Do I need it? Canon 17-55 2.8...HELP!! :)

Hello all! Im in a pickle trying to decide if this is a wise purchase or not. Im looking at the 17-55 2.8 being sold locally for $735.00. I currently have a 60D with the 24-105 and the kit 18-200. The main reason Im thinking of getting the 17-55 is the wide end and ofcourse its faster. I know the average price on ebay is around $800.00 (total cost shipped),but Imtrying to justify the need for it. Im not a pro or anything like that,kinda see myself as a serious amature. Ive read much on the lens and am aware of how nice it is. But,having the 24-105,do I really NEED the 17-55?

So,my issue/question is,to the powers that be - what would you do? I like to shoot everything,day and night. Action and still,doesnt matter. I almost feel like an idiot for asking a seemingly obvious question because I almost CANT go wrong if I buy it.

Any thoughts?

I was in love with the 24-105 until I used the 17-55. The 17-55 is MUCH sharper than the 24-105 IMO. You won't be disappointed with the 17-55 and will probably begin to question why you have the 18-200.

Daphatty wrote in post #15448269
I was in love with the 24-105 until I used the 17-55. The 17-55 is MUCH sharper than the 24-105 IMO. You won't be disappointed with the 17-55 and will probably begin to question why you have the 18-200.

Damn,it is so odd you mention having the 18-200! I was gonna put it on ebay and use those monies to help fund the 17-55. Thanks for the input

Really depends on what and how you shoot. I have the same setup as yours but I went back an looked at my keepers and a very large majority landed at 24mm tapering off into the mid 60's. rarely above 80mm, less than a handful at 85 and above. I also noticed that I was using f4 / f5.6 alot and bumping up the ISO or dragging the shutter a little. That told me that I wanted / needed more light. I got the 17-55 and it's on my camera most of the time now. It's one of the few zoom lenses that is very good wide open. I still have my 24-105 only because I might go full frame sometime and I use it in the studio at f8 and it's a good focal length for how I shoot.

735 is a good deal, but test it out first. Make sure of the zoom creep (or lack of it) and the resale condition (box, paperwork,etc.) Also I would get a hood if it doesn't come with it. I've never been fond of filters on this except for when it's absolutely needed.

The 17-55 and 15-85 are in the same league, as far as IQ goes. It depends on whether you need the f/2.8, or the greater zoom range.

I forgot to mention it does come with the box and hood. Seller has it listed as being in mint condition. I had also considered the 15-85 instead of the 17-55 because of the reach. The reviews Ive read for both say they are both great lenses,the 17-55 mainly being better because of the 2.8. I really like the added reach of the 15-85!

My instincts tell me pull the trigger and go for the 17-55. If I dont like it I can sell it and pick up the 15-85.

I really appreciate the input guys (and gals)!

I love my 17-55! Its a great walk around lens and the lowlight performance makes for great nighttime shots.

You wont be disappointed!!!

I just picked 17-55mm in Craigslist here in Seattle last night for 750 mint condition others 900 up to a 1000 mine was offered 800 but got it for 750. Awesome lens I am now enjoying it with my nephews 6th birthday. You will love it, I gave my 18-200 to pair with t2i. You will love it. Good luck

Also on a 7D, have got both the 24-105 and the 17-55.
Love them both the 17-55 is my go to lens for inside, the 24-105 for outside.
Don't hurry to get rid of the 24-105 they complement each other nicely

If you feel you need a lens on the range of a 17-55, you may want to also consider a new Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens. New, they are just over $600 and the review say the IQ is equal to or slightly better than the Canon.

Photozone says... The Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS is a highly competitive APS-C standard zoom lens and Sigma's best product in this class so far. It's not a flawless lens but none really is. Its biggest weakness is the performance at f/2.8 - the resolution in the image center is already exceedingly high here but the image corners are soft between 17-35mm and there's some vignetting at the extreme ends of the zoom range. However, starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS. The lens is extremely sharp across the frame here with no obvious flaw across the zoom range. The field curvature is also minimal (quite flat focus plane). Lateral CAs are not really field relevant. The distortion characteristic is about average for a lens in this class. The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is slightly better compared to most competitors although you will naturally find prime lenses which perform better here.

hennie wrote in post #15448532
Also on a 7D, have got both the 24-105 and the 17-55.
Love them both the 17-55 is my go to lens for inside, the 24-105 for outside.
Don't hurry to get rid of the 24-105 they complement each other nicely

I also was thinking that the 2 compliment each other. Deff not gonna jump and sell the 24-105.

nightcat wrote in post #15448533
If you feel you need a lens on the range of a 17-55, you may want to also consider a new Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens. New, they are just over $600 and the review say the IQ is equal to or slightly better than the Canon.

Photozone says... The Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS is a highly competitive APS-C standard zoom lens and Sigma's best product in this class so far. It's not a flawless lens but none really is. Its biggest weakness is the performance at f/2.8 - the resolution in the image center is already exceedingly high here but the image corners are soft between 17-35mm and there's some vignetting at the extreme ends of the zoom range. However, starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS. The lens is extremely sharp across the frame here with no obvious flaw across the zoom range. The field curvature is also minimal (quite flat focus plane). Lateral CAs are not really field relevant. The distortion characteristic is about average for a lens in this class. The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is slightly better compared to most competitors although you will naturally find prime lenses which perform better here.

I appreciate you posting that info - but I had already considered the Sigma. I have a close friend who has it,and for me personally the Canon is worth it. Sigma has some odd things about it that didnt set well with me.

nightcat wrote in post #15448533
If you feel you need a lens on the range of a 17-55, you may want to also consider a new Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens. New, they are just over $600 and the review say the IQ is equal to or slightly better than the Canon.

Photozone says... The Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS is a highly competitive APS-C standard zoom lens and Sigma's best product in this class so far. It's not a flawless lens but none really is. Its biggest weakness is the performance at f/2.8 - the resolution in the image center is already exceedingly high here but the image corners are soft between 17-35mm and there's some vignetting at the extreme ends of the zoom range. However, starting at f/4 it beats or at least matches alternative products including the more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS. The lens is extremely sharp across the frame here with no obvious flaw across the zoom range. The field curvature is also minimal (quite flat focus plane). Lateral CAs are not really field relevant. The distortion characteristic is about average for a lens in this class. The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is slightly better compared to most competitors although you will naturally find prime lenses which perform better here.

Soft corners and that AF on that lens is a problem,even after you send it in.

Hello and welcome here. I used a Canon 17-55 on a 7D for almost two years. It is a really versatile lens that can produce tack-sharp photos. I would have no reservations buying it again (had I not switched to full-frame). Excellent glass, for the price.

Plus, my copy was no where near the dust hoover it is sometimes made out to be.

Cheers

What 17mm will do that your 24mm cannot...
If you are in a room which is 10' wide, you can get your camera no farther back than 9' while in front of your eye...

• so with 17mm the photo will capture 8'x12' area of view.
  
• With 24mm you can capture only 5.6' x 8.4'.