathing technique when shooting in low light and hope for the best.

The 24-105/4 is the FF version of the 17-55. With FF your DOF at F4 is the same as a 2.5 on crop at the same framing. The 24-105 is both wider and longer on FF than the 17-55 on crop. And finally the 5D2 has at least one stop better ISO performance than any crop camera so you can push ISO to make up for the 1 stop loss in shutter speed.

If canon were to upgrade the 24-70/2.8 with IS, then they would need a 15-43/1.8 IS on crop to be the equivalent and that beast doesn't exist.

Mr. Bill wrote in post #13290472
If one has gone FF, what is the best replacement for EF-S 17-55?
I really would like to get something that has IS yet still have the wide angle + 2.8 or better.

I currently have a 17-40L and keep finding that it just doesn't cut it in low light situations, even if when bumping up the iso.

Actually, the nearest equivalent lens to the EF-S 17-55 on a FF camera is the EF 24-105/4L.

Here is why a lot of people don't quite grasp this:

1) 24-105 on a FF sensor gives the same FOV range as a 15-65 would on 1.6X, so the 24-105L on FF is actually both wider and longer.

2) f/4 on a FF sensor gives the same DOF (at equal framing) as f/2.5 does on 1.6X. So the 24-105L is actually capable of very slightly shallower DOF (but they are nearly equal).

3) The FF sensor has better high ISO performance by at least one stop for equal technology, so the f/4 of the 24-105 is at worst equal for light gathering capability.

So there you are. Incidentally, the 24-70 is capable of much shallower DOF and light gathering on FF than the 17-55 on 1.6X, but it does lack IS. For moving subjects, the 24-70 on FF is hands down better.