Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Oct 2008 (Thursday) 16:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 vs 17-50 + 30 1.4?

 
samurairx7
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chi-City 312
     
Oct 23, 2008 16:58 |  #1

i own a 17-40 and been very happy with it and the length, but i'm kinda want something like it but alittle faster for low light and a nicer bokeh.

u guys think i should just fork up the grand and get the 17-55 or instead get the 17-50 and the sigma 1.4?

i heard the 17-55 has dusk and IS failing issues and is not L which is making it hard to decide

but i heard good things about the 17-50 and the simga 1.4 but i own a 28-75 although i like it alot i just feel sometimes it isn't fast enought, i got a grip on my xsi and i still always touch the focus ring onces in awhile. :cry:

what would u pick?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
Avatar
6,742 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: New York
     
Oct 23, 2008 18:55 |  #2

I'd go with the 17-55 if you don't like the AF on the Tammy 28-75. The 17-55 is one of the quickest focusing lenses that I've ever used. And the IS is a shot saver for shooting in low light for static objects.


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Leonard ­ Wong
Member
Avatar
206 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Oct 24, 2008 00:31 |  #3

What kind of pictures do you take? The 17-55 is a good lens, but can't do what the 30 1.4 can do. Take everything that you read on the internet with a little grain of salt. Keep in mind for the dozens of complaints that you read on the 'net about dust issues and failing IS, there are hundreds of people who are totally satisfied with their purchases.

Do you need a 2.8 lens zoom lens? I say keep the 17-40, buy the 30 1.4.


40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 30 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 85 1.8 | 70-200 F4 IS | 2x580EXII | YN CTR-301P | Lowepro Slingshot 200 | Kata R-103 | Manfrotto Monopod 679B
HV20 | WD-H43 | DM-20 | Manfrotto 390RC2
G12 | D10

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrfourcows
Goldmember
Avatar
2,108 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: london
     
Oct 24, 2008 06:32 as a reply to  @ Leonard Wong's post |  #4

i'd pick the latter. gives you so much more than the dust sucker ef-s 17-55 IS.


gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dontblink
Senior Member
431 posts
Joined Apr 2006
     
Oct 24, 2008 06:46 |  #5

ROFL dust sucker. The guy at canon who came up with "L" marketing gimmic was a genius.


Canon 20D + grip
EF: 28mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4
EF: 24-105mm f/4
L IS & 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
EF-S:
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 & 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ron1004
Senior Member
Avatar
375 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 6
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
     
Oct 24, 2008 07:02 |  #6

A search on this forum will confirm that there's loads of folk that would not allow the dust issue or the odd IS failure dissuade them from buying another 17-55 2.8 IS if they found themselves buying again.
The very high image quality and number of keepers makes owning the 17-55 a must for me.


EOS 350D + Kit 18-55 lens (looking to donate) , EOS 30D 18-270 Tamron (wife's), 7D MkII
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM, EF 28 f1.8 USM, EF-s 10-22,
Kenko 2X TC, Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II PZD VC AF, 580EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morefar
Member
103 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:17 |  #7

I'd definitely go with the 17-50 and the 30 1.4 (in fact, I did). The 17-55 is supposed to be a great lens, but not that much better than the Tamron, and I often need a lens faster than 2.8 for low light and shallow DOF stuff. The Sigma is a great lens if/once you get a good copy.


5D Mk II / 40D / 17-40 f4L / 70-200 F4L IS / 100-400L IS / 35 f2/ 50 f1.8 Mk II / 85 f1.8 / 100L IS Macro / 430EX II / Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eyies
Member
Avatar
91 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:34 |  #8

17-55 has great focusing, and great low-light focusing. IS is a huge bonus too.

Other than that the 17-50 and 30 1.4 is a formidable combination if not better.. downside is swapping lenses, lack of IS for very slow shutter low-light handheld.. 17-50 is noisy if you care, 30 1.4 is prone to focusing issues


40D | 17-55 2.8 | 50 1.8 | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
felix789
Member
129 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Location: US and Canada
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:36 |  #9

Money aside, I would recommend the 17-55 IS and the 30/1.4. I don't think it's possible to compare these two, as they do different things and really do complement each other. The IS feature is a definite shot-saver, keeping in mind that it works through the entire 17-55 range. The 30 is a couple stops faster, the sometimes the DOF at 1.4 isn't enough.

Of course, if cost were an issue, I'd vote for the 17-50 + 30/1.4 as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rc13k
Senior Member
277 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:42 |  #10

I say you just get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. You said you already have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and it wasn't fast enough. The Canon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50 are both still only f/2.8 so it's not gonna help you. If you need the speed go for a wide angle prime.


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samurairx7
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chi-City 312
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:45 |  #11

i use the 17-55 once before but it wasn't for long enough to test it out, but i gotta admit the USM auto focus on my 17-40L really make me want to get another USM.

And to tell you the truth looking at the 17-50 archives vs the 17-55 i gotta say i'm way more impressed with the 17-50

And for the sigma 1.4 i'll mostliky get it since the niffy is too long for me. I know it's a good len but is there really that many copy with back focusing problems? I'm the type of guy that hates sending stuff back and forth all the time.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samurairx7
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chi-City 312
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:51 |  #12

felix789 wrote in post #6552674 (external link)
Of course, if cost were an issue, I'd vote for the 17-50 + 30/1.4 as well.

Well to me cost is but isn't too much of an issue i'll just save wait and save longer, i just rather be happy in the end then getting something that not being happy and selling it, so in the end i'll actually be loosing money.

i just wanted to know if the 17-55 is it all that it's hype up to be. because i'm sure the 17-50 is good just gotta wait longer to focus



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
souladdikt
Member
54 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Oct 24, 2008 09:51 |  #13

I say just get the Sigma 30 1.4. Or, if you want L quality, grab a 35L and don't look back.


http://flickr.com/phot​os/souladdikt/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samurairx7
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chi-City 312
     
Oct 24, 2008 10:04 |  #14

souladdikt wrote in post #6552746 (external link)
I say just get the Sigma 30 1.4. Or, if you want L quality, grab a 35L and don't look back.

ohhh god souladdikt my options were hard as is now you made it worst! -?:smile:???



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John_TX
Goldmember
1,471 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Texas
     
Oct 24, 2008 10:11 as a reply to  @ samurairx7's post |  #15

I chose the 17-40 over the 17-55 and will be picking up a fast prime eventually for low light shooting. The 17-55 just didn't seem worth it as it's only 1 stop faster (disregarding IS for stationary objects). I figure you'd still need a flash for most work with the 17-55 IS.
I'd much rather have the 28 f1.8 or 30 f1.4 as that's substantially faster glass.


5D4 | 5D3 | 16-35 f4 IS | 24-105 f4 IS | 70-200 f4 IS | 100-400 II | Sigma 20 f/1.4 ART | Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART | EF 1.4x III | EF 2x II | 430EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,821 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 vs 17-50 + 30 1.4?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Briceratops
481 guests, 240 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.