skifurthur Goldmember 1,313 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2007 Location: Living in his Nowhere Land More info | Jul 21, 2014 14:56 | #1 I've loved this lens since it was released and made a lot of money off of it with various crop bodies going back to the 350D. It is one of those almost perfect pairings with a crop body. www.amsaddler.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 21, 2014 15:23 | #2 skifurthur wrote in post #17046432  I've loved this lens since it was released and made a lot of money off of it with various crop bodies going back to the 350D. It is one of those almost perfect pairings with a crop body. I'm sure there could be some improvements like better dust sealing, updated IS, etc. Wasn't sure where to put this topic, but it's more of a wish than a rumor so it ended up here. The build quality of the 17-55 was one of the primary drivers that moved me towards switching to full frame. Great lens but terrible construction. Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
skifurthur THREAD STARTER Goldmember 1,313 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2007 Location: Living in his Nowhere Land More info | Jul 21, 2014 15:31 | #3 raptor3x wrote in post #17046488 The build quality of the 17-55 was one of the primary drivers that moved me towards switching to full frame. Great lens but terrible construction. While the build quality isn't L lens quality, after all I've put it through (and that's as much as any L) it has only had one problem over the years and that was with the IS going flaky. This is over 7 years of hard and heavy action. www.amsaddler.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 21, 2014 18:46 | #4  Permanent banI'd rather have a 50 1.4 IS (real) USM and/or a 100 f/2 IS USM. WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timbop Goldmember  More info | Jul 21, 2014 21:55 | #5 The 17-55IS is a gem in the lineup; there are lots of other places they need improvements more Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
LOG IN TO REPLY |
PineBomb I have many notable flaws  More info | Jul 21, 2014 23:49 | #6 I've thought about this too. I shot for years on a crop with the 50mm 1.4, and my recent experience with the 17-55 opened my eyes to faster--and much welcomed--AF. It changed things for me. It's just an excellent lens IMO. If they did a revision with internal focus, better build and STM, I'd bite for certain. -Matt
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jorkata Member 213 posts Joined Sep 2009 More info | Jul 22, 2014 00:00 | #7 skifurthur wrote in post #17046432 With all the 7DMkII rumors, how about a 17-55mm f2.8 MkII? The 17-55 is a great lens but too big and heavy for a hobbyist, IMO.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
The weight and size of the 17-55 didn't bother me. But that's just me. When you see my camera gear you'll think I'm a pro.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Canon does have a patent out there for a 17-55/2.0... Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
GregDunn Goldmember  1,289 posts Likes: 132 Joined Mar 2013 Location: Indiana More info | Jul 23, 2014 20:39 | #10 So funny that we have people complaining both of its flimsy construction and its excessive weight. Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bseitz234 Senior Member  More info | Jul 24, 2014 06:45 | #11 FEChariot wrote in post #17049325 Canon does have a patent out there for a 17-55/2.0... However given the size of the Sigma 18-35/1.8, you might want to prepare for carrying a 70-200/2.8 sized standard zoom. I would totally be OK with that. Maybe not in every situation, but then again, thats what primes are for, right? GregDunn wrote in post #17051977 So funny that we have people complaining both of its flimsy construction and its excessive weight.  Horses for courses, innit? Not the same people, though... So I think this just means there's a market for a 17-55 f/2 that's built like the original brick, and a 17-55 f/4 that's more like the 10-22 in terms of size and weight.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 24, 2014 09:19 | #12 I never found the 17-55's build quality inadequate. Yeah, it's no L but it isn't flimsy either. It sounds like the argument against plastic bodies (versus magnesium). Make yourself heard
LOG IN TO REPLY |
skifurthur THREAD STARTER Goldmember 1,313 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2007 Location: Living in his Nowhere Land More info | Jul 30, 2014 08:09 | #13 [QUOTE=FEChariot;17049325]Canon does have a patent out there for a 17-55/2.0... www.amsaddler.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Hermelin Goldmember  More info | Jul 30, 2014 08:15 | #14 FEChariot wrote in post #17049325 Canon does have a patent out there for a 17-55/2.0... Really?! Source? Fujifilm X100V
LOG IN TO REPLY |
andrikos Goldmember  1,905 posts Likes: 9 Joined Sep 2008 Location: Stuttgart, Germany More info | Jul 30, 2014 08:20 | #15 Hermelin wrote in post #17065695 Really?! Source? Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is SteveeY 1227 guests, 174 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
