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

I'd get it as it would allow you to shoot lower light situations more easily.

I would use the money on a wideangle instead. That would make much more sense.

For the same money you can get a Tokina 11-16 or a canon 16-35, or a Sigma 12-24, 8-16... Lots of other lenses I would take a look at before buying 17-50, when you already have 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.

Equal to...stopped down. Every lens gets competitive in sharpness as you stop down, you play for performance wide open. Also does not have FTM.

Canon 17-55 is the best thing about shooting with a crop camera. I miss mine!

My mid-range zoom was the 24-70mm f/2.8L which is a great lens (my copy was spot-on). However 24mm was not quite wide enough for my general shooting so I carried a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina. The 70mm was not long enough so I carried a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I don't like switching lenses in the field very often so I carried a pair of bodies. The three lenses (with the "brick" being a load) plus two bodies were quite heavy.

I now shoot with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras. The 17mm is wide enough for most of my shooting (I am not a fan of wide angle lenses) and I only occasionally carry my 12-24mm anymore. The 17-55mm + 70-200mm is a great combination...

It has finger-tip access to focal langths from 17-200mm (I don't miss the 55-70mm gap). The A/F and IQ is excellent, I have a constant f/2.8 aperture in my mid-range focal lengths and a constant f/4 aperture in my tele focal lengths.

Heavy? Well the 70-200mm f/4L IS + 40D weighs about the same as a 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens alone. The f/4L IS lens can be used in some fairly dim lighting and I use a flash for venues in which it is too dark...

Expensive? Heck, the 40D is worth only a couple of hundred bucks...

OTOH - I don't really like using the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens alone because it is not long enough for my style of shooting. However the above pair of lenses is the best combination I ever used in over 50 years of photography...

Additionally, I have a built-in insurance policy against missing a photo opportunity because my camera went down...

I personally love the 17-55, had trouble deciding on that or the 24-105, but the 2.8, IS, and wider end on the 17-55 sealed the deal.

Cheers!

If you want wider- why not get yourself a wider lens- like the 10-22 or 12-24 and pair it with your current lenses... Really though, if your gut says to get the 17-55-- do it and be done... At least, you will be able to sell it for about the same if you decide it is not for you...

Wanted to thank everyone for their input!! Ive decided Im going to get it. This forum is the greatest! I appreciate the wisdom/experience here.

Have it arranged to see it tomorrow,likely buy it. After I get it I will force myself to learn to post some pics on the forum instead of posting a link

I personally think you should get my Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS I have for sale. But I'm biased.

Since I know everybody has been on pins and needles all day wondering how the transaction went with the lens I thought I would let everyone know

Met with the guy this evening after work. Spent about 25-35 minutes looking at it,testing it and really putting it through the ringer. Just when I was about to verbally seal the deal my fingers bumped the end of the lens,the barrel end....thats when the deal went to pot. The barrel has play/wobble in it,the focus ring is loose,and if I hold the lens by the body mount end and gently shake it there is a very distinct loosness in the barrel end. From what I could tell the lens has a lot of miles on it but seemed to function. The only true comparison I had was my 24-105 which is solid as a rock. Lens didnt feel like it was falling apart (thats why I didnt even notice it till the end of my inspection) but it deffinately felt worn. Looked good and clean,even the front element was clean.

So onward I go....

Keep looking the right one will turn up.

Nice lens. Was a bit too much to spend for me, so I got the Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Have not regretted it.