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

I don't get why there is all this fuss over the 17-55 when I've always thought the 16-35 is a joke lens. 2 x zoom, no sharper than the 17-40, twice the price! Come on?! In relation to that the 17-55 is a bargain.

The 17-55 is a expensive, and it is should come with a hood -- really stupid mistake by Canon. However, it's very sharp right across the picture and is a great focal range for me. The 17-40 is great for landscapes but too slow indoors/events. I love my 50 f/1.4 but it's not wide enough for the uses I would like; I like my Tamron 28-75 f/2 but it's not quite enough, and not fast enough sometimes.

So here comes the 17-55 that is wide enough, fast enough (particularly with IS) and sharper than anything else. It replaces the 17-40, 28-75 (almost) and I haven't put on the 50 f/1.4 since getting it.

If you just want landscapes then the 17-55 is not for you.

Malcolm

IMO....

If you like it, buy it.

If you don't like it, no need to buy it. No need to complain endlessly about it either just because you can't buy it. Look for a better option and please tell us where one exists. If there is no better alternative, you either buy it or you go without. There is no better alternative, BTW. Nothing else in this standard zoom range has 2.8 and IS and USM. If you really need it, you'll buy it - and if you feel you need the hood you'll buy that too. No, it will not kill you to shoot without a hood. Some imagine it feels like that, but there are things worse than that..

I had a chance to bag a 5D recently, despite my plans to buy the 17-55. Funds went to a 24-105 instead of **** that "canon is stupid because the 17-55 is EF-S and won't fit my 5D". It's a decision I made and I'll live with it. 24-105 is fine despite being f/4. I could sour-grape that lens too.. "Canon is stupid because the lens vignettes and it isn't f/2.8 throughout its zoom range" - no they are not.

Agreed with Malcom that if you do not need IS, the 17-40 is better value at half the price. Folks like me who count on IS and end up in a black hole shooting (yet again today) simply have lighter wallets than the priviledged who can do without it

Malcolm, I am considering the 17-55 and was also planning to include a prime 50 1.4. It sounds like this might be redundant. Would the 17-55 at 50 mm give me the wonderful bokeh that the 50 1.4 is known for?

On the positive I think the 50 f/1.4 has a nicer bokeh, it's much lighter, and it's 2 stops faster. It also just has more bokeh because it can open to 1.4. It used to be my most used lens before the 17-55.

Having said that I haven't used the 50mm much since I got the 17-55. I would seriously wait to see how you like the 17-55 before getting the prime. I will probably use the 50 f/1.4 for dedicated portrait sessions, I like using it from f/1.8 - 2.5, although I may end up selling it (unimaginable before the 17-55!). You may consider the 85 f/1.8 instead to give you more reach, it has a lovely bokeh also.

Good luck.
Malcolm