Canon all round lens on APS-C

Twigman

Twigman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
238
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
I am desirous of a EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens

Camera body is primarily Canon 80D (spare is 100d)

I already have:

EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II Lens
EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
EF 24-70mm f4 L IS USM Lens


I never use the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II Lens as it is well beaten by the 18-135
I often use the 24-70 f4L as I just love the handling and feel and the IQ beats the 18-135 - I use the 18-135 for video and in situations where I feel self conscious with the L lens (yes this does happen!!).
The 24-70 works well at f4 all the way through the focal lengths and I use the 24-70 when i know I want a shallow(ish) depth of field. The 24-70 also has a useful Macro function.....but sometimes I feel it doesn't go wide enough...

But I hanker after a lens that will work more easily hand held in low light and that can meet most walkabout snap requirements....so the f2.8 17-55 EF-S is nagging at me.

But it's so very pricey.....am I going to find it is a lens surplus to requirements? Will I be ditching the 18-135 or the 24-70 ?

With the f2.8 17-55 being so expensive (wrong side of £700) I really feel I'd want to trade one of the other lenses to justify it.
The 18-135 has a rather nice motor zoom attachment which is REALLY useful when shooting video, - I'd miss that.
The 24-70 has the Macro and the L IQ which i would miss.
The 18-55 f3.5-5.6 isn't really going to make a dent in the £700 (AFTER cashback) asking price


Not really sure what to do....

Or is there another FAST <f2.8 walkabout zoom I should be considering that isn't quite so pricey?
That said IQ is #1 priority - do I just fork out for the lens and then decide if I need to offload any of my other lenses?
 
You could always live a little and get a grey market 17-55 for £539
 
How about the Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses?

And if you’ve not already got one, a nifty fifty f/1.8.
 
Tempted by the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM as it's less than half the price of the Canon.....and less than £200 on the grey mkt....at that price it's almost disposable.

I'm looking really at a better than kit lens that I'm not afraid to take on holiday where it's likely to get some abuse...and I don't really want my L lens on show it's bad enough having a DSLR at the poolside....probably take my 100D for discretion.
So the Sigma 17-50 @ <£200 is probably a winner!
 
I've previously owned a Tamron 17-60 VC f2.8 and was very pleased with it.
I couldn't justify the used cost for the Canon 17-55 IS f2.8 (used prices were around £500 circa 2008).
I believe that the MKII version is the latest so the MKI should be reasonably priced.
Although having said that the MKII can be bought new for £399 which to me is more justifiable than the Canon price.
 
The 17-55 is roughly £350 second hand unless they've got a mark 2 out since I switched to fuji.

I owned it and really liked it although it's a fair chunk of lens if you're not used to 2.8 zooms.
 
Twigman said:
Tempted by the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM as it's less than half the price of the Canon.....and less than £200 on the grey mkt....at that price it's almost disposable.
Click to expand...

I had a Sigma and it was awful, I could have taken a photograph of tomorrow it front focused so badly. Sent it back and replaced it with the Tamron 17-50 and used that very happily until I went full frame.
 
Carousels Spin said:
I had a Sigma and it was awful, I could have taken a photograph of tomorrow it front focused so badly. Sent it back and replaced it with the Tamron 17-50 and used that very happily until I went full frame.
Click to expand...

Every manufacturer has issues with individual units, I know a few people with the Sigma 17-50 I have, and they all rate it very highly.
 
EightBitTony said:
Every manufacturer has issues with individual units, I know a few people with the Sigma 17-50 I have, and they all rate it very highly.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt most people are fine, just sharing my own experience of it and recommending an alternative.
 
Evening,

I got rid of a17-55, in my opinion, too heavy and not notably better than the 18-55, not withstanding 2.8.

In it’s place I bought;

EFS 10-18, let no-one tell you it isn’t brilliant...
EFS 24 2.8
EF 50 1.8

Oh, and a second-hand 55-250...

Mike
 
Mike Davies said:
Evening,

I got rid of a17-55, in my opinion, too heavy and not notably better than the 18-55, not withstanding 2.8.

In it’s place I bought;

EFS 10-18, let no-one tell you it isn’t brilliant...
EFS 24 2.8
EF 50 1.8

Oh, and a second-hand 55-250...

Mike
Click to expand...
You must have had a bad copy Mike. The canon 17-55 is in a different league to the 18-55. Not even the same stratosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top