ANY LENS BETTER THAN CANON 17-55 f/2.8?

snake0ape wrote in post #15803724
I had the 17-55. Sharp at center, sharp at corners, fast AF, and versatile. IS adds to the versatility. There is none better if you need an all-around lens.

JakeF150FX4 wrote in post #15804003
15-85 i think its great len

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15804016
15-85 absolutely kicks the 17-55's ass in the 56-85mm range..

The 17-55 is almost as good as the 15-85. The 15-85 offers more range on both ends of the zoom, is better at flare control, especially with a hood, and it is almost $400 cheaper. The only advantage I can see to the 17-55 is f/2.8, which I don't use very often. If I need something faster than my 15-85, I am in a 'known' situation and I will have a fast prime with me.

The 17-55 offers nothing I need, for a whole lot of money. Much the same as the 24-105. I realize the are well-respected lenses. They just don't do anything for me.

Perhaps, but I am getting a lot of mileage using the 17-55 wide open indoors. The f/2.8 is awesome in this regard. I thought long and hard choosing between the 17-55 and the 15-85 - hard to go wrong either way, but I am pretty happy with my 17-55.

Both are very good lenses. No doubt. Had I purchased a 17-55, I could make a similar argument in reverse. Such as: The 17-55 is excellent. If I need more focal length, I grab my 85 1.8. I really don't think you can go wrong with either choice. Which goes to the OP question: Better than a 17-55? Probably does not exist.

No you have the best 17-55 lens for your camera just need a good L glass zoom to go with it

it really depends on use...

I have the 15-85 and a fast prime. Most of my shooting is travel and outdoors and I like the zoom range, lower weight, and size. When I need low light and bigger aperture then f2/8 is not good enough and a prime is better. Therefore for me that is the superior lens !

If most of my shooting was indoors with limited range and f2.8 was enough then maybe the 17-55 and 85 then be a better choice.

I think TSchrief made an excellent point: the merits of the 17-55 and the 15-85 can be argued effectively from either side. It really depends on what you shoot and how much light is available. We live in Florida and I shoot mainly outdoors, often using a tripod for landscapes, etc. For this reason, the f/2.8 of the 17-55 would benefit me less than the expanded range of the 15-85.

I haven't seen many negative posts from people who own either one of these lenses. From all accounts, both are quite good and shine on crop bodies even when compared to L zooms in similar ranges.

Mahahaha my sigma 17-50 is better no dust problem lol

pkilla wrote in post #15804717
Mahahaha my sigma 17-50 is better no dust problem lol

A lot of people rank the Canon 17-55 over the Sigma; the $400.00 savings however allowed me to buy the Sigma 10-20

pkilla wrote in post #15804717
Mahahaha my sigma 17-50 is better no dust problem lol

Doesn't show up in images so is it really a big deal? 5 minute easy fix anyway if its bothersome to look at.

I purchased the Tamron due to being what I could afford at the time. It's my go to walk-around lens but I'm seriously considering changing to the Canon.

same range? Sigma 17-50 OS, better results on mtf chart(mostly) than 17-55, no dust issues so far(2 yrs. old), better value.. for me.

I'm a huge fan of the 17-40L but you'll lose some focal length and aperture...

pkilla wrote in post #15804717
Mahahaha my sigma 17-50 is better no dust problem lol

I have no dust in my 17-55. I have no dust in my 100-400 dust pump either. What I do have is two very sharp lens that are better than the Sigma lens in my bag. Played the Sigma lottery once and ended up sending it back. The 17-50 Sigma was very cheap second hand when I was looking for my 17-55, some I saw where almost 1/2 price............
OP, the Canon is expensive yes, but is probably the best but you can't go wrong with the 15-85, Tamrons 17-55, or the 17-50 Sigma.

17-55 is as good as it gets on APS-C imo.

However, once you enter the ff territory, a kit zoom (24-105) provides a combo that no crop + 17-55 can match.

So yea I guess it's all relative

h14nha wrote in post #15805615
I have no dust in my 17-55. I have no dust in my 100-400 dust pump either. What I do have is two very sharp lens that are better than the Sigma lens in my bag. Played the Sigma lottery once and ended up sending it back. The 17-50 Sigma was very cheap second hand when I was looking for my 17-55, some I saw where almost 1/2 price............
OP, the Canon is expensive yes, but is probably the best but you can't go wrong with the 15-85, Tamrons 17-55, or the 17-50 Sigma.

1/2 the price? you must've been looking at a different lens...i think the sigma is the main reason the canon has taken quite a hit in it's 2nd hand price...it used to sell for mid $800's...now it's in the low $700's...