17-55mm IS

i should add, I read about the dust issue on fredmiranda.

aahhhhhhh! I'd made my mind up last night, now I'm being swayed again! Choices choices, thanks all for your input!

sm1rf wrote in post #2270145
aahhhhhhh! I'd made my mind up last night, now I'm being swayed again! Choices choices, thanks all for your input!

what did you decide?

blam wrote in post #2271326
what did you decide?

to get the tamron 17-50 2.8 and the canon 50mm 1.4,
am swaying to the 17-55 IS now, and back, again

I have the 50mm 1.4 and I think it is a great lens...and my camera backfocusses! lol

cant wait to get it back.....

i have both 17-55 and 50mm 1.4.... both are great lenses. you won't have the flexibility of the zoom when using the 1.4, but at least you get a few more stops. using the 1.4 on the 350D is a little long (~80mm) but still manageable.

17-55 dust.

17-55 no dust in mine and it has been on Safari in a very dusty part of Africa.

mrkgoo wrote in post #2273876
17-55 dust.

Are you speaking from experience or what you have read?

I have had my 17-55MM EF-S IS since May and have rarely removed from one of my two camera bodies...taken 1000's of shots and...no dust...not a speck.

JimAskew wrote in post #2274234
Are you speaking from experience or what you have read?

I have had my 17-55MM EF-S IS since May and have rarely removed from one of my two camera bodies...taken 1000's of shots and...no dust...not a speck.

Experience. Dust a few days in. Got it calibrated by Canon, a larger dust, and then more dust and more dust.

Image quality is...ho hum at wide. Less abberation than other lenses at wide (but only kit to compare), really nice at tele end, and capable of taking iamges otherwise impossible without IS. Still prefer most of my other lenses though.

mrkgoo wrote in post #2275061
Experience. Dust a few days in. Got it calibrated by Canon, a larger dust, and then more dust and more dust.

Image quality is...ho hum at wide. Less abberation than other lenses at wide (but only kit to compare), really nice at tele end, and capable of taking iamges otherwise impossible without IS. Still prefer most of my other lenses though.

Thanks...Perhaps you got a bad copy? I have no IQ issues and as previously mentioned no dust issues. I perfer the 17-55MM over my 24-70MM L for most shootings situations. It pretty much stays on my 30D and is my walk around lens.

I currently have the 17-55 f/2.8, the 50 f/1.4 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. They are all great lenses, but slightly different purposes I think.

The 17-55 is really versatile, very high quality, I haven't had a problem with dust (I use a UV filter, I don't know if that helps or not). I still use the 50 f/1.4, but much less than I used to before the 17-55. I'm going to keep the 50 f/1.4 because it's a lovely portrait lens with lovely bokeh, although it's not that sharp until f/1.8. (Note the 50 f/1.8 is not sharp until about f/4!)

I like the Tamron too, but it's not getting much of a go since the 17-55 so I'm selling it.

Some people have taken a particular dislike to the 17-55 because it is an expensive EF-S lens without peer in the full-frame range, and sold without a hood. They need to get over it -- the 17-55 is just a great lens!

Malcolm

malcolmp wrote in post #2275512
I currently have the 17-55 f/2.8, the 50 f/1.4 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. They are all great lenses, but slightly different purposes I think.

The 17-55 is really versatile, very high quality, I haven't had a problem with dust (I use a UV filter, I don't know if that helps or not). I still use the 50 f/1.4, but much less than I used to before the 17-55. I'm going to keep the 50 f/1.4 because it's a lovely portrait lens with lovely bokeh, although it's not that sharp until f/1.8. (Note the 50 f/1.8 is not sharp until about f/4!)

I like the Tamron too, but it's not getting much of a go since the 17-55 so I'm selling it.

Some people have taken a particular dislike to the 17-55 because it is an expensive EF-S lens without peer in the full-frame range, and sold without a hood. They need to get over it -- the 17-55 is just a great lens!

Malcolm

I agree with your observations 100% I also have a UV filter on my lens...I'm not sure if this makes a difference or not? I also have a low serial # (e.g., early manufactured)...it is 1500###.

People can say what they want but IMHO this lens rocks!

JimAskew wrote in post #2275617
I agree with your observations 100% I also have a UV filter on my lens...I'm not sure if this makes a difference or not? I also have a low serial # (e.g., early manufactured)...it is 1500###.

People can say what they want but IMHO this lens rocks!

now i want the 17-55 IS and the 50mm f/1.4, too much for my budget, aaahhhhh, why did i start this thread, i think finances will dictate the 50mm first and then i will get the 17-55mm later, see if i can't get a second hand copy for reasonable money.