Good SHARP IS lens for Canon EOS?

C

cherokee1111

Suspended / Banned
Messages
822
Edit My Images
Yes
Canon 450D.....
I'm replacing the kit lens (IS) and a Sigma 17-70 (sharp but no IS) and don't need any real zoom, apart from a nifty fifty (no IS) what would you recommend as a great lens with IS to have for most occasions? Mostly family and Landscape pictures so I need something that is tack sharp.

thanks
 
I'll second the 24-105. It may be a bit long on a crop body but not ridiculously so. You could do an awful lot worse for a general walk around lens.
 
Just wondering, why do you feel you need IS? Personally I've never really felt it necessary at this focal length, I replaced my 18-55 IS kit lens with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (old version), which doesn't have IS and I can't say I've even noticed the difference!

If you absolutely have to have it though, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS are probably your best options, but be prepared to pay for the privilege.

What do you feel is currently the problem with your setup at the moment?
 
cherokee1111 said:
Canon 450D.....
I'm replacing the kit lens (IS) and a Sigma 17-70 (sharp but no IS) and don't need any real zoom, apart from a nifty fifty (no IS) what would you recommend as a great lens with IS to have for most occasions? Mostly family and Landscape pictures so I need something that is tack sharp.

thanks
Click to expand...

The new Canon 15-85mm? Nice wide range of FL
 
if you are happy with the Sigma 17-70 there's a new OS version.
 
Thanks guys, good advice:thumbs:

The Canon 24-105L looks great but price:gag:
so its between the Canon 18-55 IS and the Tamron 17-50 VC (whatever that means) with the Tamron winning by price.
 
the new tamron 17-50 VC got a poor review comparison in this months digital photo magazine
 
I would have said the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - great lens, as good as an "L" series optically if not in build quality.

But I've recently got my hands on the new Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS and I must say I'm very impressed with it. It's a more useful focal length range, it's a nice size, and optically it's very good indeed- almost as good as the 17-55. Plus it's cheaper. The only downside is that it isn't f/2.8, but otherwise it ticks all the boxes.
 
As mentioned the 17-55 is a superb piece of glass, IQ as good as my 2.8L 70-200 I.S imho.
Build quality is o.k as it goes,nice heavy feel and smooth zoom and focus. Compared to a sigma 17-70(non i.s) it feels like a more expensive lens, if you look away it doesnt feel much different than the 70-200 at the zoom ring,tiny bit of play in the zoom tube but the USM speed is super and very quiet.
 
decisions decisions, a new 15-85 or an old 17-55, both seem good with pro's and cons for each.................
 
I'd say a used 17-55, but then I am biased - All in all a cracking lens, sharp as hell and a great performer on a crop. Definately a decision you wouldn't regret.
 
what to do? what to do?
anyone used both as I think anyone who used only a 17-55 will of course be quite rightly biased....

I think I'd love a 17-55 but is the fixed 2.8 worth the extra cost?
Also I'd have to buy a new UV filter (Pro1-D) at c£40 when I already have one that fits the 15-85

what to do what to do, someone make my mind up please before I go into meltdown:lol:
 
I rented a Canon 17-55 IS USM f2.8 from LFH and it seemed very decent, a massive step up on my sigma 17-70 back then.
 
17-55, second hand, it's a no-brainer. And yes, 2.8 throughout the range is worth it. The 17-55 is not cheap but it's worth saving for.
 
went to the local Tog shop on Saturday and tried them both out

Frankly I was dissapointed in the 17-55 f2.8 as the pics (in shop only unfortunately on Av, M and auto) were just ok and not wow.
The 15-85 was actually much sharper (again only in shop pics on Av, M and auto), they werent as sharp as I've seen some online pics of the 17-55 but I was def impressed especially at £300 less than the 17-55....

so where am I now...................more confused than ever:nuts::nuts:

Has anyone real world experience of using both the lenses?
 
if you can afford it the 24-105 IS but if not the 17-55 IS, would be a good choice
 
Hi

I've just recently purchased a used 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, and it is an amazing lens.....i'd say worth the money and a bargain if bought used around £500, the constant f/2.8 is really useful and worth the extra money imo. If I had a full frame body, i'd go for the 24-70 f/2.8 L but on a crop body, 24mm isn't wide enough for main lens.

I think a used 17-55mm f/2.8 would definitely be a better investment than a new 15-85mm, but its whether you need the f/2.8. It may be one of those situations where you think you don't need it, but once you have it you couldn't be without it.
 
