Canon Fit , 2.8 Lenses

I'm used to toting a gripped 5D3 with a 24-70 on it which is several kilos so compared to that the 17-55 weighs nothing at all :)
 
scottduffy said:
Maybe not for a guy and i had no issue with it but that coupled with a 50d it was the equivalent of the OP's 18-55mm attached to a house brick !!
Click to expand...

The 50d / 17-55 combo isn't unusually large? In fact, it's quite reasonable given the performance it offers.
 
odd jim said:
The 50d / 17-55 combo isn't unusually large? In fact, it's quite reasonable given the performance it offers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the weight is quite a change if you've only ever had the kit 18-55mm lens. 645g vs 200g. That's a bit of a jump, especially if you're on a smaller APS-C Canon. The 17-55 balances well with the 70D/80D/7D models, but will be a bit front heavy on the smaller ones. But if you're used to the weight...
 
Vertigo1 said:
For the price maybe but in a different league quality-wise. The only other EF-S walkabout which stands up to the 17-55 is the 15-85 but we're talking specifically about f/2.8 lenses here :)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't disagree but the 17-55 is the top end of the EF-S range and IMHO can be short on range for general walkabout purposes. Optically brilliant and the faster aperture is a big benefit. I also have the 15-85 in my kit and tend to use that more. The point about the 18-135 STM is that it offers a bit more for a lower price in range terms, is way better for ad hoc video (especially on the 80D/760D/750D). If a 17-55 is out of reach financially for now, the 18-135 can be picked up cheaply and traded/sold on when funds are available for the 17-55. Just to muddy the waters, I got to try the new EF-S 18-135 nano/USM in Ireland Las week. Was OK quick focus etc, then I looked at the files produced and was very impressed. I was using my SD Card in an 80D/18-135 'kit' - it was a really good pairing.

Essentially what will you use the 17-55 for and does it have the reach needed? As said before it's a super piece of glass but when I shoot shots of my niece in her show-jumping competitions it lacks reach and I have to crop files, there the 18-135 is more than adequate but the 17-55 wins hands down closer in and on horse portraits.

For 'Street'.... I am more than happy with the EOS M with the 22mm f/2 pancake though I have used the 17-55 on the M body as a joke. The results were superb!

At the decision point, the lens to buy is the one that does the most you will need it to. Doing coastline and cliffs in Ireland recently I came down to basically 3/4 lenses - EF-S 11-18 and 17-55 on a 750D and the EF-S 22 or 15-45 on an M or M10.

On 'grubby' light days I was very glad of the faster f/2 22mm pancake and the f/2.8 17-55.

So to reiterate - the 17-55 is a fantastic lens and if it covers the range needed and is affordable then it is as good as you can get before going full frame and L glass.

Sent from my NEM-L51 using Talk Photography Forums mobile app
 
Last edited:
To be honest for me the 17-55 2.8 is going to be ideal , if I need any further I use my 55-250 STM which I haven't had any issues with , I also purchased a gorillapod to grip onto fences and rails when at competitions which should help .
 
gothgirl said:
To be honest for me the 17-55 2.8 is going to be ideal , if I need any further I use my 55-250 STM which I haven't had any issues with , I also purchased a gorillapod to grip onto fences and rails when at competitions which should help .
Click to expand...
Agree with the 55-250 STM for the greater reach and it's overall quality. Cheap as chips too!

In the scheme of things, what suits the moment is what you use. For me, my most used kit is my EOS M with the 22mm f/2 pancake. Is in my coat pocket at all times and, like today, gets regular use.

The 17-55 is a fabulous lens and justifies it's price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top