Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS
Discussion
Anyone got any experience of the above lens?
My interpretation of general opinion outside the warm bosom of this forum, seems to be that it is good, though expensive, and some whinging about dust ingestion.
I am tempted, though it is costly, the big hole, zoom range, and IS are just what I'm after for a 'general use' lens, I think...
The dust thing is playing on my mind at the moment - I don't mind spending the money on a good lens, but would do if it has to be serviced every 6 months.
DH2
My interpretation of general opinion outside the warm bosom of this forum, seems to be that it is good, though expensive, and some whinging about dust ingestion.
I am tempted, though it is costly, the big hole, zoom range, and IS are just what I'm after for a 'general use' lens, I think...
The dust thing is playing on my mind at the moment - I don't mind spending the money on a good lens, but would do if it has to be serviced every 6 months.
DH2
Mine is due to arrive tomorrow so i'll post up some thoughts then. I'm a little worried by the dust stories, but the benefits you mention outweighed this in my mind made up for this.
It's basically a replacement for my 28-135 IS, which although a good lense, always lacked a little at the wide end. I also considered the 24-70L and 24-105L, but although the extra reach would have been nice, they also lost out at the wide end on my 1.6x crop 20D (soon to be 40D).
It's basically a replacement for my 28-135 IS, which although a good lense, always lacked a little at the wide end. I also considered the 24-70L and 24-105L, but although the extra reach would have been nice, they also lost out at the wide end on my 1.6x crop 20D (soon to be 40D).
Its a scaled down non 'L' lens for EF-S I believe, rather than L glass itself, though all the tests and results seem to give it a big thumbs up.
If you dont need the IS then the tamron 17-50f2.8 is as good and a whole lot cheaper.
My gripe with canon atm is they charge way too much for IS.
If you dont need the IS then the tamron 17-50f2.8 is as good and a whole lot cheaper.
My gripe with canon atm is they charge way too much for IS.
StuH, will be very interested to hear your initial findings. As you say, whilst you lose a little at the far end compared to the 24-70 or 24-105, I'd prefer the gain at the wide end I think - I borrowed a 24-105 recently, and whilst it is a fine lens, I still think I prefer something a bit wider on a crop body.
and unfortunately, I really feel I need the IS as I have fairly unsteady hands, and I think I'm getting a little shake de-sharpening my images.
DH2
RobDickinson said:
My gripe with canon atm is they charge way too much for IS.
seemingly not on the new "kit" lenses they have announced...?and unfortunately, I really feel I need the IS as I have fairly unsteady hands, and I think I'm getting a little shake de-sharpening my images.
DH2
Edited by DH2 on Tuesday 11th September 09:23
I've been seriously thinking about this lens for a while and had a play with one in Calumet New York last weekend. I have the standard 18-55 kit lens at the moment and the image quality from the 17-55 is awesome by comparison, at least in the test shots I took in the shop. I've also read the reviews and the dust comments. However my theory is that the kit lens doesn't seem to suffer very much from the use I've put it through, so I doubt the 17-55 will be any worse. If you are a pro using it day in day out I'm sure it might be a different matter.
I didn't end up buying it there and then for various reasons, and it worked out only about £100 cheaper over there. Definitely the next lens on the shopping list though.
I didn't end up buying it there and then for various reasons, and it worked out only about £100 cheaper over there. Definitely the next lens on the shopping list though.
There's a thread here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...
that shows how to remove the front element and clean it yourself if you do get dust. I suppose you would need a suitable set of small screwdrivers, but it doesn't look impossible to do.
John
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...
that shows how to remove the front element and clean it yourself if you do get dust. I suppose you would need a suitable set of small screwdrivers, but it doesn't look impossible to do.
John
I know IS isn't exactly rocket science, but my play with the 17-55 was the first time I've used it so here's a comparison of how it worked for me on the 17-55. 100% crop and only subject to the standard level of sharpening in Lightroom:
Larger version on flickr
The other shots I took were of the wife, and after a day wandering around 80F NYC she wouldn't appreciate me showing you how good the resolution of the lens is
Larger version on flickr
The other shots I took were of the wife, and after a day wandering around 80F NYC she wouldn't appreciate me showing you how good the resolution of the lens is
Thanks for all the info everyone.
There's an implication in that self-repair thread that the dust is ingested through the front element, and that keeping a UV filter on there should help with that? That could just be the clincher. I've a wedding to reportage for in a few weeks time, so it'd be good to get it in time for that. Time to check the bank account
DH2
There's an implication in that self-repair thread that the dust is ingested through the front element, and that keeping a UV filter on there should help with that? That could just be the clincher. I've a wedding to reportage for in a few weeks time, so it'd be good to get it in time for that. Time to check the bank account
DH2
RobDickinson said:
Its a scaled down non 'L' lens for EF-S I believe, rather than L glass itself, though all the tests and results seem to give it a big thumbs up.
If you dont need the IS then the tamron 17-50f2.8 is as good and a whole lot cheaper.
My gripe with canon atm is they charge way too much for IS.
I don't have this lens, but all my research suggests this lens is L glass, but in a non L body (i.e. standard build quality). The lens is a no brainer purchase if you have a crop sensor and can afford one.If you dont need the IS then the tamron 17-50f2.8 is as good and a whole lot cheaper.
My gripe with canon atm is they charge way too much for IS.
Canon IS may be pricy, but I suspect it's the best available.
Evening all
Got back today and the shiny new lense was here waiting for me
Just unpacked it and first impressions are very favourable. I've got the EF-S 10-22, and when that arrived i was underwhelmed by the build quality. The 17-55 by contrats feels very high quality, certainly a step up from most of my other lenses, although not up to the 70-200L.
Looking forward to tomorrow and having a wander about with it
Got back today and the shiny new lense was here waiting for me
Just unpacked it and first impressions are very favourable. I've got the EF-S 10-22, and when that arrived i was underwhelmed by the build quality. The 17-55 by contrats feels very high quality, certainly a step up from most of my other lenses, although not up to the 70-200L.
Looking forward to tomorrow and having a wander about with it
DH2 said:
Any comments/results yet Stu?
DH2
I was waiting for the new toy to arrive to put it on DH2
First impressions of the new lense, RAZOR sharp, loads of light in the viewfinder and superb low light shooting abilities with the F2.8 and IS. AF seems lightning fast compared to the 28-135. I'd also forgotten how nice it is to have the wide end from a creative view point. I'll try and get some pics up over the weekend. 40D is the muts as well, Amazingly low noise at 400/800 ISO compared to the 20D.
Edited by StuH on Friday 14th September 15:10
DH2 said:
StuH said:
First impressions of the new lens
Thanks Stu. Ordered mine now. Fingers crossed it's not a dust vacuum...DH2
More low light shooting tonight, and the quality of shots with the 40D are a couple of orders of magnitude than anything i shot with my 20D, even using my 50mmf1.4
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff