Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM

1/1000s f/4.0 at 17.0mm iso200

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

isogood - c'est bon!! tres bien!

forno wrote in post #3399948
Trying out my new battery grip last night

Beautiful shot forno. I would have loved bicycle to be ahead of the car. it would have a been a great pic.

hjohnson wrote in post #3502889
The Circular Polarizer (CPL) filter can be very handy, as it will blue up the sky, as well as help you eliminate glare/reflections off of non-metalic surfaces. It's not something you would leave on there day-to-day.

However, I am a believer in keeping a UV filter on the lens at all times. My 17-55 runs around with a B+W MRC UV filter and a hood. This is probably overkill, but it's a kilobuck lens so I'm not taking any chances.

Thanks all for your information, I'll get a UV first for protecting the lens.

sanil wrote in post #3511920
Beautiful shot forno. I would have loved bicycle to be ahead of the car. it would have a been a great pic.

Cheers, I liked some of the urban shots I have seen posted here and thought I would get amongst it

Just got mine, this is Jessy

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hi, everyone -- New to the forums. Some fantastic photos here! After hours of research, I finally decided to order the 30D body and the 17-55 lens. Should be here this Thursday!

I do quite a bit of travelling and noticed many suggestions for "walk-around" lenses, etc. I like to go as light as possible for mobility and security reasons.

The other lens I am considering purchasing is the 70-200 F2.8L IS. Of course, the 17-55 will be my flag-ship for now. The 70-200 will probably stay at home most of the time.

I know that these are trivial questions, but do you recommend any other lenses for travelling and landscape/urban photography? What are some issues I should expect with the 17-55? Any other input is appreciated.

Vic

My only two lenses are the 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I can basically shoot anything! These two lenses are a great combo, you won't regret it!

If you are travelling lots you may want to consider the 70-200 f4 IS instead, its a little lighter!

ErikM wrote in post #3560882
If you are travelling lots you may want to consider the 70-200 f4 IS instead, its a little lighter!

I wouldn't say that it's just a "little lighter". The 4L IS is half the weight of the 2.8L IS!

vmarcus wrote in post #3560732
Hi, everyone -- New to the forums. Some fantastic photos here! After hours of research, I finally decided to order the 30D body and the 17-55 lens. Should be here this Thursday!

I do quite a bit of travelling and noticed many suggestions for "walk-around" lenses, etc. I like to go as light as possible for mobility and security reasons.

The other lens I am considering purchasing is the 70-200 F2.8L IS. Of course, the 17-55 will be my flag-ship for now. The 70-200 will probably stay at home most of the time.

I know that these are trivial questions, but do you recommend any other lenses for travelling and landscape/urban photography? What are some issues I should expect with the 17-55? Any other input is appreciated.

Vic

Thats a good set up. I also have the 17-55IS and dont find it too large now im used to it. Might i suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as a smaller alternative. I find i use mine if im out all day and know i wont be needing the IS.

Also maybe the 70-200 f/4 IS rather than the f/2.8 if size is important.

Thanks for your suggestions... I am leaning towards the 70-200 2.8 because of potential low light conditions I may encounter. Can't wait to post some shots from the 17-55 upcoming week!

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #3265479
I think the color rendition difference is noticeable enough that I could probably pick which came from which, and the bokeh with specular highlights isn't very nice compared to the brick.

has anyone who owns both lenses taken you up on this challenge yet?

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #3265479
As far as the contrast, it does have some, but I remember not having to add contrast most of the time with the brick, whereas now it's a standard part of processing. Not a big deal, but it's one more step, you know?

if you shoot RAW, adding contrast in PP is mandatory no matter what lens you are using, ime. so, no big deal.

edit - here's my contribution to this thread:

heres a few recent one from my trip to DC .. gotta love the use of IS inside museums .. i believe it was all taken @ f2.8 and iso800

PP using lightroom. lighting was tough to get proper white balance on some of them so i just convert to b/w with color tone to them.

love the 3rd and 5th one, ekk_xt. great job

Hey all,

This is my first post here. I'm a recent convert from P&S (Canon PowerShot S80) to DSLR (XTi). I went for broke and bought the 17-55 f2.8 with the new camera. This past weekend was my inauguration to DSLRs and the new lens. Here are some shots from my outing, I had a fantastic time:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO