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

Saxi wrote in post #11808180
Those two images do not really look anything like something from L glass. The first one isn't very sharp at all.

You can decide but I printed this 16x 20 and it looks sharp to my eyes. There is some jpeg compression here but the print looks awesome to my eyes.

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

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

butterfly2937 wrote in post #11809266
You can decide but I printed this 16x 20 and it looks sharp to my eyes. There is some jpeg compression here but the print looks awesome to my eyes.

There must be an insane amount of jpg compression, but it just looks meh (the first image), I think it is the combination of fake bokeh and compression, but it doesn't really look sharp the version you put up.

No disrespect meant by it, but if you are saying the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is indeed L class IQ, that is a poor image to backup your argument.

I have shot some sharp images with it as well that I was happy with, but even the best image from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS rarely ever competes with the worse from my 70-200 f/4 IS L.

Saxi wrote in post #11809348
There must be an insane amount of jpg compression, but it just looks meh (the first image), I think it is the combination of fake bokeh and compression, but it doesn't really look sharp the version you put up.

No disrespect meant by it, but if you are saying the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is indeed L class IQ, that is a poor image to backup your argument.

I have shot some sharp images with it as well that I was happy with, but even the best image from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS rarely ever competes with the worse from my 70-200 f/4 IS L.

Here is the completely unprocessed raw file at 100%.

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

I am not saying my 70-200 11 or my 135 f2 or my 300 2.8 are not sharper, they are. All I am saying is that you can get very nice images from the lens and it is very versatile. and for now for a zoom in this range it has worked out to be the best on a crop so far.

butterfly2937 wrote in post #11809412
I am not saying my 70-200 11 or my 135 f2 or my 300 2.8 are not sharper, they are. All I am saying is that you can get very nice images from the lens and it is very versatile. and for now for a zoom in this range it has worked out to be the best on a crop so far.

No question you can get nice images with it, this one is one of my favorites from 2010 in terms of IQ and "nailing it".

But if my 70-200 was 2.8, I'd bet the image quality and detail would be a lot better, but rarely do I get this quality out of the 17-55 f/2.8 it is rare they look this good.

Saxi wrote in post #11809575
No question you can get nice images with it, this one is one of my favorites from 2010 in terms of IQ and "nailing it".

But if my 70-200 was 2.8, I'd bet the image quality and detail would be a lot better, but rarely do I get this quality out of the 17-55 f/2.8 it is rare they look this good.

Beautiful image! But its works better than the current 24-70 f2.8 L at least on my 7D. Lots of times it a combo of lighting, contrast, AF accuracy, SS and how much you crop, NR, PP that effect the overall IQ. The only other option that I think is better but not a zoom would be a 24L and/or a 35L but they are not zooms.

butterfly2937 wrote in post #11809638
Beautiful image! But its works better than the current 24-70 f2.8 L at least on my 7D. Lots of times it a combo of lighting, contrast, AF accuracy, SS and how much you crop, NR, PP that effect the overall IQ. The only other option that I think is better but not a zoom would be a 24L and/or a 35L but they are not zooms.

I'm seriously considering a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as I've heard great things about, but I am really hoping the 5D III is around the corner and I want to go full frame.

I think the 17-55 is a great lens and sharp. Yes the build isn't the best but the IQ is great IMO

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/37169915@N07/5​363535279/

I don't know why anyone would complain about the sharpness of that image!

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #11810431
I think the 17-55 is a great lens and sharp. Yes the build isn't the best but the IQ is great IMO


If its L quality well i don't know never compared to to the 24-70 but i think Close to the 70-200F4 and defiantly better then the Tamron 17-50, and 28-75

Not to start a comparison thread but IMO some folks just might disagree with your statement. The below were shot with the Tamron 28-75:

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=9110126&post​count=1255

Regards,

one of the first shots when I get my 7D... it's one of my favorites of 2010!.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Silverfox1 wrote in post #11810792
Not to start a comparison thread but IMO some folks just might disagree with your statement. The below were shot with the Tamron 28-75:

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=9110126&post​count=1255

Regards,

Ive had both tamrons and i would say with out a boubt the 17-55 is a better lens dont get me wrong im by no means calling the 17-50 an 28-75 crappy but the canon is slightly sharper focuses faster and has IS and it also performs better in low light citations

marcial4 wrote in post #11811442
one of the first shots when I get my 7D... it's one of my favorites of 2010!.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

La tormenta perfecta (Explored) by M@rshaLL, on Flickr

excellent shot

Just acquired this lens from a fellow POTNer. My first picture with this lens, love it !!!