Bye bye 17-55 and thanks for all the fish.

I've been waiting for this day, and it has come. I am getting rid of my 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's a lens I never was happy with, but used most often due to the perfect focal length for most of what I did.

I pre-ordered the 5D III, and need to find a good replacement. I thought about the 105L but I've heard mixed reviews on it and would really love to get the 24-70 II but I think it might be too much of a stretch.

Also thought there was a 24-105L refresh coming around.

Any suggestions for a good all around lens to replace the 17-55?

I know someone will ask it; my main reasons for not liking the 17-55.

Never was impressed with the IQ, it's not bad but the 70-200 is just so much better it is amazing.

It collects dust like a vacuum going under furniture.

The IS is bound to fail any minute now as I hear the IS breaks on them all the time.

It isn't weather sealed and moves in and out exposing a lot of cracks (back to the dust issue).

Other than that, it's a great lens and I love the focal length. I am glad I got it over using a variable aperture consumer lens, but after using my 70-200 I am always left disappointed.

I'm guessing the 24-105 is a good pick, and I probably should have pre-ordered the kit since you save a few hundred buying it. Afraid to change my order now since I ordered early AM on the announcement day from Amazon and think it may delay when I would get it. Looking at Amazon, they said they filled up initial orders of the body only, but I don't see the message for the kit, I suspect lots are buying body only.

I thought about going for the 24-70 I since it is close to the same price range is considered one of the best Canon lenses.

24-70 and 24-105 are the two obvious replacements and there are a bunch of threads on the pros and cons of each.

ejenner wrote in post #14045584
24-70 and 24-105 are the two obvious replacements and there are a bunch of threads on the pros and cons of each.

I have the 70-200 f/4 IS L, which is another good option. But I don't see myself shooting that all the time, even without the crop zoom factor. Although it will be awesome to see what that lens is really capable of on a full frame.

Saxi wrote in post #14045548
Never was impressed with the IQ, it's not bad but the 70-200 is just so much better it is amazing.

The IS is bound to fail any minute now as I hear the IS breaks on them all the time.

yes its a terrible lens. BTW canon fixed the failing IS issue about 4 years ago.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5779616​409/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5764127​577/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6004341​681/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5868490​186/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5753604​303/

RobDickinson wrote in post #14045607
yes its a terrible lens. BTW canon fixed the failing IS issue about 4 years ago.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5779616​409/
Beautiful to a fault by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5764127​577/
Tinnie on the Shore by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6004341​681/
Misty Hagley Park sunrise 3 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5868490​186/
The Glory of Arrowtown ~Explored~ by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5753604​303/
The Commuter by robjdickinson, on Flickr

Never said it was a terrible lens, just saying it never held up to other lenses like the 70-200 and think it is rather overpriced. I've gotten some great images out of it, but more times than not I am disappointed. Great shots by the way.

I have a 70-200f2.8L , and to be honest I mostly agree with you! The IQ of the longer lens is much better, but that is one feature of longer lenses, easier to make them good.

I think the new 24-70mkII will be spectacular and I think I may hold out for it on my FF body

RobDickinson wrote in post #14045640
I have a 70-200f2.8L , and to be honest I mostly agree with you! The IQ of the longer lens is much better, but that is one feature of longer lenses, easier to make them good.

I think the new 24-70mkII will be spectacular and I think I may hold out for it on my FF body

Yea, the older 24-70 and 24-105 don't hold a candle to the 70-200 series. They are decent enough. The 24-70 II might well be close to the telephotos in IQ which would indeed be amazing.

Awesome shots RobDickinson!!!!!!

RobDickinson wrote in post #14045607
yes its a terrible lens. BTW canon fixed the failing IS issue about 4 years ago.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5779616​409/
Beautiful to a fault by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5764127​577/
Tinnie on the Shore by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6004341​681/
Misty Hagley Park sunrise 3 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5868490​186/
The Glory of Arrowtown ~Explored~ by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5753604​303/
The Commuter by robjdickinson, on Flickr

OUTSTANDING ROB !!!

Functionally, the 24-105L is the closest replacement to the 17-55. Think of it as being as though you had an EF-S 15-65 f/2.5 IS USM. It's wider, longer and faster (in terms of DOF and noise when used on FF) as compared to the 17-55.

The 24-70 is quite different, as f/2.8 is very fast on a FF body relative to DOF. In return for the speed, you trade some reach, but at least the wide end is a bit wider. Ignove the naysayers on the IQ of this lens, it is very capable.

If you thought the 17-55 was overpriced then you might want to avoid the EF 24-70 II.

Thanks!

Jeffrey I agree entirely, the 24-105 is the logical switch as it basically improves on everything despite looking like a slower lens. 1 fstop slower, but 2.5 times larger sensor... I think its Bokeh can look a bit off sometimes but then the 17-55 can too.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14046517
Functionally, the 24-105L is the closest replacement to the 17-55. Think of it as being as though you had an EF-S 15-65 f/2.5 IS USM. It's wider, longer and faster (in terms of DOF and noise when used on FF) as compared to the 17-55.

The 24-70 is quite different, as f/2.8 is very fast on a FF body relative to DOF. In return for the speed, you trade some reach, but at least the wide end is a bit wider. Ignove the naysayers on the IQ of this lens, it is very capable.

If you thought the 17-55 was overpriced then you might want to avoid the EF 24-70 II.

I am leaning towards the 24-105, it seems like the best option.

I think the 17-55 is over priced because of the lack of weather sealing (or any sealing for that fact, 1 month after use it looks like it vacuumed lint from a dryer) and the IQ is no where near as good as many of the L lenses, but it is in the price range of a L.

I was considering the 24-70 I, but might as well get the II if I go that route. I think the 24-105 is the best fit.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14046530
Thanks!

Jeffrey I agree entirely, the 24-105 is the logical switch as it basically improves on everything despite looking like a slower lens. 1 fstop slower, but 2.5 times larger sensor... I think its Bokeh can look a bit off sometimes but then the 17-55 can too.

More concerned about light capability than bokeh, since I typically shoot 1600-6400 ISO. But will be a moot point when going from a 7D to a 5D III so I'm not too worried about that.

I think I might grab another 85mm f/1.8 again, I really liked that lens, it just wasn't offering me anything on my 7D since I had a 17-55 & 70-200. I sold it and got the 135mm f/2 which I absolutely love.

Selling the 7D as well? If not, then selling the 17-55 is not the smartest choice.

To replace the 17-55 on full frame you should get the 24-70, preferably the MkII if you can afford it. Especially if you were not pleased with the IQ of the 17-55.

be a man and replace it with a 50mm prime or a combination of primes, and be happier than ever