"Four-Pound Show-Down" Test (with 1755IS)

I'd agree about the Tamron, less about the Sigma tho. I have seen some lovely shots and maybe it is just at the extremes that you may get some issues. But just check out the price difference The Tokina is the one that could really combine great build with superb performance for an honest price. Had three Toki's and all delivered. Exciting release ... more so than the Canon for me.

Agreed about the Pentax which I must check out. Looks very interesting from what you say. I am seriously very impressed with my 3 Pentax lenses.

Dave, we think alike. I'm strongly looking at holding out for the Tokina 16-50f2.8. I've been looking forward to it actually for quite some time, but it looks like the wait will continue. I have lots of positive things to say about the new 1755IS, but the price and flare performance for some reason just nags at me, as good as the lens is overall.

Thanks to everyone for their good comments too.

I know what you mean. I have been holding off selling my 17-40 because I like it so much, and the price of the 17-55 was annoying (and a bit painful). However, I'm getting some really good pictures from it in difficult conditions. I am surprised often by the edge-to-edge sharpness on this wide zoom.

(Thanks for the time & expertise you put into the tests)

Well, given my sig, I mean, you'll have to excuse this link!

http://www.photosig.co​m/go/photos/browse?id=​30372

http://www.photosig.co​m/go/photos/browse?id=​28502

I've fired over 2000 shots on this lens with nary a CA problem, performance has been generally outstanding, with little problem with focusing.

This post was merely obligatory of course. I'm very much so looking forward to the Tokina myself.

Really, I'm willing to spend anything for a lens I'll be using 95 percent of the time. I just don't want to feel like I'm getting ripped off (such as charging another 30 bucks a hood on a 1200 dollar plastic lens). The nice thing with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, is that you buy from them and feel smart. Something about buying value is satisfying.

If you look at jojo's test, I don't know how one would walk away from the 370 dolllar Sigma and not seriously question a purchase compared to Canon's 800 dollar premium (before the hood!).

Anyhoo. When is that Tokina supposed to be released?

In canon's words. "It's no L, so it gets no free hood."

But yeah, that's total bs, especially when having to spend over 1 grand.

a picture tells a thousand works Mr Benca ... some damn fine shots there. We know the 18-50mm is a peach already but good to have it so really reinforced.

Well seems we now have 3 Canon 'joke' lenses, ie where price to performance ratio is way off on the negative side of the scale in comparison to the competition for the generic punter like most of us here: 24-70mm 2.8 L, 85mm 1.2 L, and now this one. I love a good lens as much as the next guy/gal here but really Canon are taking the pi** now.

In addition, how on earth can Canon not give a hood with any lens they sell when the hood is such a fundamental part of the design (one assumes!) That is so sad. Anyone come up with a valid reason other than rip off?

Personally, I'd have tested the lenses as they come out the box JoJo, ie if the Canon is sold without a hood and the others aren't well that is how it is tested. Why compromise the performance of the others because Canon is too toight wadded to supply a hood? How about disabling USM because the Tamron doesn't come with it

To each his own, Condyk - I'm growing to like my EF-S 17-55 IS with each session. Would a less expensive Sigma work as well? Maybe - until Canon's next lens firmware update.

As for the hood - only L lenses come with a hood and case. Get over it.

Have Fun,

Have fun yourself and glad you like it. Be good to see a good shot from it someday. Maybe this is another of those Canon lenses we poor shooters must 'learn to master' and so that is why we haven't seen a decent shot yet

Over three Canon DSLR's, a good number of lenses from Canon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, L's, Ex's, SP's and Pro's, as well as some 'consumer' stuff, and several firmware updates, I have never had a problem. You live in hope eh?

As to 'getting over' not having a hood with a lens well I think it is you Canon 'consumer lens' owners who need to do that ... Canon seem to think you 'consumer lens' guys wouldn't recognise flare if it bit you on the ass, so why bother reducing their margin by giving out a free hood None of this applies to me at all so I am happy as a happy guy.

I am partly pulling your chain, but honestly ... are you happy to have to shell out extra for a hood?

OK, I agree with you on 2 of the lenses, but who makes anything close to the 85/1.2L for Canon mount?

