EF-S17-55IS vs Prime combo

I am currently using
1. Sigma 30mm
2. EF-S 60mm
3. EF-S 18-55IS

and perfectly satisfy with this combo, I even prefer the 18-55IS against the Tamron 17-50

However, would I benefited from getting a 17-55IS?

Would it be as sharp as my prime?

The only benefit would be combing the range into one lens. Although it won't be f1.4 at around 30mm like your Sigma and it won't focus down to 1:1 like your 60mm.

That is why I have a hard time with the price of the 17-55. for that money, I could have a Sigma 30 1.4, a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8. Or I could go Sigma 10-20 AND Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro and still have some change to almost cover the 85 mm 1.8.

Prime vs. zoom seems to be a very personal thing. On something like the 17-55IS or an L IQ and build quality are going to be about as good as most non-L primes, so that isn't a big issue. However the zooms tend to be more expensive. I still don't know which camp I am in, but I know I can take ~70% of the shots I want to take with a 50mm f/1.8 stuck on the front. I'm seriously thinking about a 30 or so to compliment it.

The fact that you stated you are happy with your current setup makes me think you should stick with it. The 18-55 IS is good glass, and you have some low light capability with the two primes. Maybe add the beloved 85/1.8 or a UWA if you are looking to add something.

I to have the 18-55 IS and was debating the 17-55 IS. I asked for comparison pics and all I got was blown up, pixel peeping pics as people like to call it. I don't the price is worth it, if you are not a pp.

Yes, you could get a multitude of lenses for the price of one good one - but it becomes a personal choice. I found that the 17-55 IS 2.8 was so good and so versatile, it covered a lot of my needs, and I personally prefer one that does more than 3 separate lenses.

The 17-55 also kind of killed my itch for new lenses.

laydros wrote in post #7516376
Prime vs. zoom seems to be a very personal thing. On something like the 17-55IS or an L IQ and build quality are going to be about as good as most non-L primes, so that isn't a big issue. However the zooms tend to be more expensive. I still don't know which camp I am in, but I know I can take ~70% of the shots I want to take with a 50mm f/1.8 stuck on the front. I'm seriously thinking about a 30 or so to compliment it.

The fact that you stated you are happy with your current setup makes me think you should stick with it. The 18-55 IS is good glass, and you have some low light capability with the two primes. Maybe add the beloved 85/1.8 or a UWA if you are looking to add something.

The 17-55 is NOT BUILT LIKE AN L Not at ALL :/ Handle the 24-105 f/4L or the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 17-55 and you realize the 17-55 f/2.8 is a piece of junk comparatively, Hell its a piece of junk compared to the Nikon 17-55 in build (And most of the upper price ranged Nikon DX lenses, build quality wise...and the Sigma EX and even non-EX lenses...)

And dont tell me its not a fair comparison, because all three of those lenses cost roughly the same :/ in fact the 24-105 was cheaper at one time...

I was told this when I bought it, and i expected it from a at the time $1100 lens, and it is NOT, it is NOT worth the money from a build quality standpoint to me, this isnt even taking into consideration the fact you still have to pay another $50 for a fricking lens hood

The 17-55 is great optically except for flare performance, which I found to be a bit bad, but its superbly sharp, excellent contrast and color, and certainly an L quality piece of glass optically

But build quality, its a poorly made lens, Dont expect anything better than the 18-55 IS or you will be sorely disappointed..

Primary reason I sold it, I felt it was overpriced for what it gave me in the build quality sense, Everytime I used it I was scared it was going to fall apart...and despite the 2.8 aperture, I found i got the same results out of my 24-105 f/4L in every lighting situation..I regretted selling it a LOT after using the 17-55 for a week

Sorry, I know theres a lot of lovers of this lens here, I'm not one of them (I'm not a lover of any of the EF-S lenses from a build quality standpoint, I feel Canon can and should do better for the most part on them)

Guess I should stick to my current setup.
There is a deal in cragslist selling 2nd hand 17-55IS for $900CAD ($709USD equiv)
but often a lot of time, I found 1.4 is sufficient of what I need, and found 2.8 lacking for indoor non-flash shot.

Tho I always want a 2.8 zoom, had Tamron 17-50 before , however I don't like the warm color, and not as sharp as my lens (including 18-55IS)

KenjiS wrote in post #7516602
The 17-55 is NOT BUILT LIKE AN L

I'd agree with that, but I wouldn't say its a poorly made lens. You shouldn't have problems with the build quality if you're treating your equipment properly. However, I can understand expecting better build from such an expensive lens.

KenjiS wrote in post #7516602
Everytime I used it I was scared it was going to fall apart

That's a little overboard. I didn't even feel that way about my nifty fifty when I owned it and we all know how superb its build quality is.

KenjiS wrote in post #7516602
...and despite the 2.8 aperture, I found i got the same results out of my 24-105 f/4L in every lighting situation..I regretted selling it a LOT after using the 17-55 for a week

Sounds like you just didn't need 2.8 for your shooting.

Like mentioned previously, it really comes down to personal choice. Do you want the range combined into one lens or not? The 17-55 IS will give you good performance in low light situations. However, you have fast primes which cover that. If you're "perfectly happy" then I say stick with what you got.

Jeff81 wrote in post #7516752
I'd agree with that, but I wouldn't say its a poorly made lens. You shouldn't have problems with the build quality if you're treating your equipment properly. However, I can understand expecting better build from such an expensive lens.