I'd say the 24-105mm as its a lovely lens and means if you ever go FF you can keep it with you as its EF and not EF-S like the 17-55mm
 
poppy6 said:
I'd say the 24-105mm as its a lovely lens and means if you ever go FF you can keep it with you as its EF and not EF-S like the 17-55mm
Click to expand...

Thanks the 24-105 is best suited I hear to FF whereas the 15-85 and 17-55 were manufactured for crop
 
What is your most used focal length? It has been said that some people have missed some reach with the 17-55, do you think you would? |There is a programme you can use on your pics to check which FL you use and it produces a nice graph, ideal to see what you use most and it will give you an idea whether the 17-55 fits the bill in that respect.

I would definately agree that the 24mm focal length on a cropped body leaves you wanting more - Unless, you also get a 10-22 UWA? Then you would have all bases covered, up to 105mm is you chose to get that lens of course.
 
cherokee1111 said:
went to the local Tog shop on Saturday and tried them both out

Frankly I was dissapointed in the 17-55 f2.8 as the pics (in shop only unfortunately on Av, M and auto) were just ok and not wow.
The 15-85 was actually much sharper (again only in shop pics on Av, M and auto), they werent as sharp as I've seen some online pics of the 17-55 but I was def impressed especially at £300 less than the 17-55....

so where am I now...................more confused than ever:nuts::nuts:

Has anyone real world experience of using both the lenses?
Click to expand...

Canon 17-55 IS USM f2.8 is a great lens how did you test the one in the shop and how was you looking at it for sharpness? to me the lens is as good as L glass but with out the weather sealing and as its a EF-s lens it will never have L on it.
 
I think on a crop body, the 17-55mm is the perfect solution, even after considering the 24-105 L. The extra reach to 105mm is good, but this can be obtained by a second lens made for that purpose if needed, e.g. 70-200 f/4 L IS (which i think I will probably be saving for as my next purchase. )

The extra build quality, weather sealing and 'L' status just isn't worth losing the f/2.8 and the 17-24mm focal range imo.........even with an UWA like a 10-20 (which I own), there are a lot of things that fit into the 17-24mm range when using as a general purpose lens and would be a pain to change to the 10-20 every time. I found this a problem when I used the 28-135mm paired with the 17-35mm Sigma........often found myself in situations where I needed to change lens. Now with the 17-55mm, it will never leave my camera unless I specifically want to use the UWA lens to create a dramatic effect with landscapes or whatever it may be which is what it's made for, rather than having to use it due to focal range restrictions on my main general purpose lens.
 
been checking my focal lenghts and its either 18mm ish or near 55mm ish so I think I would miss the reach and width on a 17-55 so it looks like the 15-85 is a winner- just got to find somewhere selling it for under £450:cool:
 
Forgot about this thread! Still looking then? ;)

If your shots are mostly at 18mm and 55mm, why would the 17-55mm not suit your needs? This seems perfect. I don't know how you tested the 17-55 in the shop, but I find it hard to believe it is not as sharp as the 15-85. Plus, the constant f/2.8 really is so useful when actually in real use.

I suppose it depends what you require more, and what you think is a better investment. Longer reach, or a faster lens. Optically, I think the 17-55 will edge it, and especially in low light. It is very sharp at f/2.8 and at f/4.0 and above is amazingly sharp. I personallly wouldn't give up the f/2.8 for slightly longer reach, but I'm sure many out there would.

By the way, since my last post I invested in a 70-200 f/4 IS L.........and it is a stunning lens, very sharp and perfect for close ups of wildlife and objects within a further reach. I now own the combination, Sigma 10-20/17-55 f/2.8 IS/70-200 f4 L IS......and it really is a great 3 lens combo to suit all needs, and highly recommend it. Anything above 55mm I would change to the 70-200 anyway, so having the 85mm reach is of no great benefit in my situation.
 
Here is a picture with my 17-55mm is 2.8 staright out the camera in JPEG.



Comments appreciated
 
LOL @ that photo.

P.S. that embedded image is bigger than 800 px.
 
lauy said:
If your shots are mostly at 18mm and 55mm, why would the 17-55mm not suit your needs?
Click to expand...
Because it suggests that on occasions he would have wanted to go wider than 18mm or longer than 55mm if his lens had let him.

Try taking photos of birds in flight with a 70-200mm zoom. You'll find yourself using 200mm all the time. Does that mean that 200mm is long enough?
 
Anyone recommend the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Canon Lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top