About to Purchase Canon 17-55 IS f2.8 - Right Choice for Me?

I have some spare funds to spend wisely on my photo hobby. Choices are to upgrade my lens line-up and/or upgrade to a 40D.

From the excellent info I've read over the last couple of days on this forum, it appears to me that my most practical lens purchase would be the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS .

My rationale is that this one lens will give me a better quality landscape lens, fill the need for a more versatile low-lite lens and a better portrait lens should I get more into that. These are the gaps I see in my current collection of lenses.

I have been happy with the EFS 17-85mm for the past 2 years, use this range a lot; but I now find myself wondering about getting more detail and sharpness in my landscape shots. Can I expect this with the 17-55mm?

My present lenses are listed below - have I assessed the gaps correctly? Am I ordering the right lens to upgrade my line-up without going in to the L-Series?

Any further advice before I order the lens would be really appreciated.

Thanks!

Lens, without a doubt. The 17-55IS is an awesome lens. Optically the equal of the 24-70 and topped of with a three stop IS.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I doubt you'll ever regret it. Do you really have the 70-200/4 and the IS version both?

plbb wrote in post #5382527
I have been happy with the EFS 17-85mm for the past 2 years, use this range a lot; but I now find myself wondering about getting more detail and sharpness in my landscape shots. Can I expect this with the 17-55mm?

Get it. You'll miss 55-85 (I know I did) but this lens is razor sharp.

Glass over body definately, you'd see very little change between the 30D and 40D, however, you will notice a big change with the 17-55 IS.

I'm following the masses, glass over the body. The 40D takes great pictures, but I've heard numerous great things about the 17-55 f/2.8. Vs your 17-85, if it is like my 17-85, you will have a better control on the CA (chromatic aberration, purple fringing), sharper pciture and the 2.8 advantage, albeit I don't know if you will use that a lot in landscape photography since your DOF will be limited.

The 17-55 is a great lens you will love. It is really heavy though.

I'm not sure if it'll produce sharper images for landscapes (most lenses are pretty darned good at f8.0), but it's a real workhorse lens.

I keep wanting to buy some lenses to up my arsenal, but the 17-55 IS 2.8 has a lot of stuff covered - wide angle, wide aperture, low light - it's all good.

slimninj4 wrote in post #5382632
The 17-55 is a great lens you will love. It is really heavy though.

Not as heavy as the 24-70. That thing is a real brick.

I have this lens and the 24-105. If you need the 17-24 range, get this lens. It's truly a sharp, wonderful lens. In looking at your lineup, and even given your mention of uses, I personally find the 24-105 to be my more used lens. True, you'll lose that bit of wide angle, but you gain 50mm on the long end. I'm keeping both myself - even tho the EF-S is covering a small focal range - because of the 2.8 and great IQ. The only issue I have with it myself is the weak build. Just feels ... weak. For $900, it should feel like it takes pictures - solid.

Just my .02 (which, with the current value of the dollar, ain't worth squat)

Geez, no I don't - I sold the non-IS. Thanks Gasrocks, my list needed a little spring-cleaning.

I sometimes regret selling the non-IS; it was such a sharp copy and the IS version does not compare to it. Which is why I'm trying to be extra-careful with my next lens purchase.

I do wonder about that as well, so glad you mentioned it. Hoped Lightroom would give me that stat (how much I use that range) but it doesn't have focal length in the metadata, darn!

I was kinda hoping for an improvement with landscapes, altho, I will use this as my walk-about lens as well.

I forgot about the purple fringing which I have experienced a few times, so another improvement to add to this lens. I also tend to stay away from both ends of the focal lengths (17 and 85mm) with the 17-85.

I didn't review any comparison threads for the two lenses and that would probably be a good idea for me to do as well. Good points - thanks.

Yes, the 24-105 lens is the other voice I hear in my head.... plus another good lens wider than 24mm as I like doing landscapes. I also like my lenses to feel solid, which is why I don't really enjoy the 50mm I have, altho the price is certainly right for how little I use it for the moment.

Thanks so much for all your advice and comments, it sure helps. I'm finding it much more difficult to decide on a replacement lens than I did buying my first ones. Yikes!

Nice thing about those other lenses is that they are not EF-S so you can take them with you when/if you upgrade to a pro body!

plbb wrote in post #5383228
I do wonder about that as well, so glad you mentioned it. Hoped Lightroom would give me that stat (how much I use that range) but it doesn't have focal length in the metadata, darn!

Try ExposurePlot: http://www.wega2.vande​l.nl/ It's a slick utility.

17-55 f2.8 is too great of a lens to not have for crop bodies

chukdivad wrote in post #5383345
Try ExposurePlot: http://www.wega2.vande​l.nl/ It's a slick utility.

Nice ute! Thanks!