Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8 opinions ?

Hodders

Hodders

Suspended / Banned
Messages
951
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm getting really tired of seeing the difference in image quality between my Canon 17-85 F4.0-5.6 IS and my 70-200 F4L. The 70-200 also just feels so much nicer to take photographs with.

I'm thinking of replacing the 17-85 with either the EFS 17-55 f2.8 or the 24-70 f2.8 L.

The differences seems to be:

*) The 17-55 range will probably suit the 40D better (with the 1.6x it becomes a 27-88 full frame equivalent so an ideal walkabout lens, the 24-70 becomes a 40-112).

*) The image quality of the 17-55 is very good, some even say L standard, but the build quality is not so hot.

*) The 17-55 has IS, the 24-70 doesn't.

*) One costs about £825 (inc lens hood), the other about £950 so not that much in it.

Does anybody have the 17-55 - how do you rate it ?
 
Gorgeous lens, but at a price.
I nearly bought one to replace my 24-105 however I decided on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and don't regret my decision at all.
USM is quieter and on the 17-55 AF is probably quicker than the Tamron, QC may be tighter for Canon as well.
 
Thanks guys, I'll let Santa know that I want a 17-55 for xmas - I may have to persuade the wife that I have been very very good before she will let me post the letter up the chimney.

Thanks,
 
17-55mm build quality is very average (but you know that already), you do not get a hood, pouch, or international warrant (as with L glass), and the lens is overpriced by ~£200.

But the IQ is great and gets the most out of my 7D.

If you have a crop frame and live without a dedicated wide-angle lens (10-22mm etc) the 17-55mm IS is the best possible option. If you have the wide end covered the 24-70mm is a better choice (for the tank like build quality alone). I personally went from a 24-105mm F/4 L to 17-55mm. The 17-55 is better optically, but I do miss the build quality.
 
I've got the 17-55mm, it's not a wet piece of spaghetti like some forums/reviews make it out to be. Treat it with care like any other lens and it will serve you well, fantastic image quality and perfect for a crop.
 
Orville said:
17-55mm build quality is very average (but you know that already), you do not get a hood, pouch, or international warranty (as with L glass), and the lens is overpriced by ~£200.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. All Canon lenses [at least, the ones I've seen, which is a lot of them!] have an international warranty, L-series or not.
 
A top lens in my opinion. Sharp, nice colours and I think it's a great length on my 7D. Go for it - I certainly don't want to change this lens, and I've just had a bit of a change around. This one was always going to be a keeper.
 
I love this lens on my 7d.
I primarily shoot video so the IS is great.
I personally think its a fine sized and professional looking lens, despite not having the red ring and being platic, although it is a tough plastic.
 
StewartR said:
Yes you do. All Canon lenses [at least, the ones I've seen, which is a lot of them!] have an international warranty, L-series or not.
Click to expand...
L lenses I have imported from Hong Kong and the USA have an International warranty that Canon UK will honour. I know this because my 24-105mm had a failed IS servo which Canon UK fixed. At the same time I was told they would not repair any non L lenses sourced from abroad. I take this to mean only L lenses have full warranty whereby repairs will be carried out by any International authorised Canon Repair Centre.

If anyone has had an imported non-L lens repaired under warranty by a UK dealer please correct me.
 
17-55 2.8 IS for me, too. Brilliant spec, IS, very sharp, and it's well made. As good as any other non-L lens, and that's pretty good :thumbs:
 
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the reason I keep a crop body as well as my 5D - superb lens, and perhaps the most versatile for indoor people shots as well as a general walkaround. It's very seldom off my 50D :)
 
By the way I've recently purchased the 17-55mm for a cropped sensor camera. The versatility is great, I'd personally rather have more at the wide end so it suits me fine. The I.S. is very handy and the image quality is awesome, and unless you'll be taking into harsh environments/beaches/rainforests or banging in nails with it there's no reason why build quality would be a real problem with the 17-55mm.
 
I've got 4 lenses.

Sigma 10-20, canon 17-85, canon 50 f1.8, canon 70-200L f4

The 17-55 would sit in the middle nicely. Hmmmm, might go and find one to have a play with.
 
As much as I know the 17-55 is great I just can't bring myself to spend all that money and get f2.8 that's an EF-S. I know it's silly because it's a cracking lens. - I must be an EF L snob :(

So I upgraded my 17-85mm to a 24-105mm. But then got a 10-22mm to fill in the wide end :)
 
Hodders - I've got a very similar setup with a 10-20 17-55 and canon 70-200

It covers all the bases really well.
 
Below is a histogram of all my images over the last 2 months or so.

(This was obtained by running the unix command:

find . -name '*.xmp' | xargs grep -h 'exif:FocalLength' | cut -d '>' -f2 | cut -d '/' -f1 | sort -n | uniq -c > results.txt
On the xmp files produced by lightrooms export metadata function. The resulting file can go into excel for analyses.

fl.gif


The results show that I have taken 191 shots in the 17-55 range and 192 in the 24-70. From a total of about 650.

Buying the 15-55 would leave a hole between 55-70 (in terms of the focal lengths covered by the lenses I have). This would mean that there are 28 images that I would not have been able to take (although cropping from 55mm would solve that).

In terms of do I need IS. I have taken 40 shots at 1/50 or less. Above that the 24-70 would probably be OK. Plus of course the f2.8 would buy me a couple of stops meaning that a lot of the 1/25 would come up to 1/100.

The 24-70 may be more expensive but would never need to be replaced.
 
until the 24-70mm IS comes out anyway ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top