17-55 2.8 IS owners

august23 wrote in post #2699077
lol this doesn't have to be another FF pride thread. I'm just saying after a while, IQ becomes a non-issue with these kind of lenses. It's just like the video game industry. It's reached a point where the graphics are good enough, now they need to work on better gameplay. Much like IQ of lenses is reaching a new potential, and it's time to work on things other than IQ. Has nothing to do with owning a lens that doesn't fit someone elses camera, that sounds more like jealousy.

jealousy? hardly. if i wanted a camera that fit the 17-55 i would have kept my 20d or i'd buy the 30d and 17-55 tomorrow.

i also want you to know i wasn't singling you out. i just think alot of 17-55 users are new to DSLR and many don't have experience with L lenses and therefore any "comparison" would be worthless.

recently there have been a lot of folks who own L lenses who have bought the 17-55 -- guys like Jim, ScottE, Peanuthead and a bunch more and i mean a bunch more.

and obviously most of these folks are happy with the 17-55, and some prefer it to their L lenses.

but some go back to the L lenses.

so i think it would be informative to know who has actually owned an L lens and who hasn't.

ed rader

i have this lens but cant answer because i dont have L designated glass yet.

Definitely sharper than my 17-40L. Twas also sharper than the 24-70 when I was using that for awhile. Also sharper than a 24-105 I used for a week, but I didn't get that much time with that lens. Won't comment on my 70-200 since the FLs don't overlap at all.

I honestly don't think any reasonable person would dispute the supposedly L-like optics of the 17-55. It's down on the white paper, and it's proven by the results of many owners.

Build quality on the other hand is the bigger issue. I actually think the lens is built decently well, but the zoom ring is the most frustrating thing. I wish Canon would eventually start an EF-S L series.

august23 wrote in post #2699077
It's just like the video game industry. It's reached a point where the graphics are good enough, now they need to work on better gameplay.

Well that I'll have to beg to differ. Games are looking better and better, but it's still not there yet. Crysis, amongst a few other titles out there should undoubtably be one of the best looking games out for this year, and even though it looks pretty spectacular, the graphics aren't quite 'up there' yet. I'd also be willing to bet you'd need a fairly buff Conroe/2-3GB/G80 SLi or R600 CF system to make it run maxed out with decent performances @ 19*12+ res. But of course, this point is subjective and people should understand I've always been a graphics whore.

I hate graphics whores lol.

And ed rader, your falling behind. You were supposed to highlight in red the parts where you owned me.

And ed have you ever used the 17-55? Because otherwise your own post is hypocritic. Sure you can't say much if you've never used an L, but you also can't say much if you haven't used a 17-55.

Oh ed, one more thing, no matter how I come across, I still love you.

If there is an option of
Yes I think the image quality is better than L standards, but not other things (weather seal, durability, ect.)

I'll choose this instead.

august23 wrote in post #2699651
I hate graphics whores lol.

I did too, until I could afford the hardware.

Hey now I'm running dual x1950's, dual fx-57's, 4gbs of ram and a rediculous amount of fans and I STILL know I wont be able to run crysis lol.

Oh, your system will be fine for Crysis. I just wouldn't have all the shader options enabled if you were gonna run it on a high-res monitor (19*12, 25*16 etc.). The only thing holding you back there would be that FX-57. Code will be optimized for dual-core, but generally not dual single-core.

After unloading a big wad of cash on the 17-55, I pretty much doubt I'll be building another gaming computer till probably the end of this year. Intel's Nehalem is scheduled for 08' though, along with NVIDIA/AMD's second/third DX10 video card refreshes. If NVIDIA releases something like a 8950GX2 (which judging by history should be as powerful as 8900GT SLi -> 8800GTX SLi) by that time, I'll probably get it. 30" LCDs should have come down alot by then too.

I need Supreme Commander to run totally awesome!

I'm leaving my PC alone for a long long while. I just got a Wii, and planning on a PS3 over the summer when something GOOD hopefully comes out for it. I rarely find the time to PC game anymore, and it's upsetting.

I have a 17-55IS, and a 70-200 f4L. Initially, I thought the 70-200 was far superior, and then dust got into the 17-55 and there was a drop in contrast. Then, I had the 17-55 cleaned, and it's such an awesome lens. It's near the L quality, but I'm not sure if it surpasses. If it doesn't, it'd be close.

I still voted for dust.

mrkgoo wrote in post #2700294
I have a 17-55IS, and a 70-200 f4L. Initially, I thought the 70-200 was far superior, and then dust got into the 17-55 and there was a drop in contrast. Then, I had the 17-55 cleaned, and it's such an awesome lens. It's near the L quality, but I'm not sure if it surpasses. If it doesn't, it'd be close.

I still voted for dust.

That sucks about your 17-55. Any dust after you sent it in for cleaning? They probably seal it better sense there was a problem in the first place. Did you get it done at Canon? Did they charge you?

Photolistic wrote in post #2700476
That sucks about your 17-55. Any dust after you sent it in for cleaning? They probably seal it better sense there was a problem in the first place. Did you get it done at Canon? Did they charge you?

Had Canon do it, and I insisted they do it under warranty due to 'unacceptable dust issues', only 5 months ownage. They complied which was nice. It came back mostly clean, and taking pictures better than when it was new!

I slapped a UV filter on it, becuase I believe the dust gets in through the front (didn't have on before), mostly as a test. It has a few dust specks on behind the front element again, but I think it's because I have been removing the filter due to extreme pickiness, but I'll keep it on from now and see if it worsens. Image quality at the moment is amazing though.

How much different was the contrast when you had a lot of dust in there?

Do you have pics?

I have a 24-105L and the 17-55IS and both of them are good copies i believe but my 17-55IS is slightly sharper from what i have seen in my shots.
I dont have any dust yet but i have had some flare already from the 17-55IS.

Photolistic wrote in post #2697588
Here is a picture with my 17-55 at the park. All the way out at 55mm, F2.8, and auto WB.

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

That looks great! Is your copy that sharp on the 17 mm end for landscape shots too?