Whats the best 17-50 range f2.8 lens for Canon

[cherokee1111]

Yes thanks it was an interesting read..

I have read a few reviews, most people state is a good lens but it would appear not many people have brought this lens as most favour the Canon or Tamron.

if I had a canon I would go Canon- the Nikon equivalent is ridiculously priced at a grand:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::razz: and if I was on a budget the Tamron (had one and it was a nice lens- just nice though)

 

[Martylaa]

I would love a 17-55 but pricey

 

[dubcat]

I debated this myself recently.

In the end I went for the Canon 17-55 2.8, I knew if I went for a third party I'd always be pining for the Canon model, buy once buy right.

Same here - and really glad i got the canon. I love it. I bought a sigma 70-300 when i started out. The lens was fine but i never could get the nagging suspicion out of my mind that i should have gone with the canon equivalent I learned my lesson and now I only buy canon.

Yes this does make me a snob. Yes this is possibly rather a stupid way of thinking. And yes i am happier

 

[odd jim]

Can you tell me what's wrong with the build quality ?

I've had a number of L lenses in my time, and I don't see much difference in the build quality of this lens and the 24-105 L, or the 70-200 f4 L. Now if you were comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 IS I could understand. I've been using one of these for over a year. I bought it 2nd hand, it's over 3 years old, and it get used very frequently (and I use my kit).

In fact, mine doesn't seem to have a dust problem either. Maybe that's because I use it rather than sitting there admiring it, or maybe I'm just lucky. It's been on the 7D when they were dropped from about 3ft onto the grass (on a cold February morning) and neither sustained a mark. And the resale value holds it's price too.

Steve

I too would like to know what's wrong with the build quality - it seemed absolutely fine to me?

What do people want to do with these lenses? Take photos or knock down walls??

 

[SpikeK6]

I have read this thread with great interest.
I am looking/saving for a 17-55 canon lens, and I am with what was said above, if i bought the Tamron (first lens I looked at) I would always be wondering what if. so I will just keep saving and get the canon.
I am sure IF I ever go FF in the future I would be able to sell it easily and not loose massive amounts of money.

All I need now is just another £200 or so for a decent second hand one, anyone feeling generous lol ???

spike

 

[Harlequin]

I would just get the tamron or sigma (with VC) if you want it. The canon IS overpriced, as the optical quality of the 3rd party lenses matches it in several reviews. I think the VC version of the tamron had some problems in the first batches but seems to match the image quality of the non vc now.

 

[tijuana taxi]

The canon IS overpriced

Firstly overpriced judged against what? same could be said for a good many lenses or cameras or cars or houses or ??? well you get the idea, who decides what an item is worth

the optical quality of the 3rd party lenses matches it in several reviews

Maybe they do, but from my experience not in practice and its definitely better than others I have had in that focal range. Nothing to do with brand snobbery and who wouldn't want to pay less for equal quality, but in my opinion there is a discernible difference otherwise people wouldn't buy it.

 

[Skyline On Fire]

Same here - and really glad i got the canon. I love it. I bought a sigma 70-300 when i started out. The lens was fine but i never could get the nagging suspicion out of my mind that i should have gone with the canon equivalent I learned my lesson and now I only buy canon.

Yes this does make me a snob. Yes this is possibly rather a stupid way of thinking. And yes i am happier

Same here. I've had a bit of experience with quite a few third party lenses now and I've just never been as satisfied with them as I have been with my Canon lenses.

The only exception is my Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime. I brought this with reservation, and when it arrived, yes it was backfocusing, soft, and I was very displeased. Rather than send it back for a refund and continuing the search for a 50mm equivalent on a crop body very fast prime lens, I sent it back and asked for it to be calibrated/another new one.

When the second one arrived, the difference was enormous. Incredibly sharp, focusing is very fast, colours and bokeh are sublime, zero complaints. Build quality is also excellent, very surprised by that considering its a £350 f1.4 prime lens.

It seems to be hit and miss wether you get a good copy for Sigma lenses, whereas my Canon kit has always been spot on straight out of the box.

 

[futureal33]

Whats the general consensus on IS/OS/VC being "required" on a wide angle - midzoom lens such as one within the 17-50mm bracket...

Granted IS/OS/VC may work well, but at such focal lengths is it really as beneficial as with telephoto lenses?

 

[Skyline On Fire]

Whats the general consensus on IS/OS/VC being "required" on a wide angle - midzoom lens such as one within the 17-50mm bracket...

Granted IS/OS/VC may work well, but at such focal lengths is it really as beneficial as with telephoto lenses?

It depends on its projected use etc... I generally shoot my 17-55 in lower light situations than my larger zoom lenses, so it comes in handy a lot more.

 

[HoppyUK]

Whats the general consensus on IS/OS/VC being "required" on a wide angle - midzoom lens such as one within the 17-50mm bracket...

Granted IS/OS/VC may work well, but at such focal lengths is it really as beneficial as with telephoto lenses?

The theory runs that because you need to use higher shutter speeds with longer lenses to combat shake, you are much more likely to need help from IS/VR with those lenses, even in good light.

Futhermore, even though IS/VR can be just as effective with much longer shutter speeds in lower light with shorter lenses, because IS does nothing for subject movement there quite quickly comes a point where you need to keep the shutter speed up to stop that anyway, so IS will not make any difference.

Having said that, IS/VR is becoming available with more shorter lenses all the time - on my 24-105L IS for example, and that's pretty wide on full frame, similar to the EF-S 15-85 IS for Canon croppers. Nikon recently announced a 16-35mm with VR for full frame (11-24 equiv on crop) so there must be a market.

 

[arad85]

Whats the general consensus on IS/OS/VC being "required" on a wide angle - midzoom lens such as one within the 17-50mm bracket...

Granted IS/OS/VC may work well, but at such focal lengths is it really as beneficial as with telephoto lenses?

Yes, if you take photos in lowish indoor light of static objects.