Mine was like new when I sold it (Most of my stuff looks brand new despite how much i use it), I just never "trusted" in it, I was not secure in it, and the psychological effect was I was never happy with the lens and I just never got as many great pictures with it as I did with my 200 f/2.8L or my 10-20 Sigma (Because I trusted in both of the lenses when I held them, I know, its hard to explain), its not "poorly" made I suppose, but its really built like a $500 lens, not a $1000 one...

That's a little overboard. I didn't even feel that way about my nifty fifty when I owned it and we all know how superb its build quality is.

The nifty also costs $80, I excuse it for being built like a toy same with the 18-55 IS, those lenses can be built cheap because they ARE, but the 17-55 I do not excuse, it has a pro price tag and pro specs, it needs the pro build quality...which it lacks...

Actually I found I need either 2.8 or IS for my shooting, not both, I can use one or the other most of the time

While I agree that it's overpriced and I do not forsake anyone's opinion on the build quality, the 17-55 is one cracking lens. I've had mine for over a year and I hope to never be without it. Faster primes would be a smart route to go as well, but for a certain type of shooting (such as mine), the 17-55 on a crop is as ideal a walkaround lens as I could ever hope to own. I can pack this and nothing else and shoot outdoors and end up with laser sharp photos with better colors and contrast then the other lenses I tried in this range. I can then take the same setup indoors and work with natural light very effectively. When I travel, three lenses gives me all I have ever desired- my 10-22 for an UWA, the 17-55 and my 70-200 2.8 IS.

And FWIW, I am abhorrently opposed to filters unless I need one, and haven't used one on my 17-55 unless I'm outdoors and am using my c-pol. I have little to no dust in there and I use my gear like a tool- not necessarily with kid gloves. My gear goes snowmobiling and motorcycling with me all year, banging around New Hampshire for thousands upon thousands of miles, both on road and off. I have never once been concerned of the quality of the lens build. Every time I download another stack of images I am reassured of my $1000 that is tied up in this lens.

As to weather or not you'd like to go with some nice primes for less money, only you can say. You can outfit yourself nicely with faster glass for cheaper or similar money and there is nothing wrong with that.

KenjiS wrote in post #7516602
But build quality, its a poorly made lens, Dont expect anything better than the 18-55 IS or you will be sorely disappointed..

This is the only part of your post I am going to vehemently oppose... I do not say this often in public forums, as I like to maintain a certain civility to people I consider friends- that being we are all members in this virtual community, but yes, I am indeed calling you a LIAR! No offense intended of course!

I grew up with primes on film cameras, in 'the old days' (well before digital) even before zooms were common, when most zooms were optically inferior things that the camera manufacturers would not really bother with. Primes are fast max aperture, compact, light weight, and well optimized optically. If you can anticipate a FL need, like shooting at a fixed FL all day, they are wonderful. The modern zoom is slower max aperture, more likely to have some optical compromises (compared to a prime) like CA or barrel/pincushion distortion, even when it could easily rival the MTF performance of the prime, it is bulkier and heavier, yet its forte is providing a more optimal FL for some rapidly developing circumstance that you never anticipated to happen!

KenjiS wrote in post #7516602
The 17-55 is NOT BUILT LIKE AN L Not at ALL :/ Handle the 24-105 f/4L or the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 17-55 and you realize the 17-55 f/2.8 is a piece of junk comparatively, Hell its a piece of junk compared to the Nikon 17-55 in build (And most of the upper price ranged Nikon DX lenses, build quality wise...and the Sigma EX and even non-EX lenses...)

Wow, I think this is a such a over statement. EFS is not build like any L zoom. But it is not junk either. Build quality is on par with your EFS 60 macro or any non-L Canon zoom, certainly better than any of the EFS kit lens. If you are happy with the EFS 60 build, you will be satisfied with 17-55IS

If you really want to compare build, I think 24-105L is not as good as 24-70L, which is not as good as any of the 70-200L. But this doesn't make 24-105L badly build.

Once you get passed the build quality, the 17-55IS is as good of a zoom lens as it can get. Optics wise, it is better than the Ls above. It is more versatile than Nikon's equivalent due to IS.

As to compare to your 3 lens setup, it is compromise. First thing to ask yourself is whether you shoot Macro or not. If you do, then you need EFS 60. If not, I think 17-55IS is better than kit lens + sigma. For 1) you don't have to switch lens. 2) more handheldable due to IS, even compare to Sigma 30. 3) AF ability is a lot better, both speed and accuracy. 4) not the least, IQ will be better than kit zoom, and at least as good if not better than Sigma. I personally will recommend the 17-55IS with no reserved.

KenjiS wrote in post #7516602
But build quality, its a poorly made lens, Dont expect anything better than the 18-55 IS or you will be sorely disappointed..

Ridiculous.

-js

mahoro wrote in post #7516283
I am currently using
1. Sigma 30mm
2. EF-S 60mm
3. EF-S 18-55IS

and perfectly satisfy with this combo, I even prefer the 18-55IS against the Tamron 17-50

However, would I benefited from getting a 17-55IS?

Would it be as sharp as my prime?

I've never used the Sigma 30. When I got my 17-55 I did tests (both of an ISO 12233 resolution chart and real pictures) and my 17-55 is just as sharp as my 60 macro, even wide open. Lots heavier, though.