My avoidance of non-Canon glass goes back many years to a day when images were only recorded on strips of plastic covered with emulsion. For me, the anger of discovering that your trusted lens no longer works due to changes made by the camera manufacturer is something to be avoided at all costs. Some may argue about the corporate games that are played with autofocus protocols and proprietary software, but I just want to be sure my stuff continues to work. And I haven't even gotten into the potential difference in light transmission with cheaper glass that makes a shot with one lens (let's say a Canon 70-200 f2.8L) 1/250 at f5.6, and another with the same focal length (the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 comes to mind) requiring 1/125 at f5.6. Please don't ask for samples, and I have not done this particular test with these lenses. However, I have absolutely seen this phenomenon.

condyk wrote:
I am partly pulling your chain, but honestly ... are you happy to have to shell out extra for a hood?

Happy? No, but that's the way it is. Some would say the EF-S 17-55 IS should be an EF-SL, but its not. At least Canon is consistent - only L lenses and DO lenses come with a hood and a case. Maybe the EF-SL lenses will come out next year.

Have Fun,

Hey CoolGuy, I appreciate your opinion. And since your opinion is the prevailing and most common opinion, it would be nice if you recognized Condy's point that *not* including a plastic hood on a 1200 dollar lens is nickel and diming your best customers. Not a respectable business approach in my opinion. If it greatly turns me off, it's going to turn others off.

Everything we buy in life has a price to satisifaction ratio. The fun part for anyone on any kind of budget is stuffing as much satisifaction as possible into each valuable dollar. Canon is inconsistent in this regard and at times, to an insulting degree.

If anything else, I can say with absolute certainy that the brand of glass has no matter on how great the picture. There are pictures in the links I posted of the Sigma 18-50 len's capabilities and no where is there any indication that these images were taken with a 350 dollar lens.

If each lens has virtually no impact on the talens and capabilities of the photographer, and if each lens represents a considerable cost for the working man, then I can't see how Condy's opinion and a little Canon bashing here and there wouldn't be completely reasonable!

I'm anxious to see the new Tokina when it comes out.

BTW, how does Canon make great lense like the 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 100 2.8 Macro, and yet make 1200 dollar plastic lenses?

It's all marketing and squeezing every penny you can from your customers. It's just that Canon makes a habit of squeezing Canon bigots and loyalist, monied customers. Pretty awesome to be so brazen about taking your best customers to the cleaners. But one can afford a 1200 dollar lens and then cough up the 50 for the hood, then that person probably isn't too worried about getting squeezed..

Okay. Done!

Benca1, I just can't get upset over the lack of an included hood. If folks think this is a make-or-break for the purchase decision, I think they are not focused on the prize.

When the AE-1 was announced, many of the existing photoraphic community had a hissy fit over its construction. The body of the AE-1 utilized a new type of material where metal was 'plated' over plastic, so while the outside surfaces were metal, the body was actually 2/3 plastic and 1/3 metal. This was heresy to them! But the AE-1 and its variations went on to become one of the best-selling SLRs of all time, and like other cameras of the time, if cared for they still function adequately today. Canon has always been a leader in production methods, so who are we to complain about what they make the lenses out of? Isn't it about the images they produce?

Good luck and good shooting.

Have Fun,

if 17-50 were my primary lens i'd pony up the $1200.

but it's not so i am more interested in the tamron. i'm waiting to see a heads up camparison between the tamron 17-35 and the tamron 17-50. my big concern is if the 17-50 is as good as the 17-35 @ 17mm.

if so i may get the the 17-50 as a replacement for my 17-35. it would be nice to have a short zoom that's a constant f2.8, and the upgrade would probably only cost me about $150.

i'm not really worried about if i go FF because if/when i do i figure my 24-105 is as wide as i will need so whichever tamron i have would get sold anyways.

thanx for the test results!

ed rader

i don't think the problem is what the 17-55 is made of. the problem as i see it is the construction is not as robust as the L lens which automatically consigns the new lens to a lesser category.

and i agree with f-stop: the lack of hood at this price point is an insult.

still, if this were an L lens it would probably cost $4-500 more.

ed rader

i agree. IS is nice on any lens unless you have to pay for it. IS would not be a necessity on my landscape lens....especially if i have to pay for it.

i'm with you on the tamron but i'd sure like to see it compared to the tamron 17-35, which i already have. if it's as good @ 17mm an upgrade is a no-brainer for the extra length and constant F2.8 as well as the reasonable upgrade cost.

ed rader