Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

rx7speed wrote in post #11373896
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.

I've definitely noticed that, especially outdoors. It always seems simply not sharp enough. I was hoping I'd see some noticeable differences in the 17-55. Am I correct in thinking that? Also, how does the 17-55 directly compare with the 15-85?

Thanks,

Zach

the 18-55 can't compare to the 17-55 so you will noticed a 100% difference

slapshot36227 wrote in post #11373981
.... Also, how does the 17-55 directly compare with the 15-85?

In terms of sharpness? Well, I can't say I've systematically compared them side-by-side because I use them for very different purposes but suffice it to say that the 15-85mm can also easily take full advantage of the 7D's resolution. I would say that if you were trying to decide between the 17-55 and 15-85, then I would make the decision based on whether you needed the wide aperture more or the wider range.

JackProton wrote in post #11374089
In terms of sharpness? Well, I can't say I've systematically compared them side-by-side because I use them for very different purposes but suffice it to say that the 15-85mm can also easily take full advantage of the 7D's resolution. I would say that if you were trying to decide between the 17-55 and 15-85, then I would make the decision based on whether you needed the wide aperture more or the wider range.

Exactly. and will also echo your previous posts on the subject.

I also have both. I bought the 17-55 a few months ago with the intention of unloading the 15-85 but haven't bought myself to actually sell it yet, and probably won't.

Image quality betwwen the 2 is splitting hairs. I can't put my finger on it, or even show a concrete example, but oddly enough at times, I feel the 15-85 has a slightly better contrast & slightly richer colours.

If I may tag onto this thread - as I too am looking at this lens, to fill the hole I have between the Tokina 11-16 and Canon 70-200 f4 IS with a likewise best IQ lens possible... from what I've read of all the reviews and comments on various (including this one) threads, it definitely sounds as if the 17-55 is an excellent lens [constant ap, IS, "L"-quality build, etc.), only lacking in extra reach.

HOWEVER... [durn those howevers ] there is evidence / reports of (a) dust and (b) IS failures. How severe are these, and are these issues being resolved with newer units,,, or is this a systematic "failure" of this lens, and therefore should look @ something else? BTW, would feel better if Canon's warranty was better then their pitiful 1 year coverage, when compared to Nikon's, for example.

the lens doesn't quite have L quality build but it's not shabby quality either. for being a plastic bodied lens though (unlike the L) it still has good build to it though.

as far as the dust most (myself included) will say the dust isn't an issue for anyone other then the anal.

IS failures I can't comment on. haven't had it happen to me yet but then again I usually take heed of the IS issue even though I don't know how big of an issue it is and just keep IS off unless required.

No dust problems with my 17-55mm IS USM. I installed a protection filter on day 1 and some think that may make a difference.

Mine has no dust and no filter. It's about 18 months old.

I've owned a 17-55mm for 3-4 years, and have no dust issues and the IS still works fine. Also, I never use a UV filter -- just the hood for protection. It really is a terrific lens.

I wouldn't recommend the 17-85mm, either. When I purchased my first dSRL -- a Rebel XT -- I compared that lens with the Sigma 17-70 (non-OS). The only area where the Canon impressed me was the USM auto focus. Otherwise, the Sigma was a much better lens. At the time, there was no 17-55 f/2.8, nor the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 offerings. So, my choices were the non-IS 18-55mm kit lens, the 17-85mm or the Sigma 17-70. The Sigma won easily.