Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

I posted my first thread last night and have already learned SO much.

For my T2i, I am looking to replace my kit 18-55mm.... I have a fixed 50mm and a 70-200mm lens so I am looking for something in about the same range. I am considering:

15-85mm
17-55mm
17-85mm

I have heard great things about the 17-55mm but would really like the reach of the xx-85mm.

If I went with the 17-55mm, what improvements would I see over the 18-55mm? Obviously, more light with the aperture wide open, but from a user of both lenses, what changes will I see? Is there really a $800 difference between these two, or am I better off sticking with the kit lens?

And if anybody has any suggestions regarding Tamron/Sigma, those comments will be greatly valued as well.

Thanks for your help!

Zach

Where do you find the 18-55is lens lacking, indoors/low light? I would recommend a flash first before upgrading lenses. If you are interested in better bokeh/speed outdoor and in, then I can see a need for a better lens.

Regardless, a flash will help any of the lenses you are interested in.

Zasarle wrote in post #11367237
Where do you find the 18-55is lens lacking, indoors/low light? I would recommend a flash first before upgrading lenses. If you are interested in better bokeh/speed outdoor and in, then I can see a need for a better lens.

Regardless, a flash will help any of the lenses you are interested in.

I've definitely noticed it lacking indoors. In some instances, it's hard to get a crisp picture because of the lighting. I think the 17-55 @ f/2.8 would definitely help with that.

Would I notice any difference outdoors?

The 17-55mm is better in every regard. Faster, sharper, better colors, less CA etc. You have to decide it that is worth the $800. If you live near a camera shop maybe go try one or rent one for a week to decide if it is worth the difference to you.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non-VC are both highly regarded. The non-VC is generally sharper but of course lacks VC. Either would be cheaper than the Canon.

Personally, i don't miss the gap from 55-70. If you feel like you would then go with one of the -85mm models.

Edit: Also, in good light stopped down to f8 there won't be much difference, but any time you are nearly wide open the 17-55 will be far superior

slapshot36227 wrote in post #11367272
I've definitely noticed it lacking indoors. In some instances, it's hard to get a crisp picture because of the lighting. I think the 17-55 @ f/2.8 would definitely help with that.

Would I notice any difference outdoors?

If that is the case, I think a real flash is what you are looking for. Yes the 17-55 is crazy sharp, but it will still not be amazing in low light. Getting a flash and learning how to bounce, use a diffuser, whatever will help much more. The great thing about a flash as it will make all of your future gear that much better. I think you will be surprised what flash does for your 18-55IS, I was.

Thanks for the great info on the flashes... definitely will be looking at those.

Any more comments/suggestions on the lenses?

I own both the 15-85mm IS USM and the 17-55mm IS USM.

The 17-55 is my goto low light lens. I often shoot electronic art shows and this lens allows me to capture both art and audience. The len is also great when you need a narrow DOF to isolate your subject from the background. Its tack sharp wide open and arguably The best standard zoom you can get for Canon APS-C.

The 15-85 makes a great walk-around and travel lens. I love the extra-wide angle end. Sharp lens. When travelling I'll take this and a fast prime for when I want a narrow DOF.

Personal choice, but I would never be happy with the focal range of the 17-55. I prefer a better range + a fast prime as a general all-round solution e.g. 15-85 and 30 or 35 prime.

That seems like an exaggeration, vastly superior?

wide open 15-85 vs stopped down 17-55?http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

Just one comment - cross the 17-85 off your list.

Should I be concerned about the dust issue with the 17-55?

slapshot36227 wrote in post #11373239
Should I be concerned about the dust issue with the 17-55?

No.

i had the 17-85mm now the 17-55mm. constant aperture and IQ are worth it to me

xarqi wrote in post #11368449
Just one comment - cross the 17-85 off your list.

+1

I had that lens for a week, and tested it, and another copy of the 17-85, the 50mm f/1.8, and a copy of the 17-55, and it's image quality was weak compared to the 50 and 17-55.

The 15-85 is sharper and has much better IQ than the 17-85, and is 2mm wider angle. But neither can do f/2.8, or are as sharp as the 17-55.

.

slapshot36227 wrote in post #11367174
I posted my first thread last night and have already learned SO much.

For my T2i, I am looking to replace my kit 18-55mm.... I have a fixed 50mm and a 70-200mm lens so I am looking for something in about the same range. I am considering:

15-85mm
17-55mm
17-85mm

I have heard great things about the 17-55mm but would really like the reach of the xx-85mm.

If I went with the 17-55mm, what improvements would I see over the 18-55mm? Obviously, more light with the aperture wide open, but from a user of both lenses, what changes will I see? Is there really a $800 difference between these two, or am I better off sticking with the kit lens?

And if anybody has any suggestions regarding Tamron/Sigma, those comments will be greatly valued as well.

Thanks for your help!

Zach

for the 17-55 you get sharper, faster both in focus speed and aperture, more depth of field, and due to that lets you bee more creative. MUCH better bulid quality, F 2.8 is very usable while on the 18-55 you need to usually shoot f8 to get good sharpness.