Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

[rwphotography]

Hey everyone!!! I was just wondering if anyone has had the chance to try out the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and what they thought about it? I'm looking for a wider lens to complete my set for now. Right now I have the 28-135 kit lens that came with my 50d, 50mm 1.4, and 70-200mm L f/2.8 non-IS.

Thanks in advance!

 

[USAF-SSgt]

You might want to go wider then 17mm due to the fact the EF-S is a x1.6 setup. You would actually be getting a 27mm-88mm lens.

You would probably be able to find an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for the same money. You gain the L, lose the IS. Hard call.

 

[icassell]

My walkaround lens on my 30D is a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 .... that focal range for daily use is just about perfect for me. (I have a Sigma 10-20 for when I want to go wider).

 

[chammer]

aye...another vote for the tamron 17-50mm 2.8. its a great lens, and nicely priced. have a look at my thread 'warrenton, va' if you want to see some quick examples. all of those were taken with it.

btw - for me personally i dont consider any of the ef-s lenses anymore in the event some day i will go full frame. something you may want to be aware of as well if you're not already. sadly, the tamron 17-50mm is one of those lenses that wont work on the full frame body, however.

 

[rwphotography]

You might want to go wider then 17mm due to the fact the EF-S is a x1.6 setup. You would actually be getting a 27mm-88mm lens.

You would probably be able to find an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for the same money. You gain the L, lose the IS. Hard call.

I thought about the 24-70mm f/2.8 but want the IS because of my limitations i've learned so far with my non-IS 70-200mm. With that said, it's not limiting me that much, but you know what I mean . I think my local Photography store actually have one used but I dont remember the price. I may stop there tomorrow to take a look. What about the 24-105 f/4? I know it's over lapping the 70-200mm, but I think they may have that lens used as well cheaper tan what the 17-55 IS is new.

My walkaround lens on my 30D is a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 .... that focal range for daily use is just about perfect for me. (I have a Sigma 10-20 for when I want to go wider).

I want the 10-20mm lens but I'm not sure if I should get the mid-range focal length first or the ultra wide. Which one did you get first if you dont mind me asking?

 

[USAF-SSgt]

To piggy back on the Tamron, does anyone ever have any issue with light-leak or AF when using a non-Canon lens on a Canon body?

 

[icassell]

I bought the Tamron when I got my camera. I have not found lack of IS to be a problem (then again, I've never had an IS lens). It is my understanding that IS becomes more important as you go longer in focal length (although my 50-150mm f/2.8 and my 100-300mm f/4 don't have it either). My point was not to sell you on the Tamron, but rather the focal-length range. I shoot a little bit of everything and own a bunch of glass. I find that the 17-50 is on the camera >75% of the time. I love my 10-20, but I find that the applications for it are less frequent then the mid-range.

 

[icassell]

To piggy back on the Tamron, does anyone ever have any issue with light-leak or AF when using a non-Canon lens on a Canon body?

My only 2 Canon OEM lenses are my 50mm f/1.8 and my 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I have not had any problems with my Tamron or with my Sigma 10-20, my Sigma 50-150, Sigma 100-300 or with either of my 2 Sigma Teleconverters.

 

[Village Idiot]

The 24-70 isn't ideal for a crop body imo. I used one on my 30D and during a shoot, I was pressed against a wall, shooting at 24mm so I could get a shot of some one about 3'-4' away. It works a lot better on my FF camera. It's such a great lens for that.

The 17-55 is a great lens from what I hear. Everyone that shoots with it claims it's L quality, despite the lack of red ring and the letter. It's one of those lenses that keeps it's value and as it's been said already in this thread, at shorter focal lengths, IS becomes less useful.

Remember the rule? Shoot at or over your current focal length for a steady shot? 17mm * 1.6 = 27.2. You should be shooting faster than 1/27.2 to get a steady shot.

 

[Hardrock]

Its an Ef-s lense so its made for the crop body. As far as the lense I have no experience with it.

 

[Village Idiot]

Its an Ef-s lense so its made for the crop body. As far as the lense I have no experience with it.

Lens

 

[Dao]

You might want to go wider then 17mm due to the fact the EF-S is a x1.6 setup. You would actually be getting a 27mm-88mm lens.

You would probably be able to find an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for the same money. You gain the L, lose the IS. Hard call.

For some reason, I think you maybe mis-understand EF vs EF-S lens regarding focal length and Field of View (FoV). I apologies ahead of time if it is not the case.

17-55mm lens on a 50D will have a field of view of 27-88mm when compared with 35mm film or FF.
24-70mm lens on a 50D will have a field of view of 38-112mm when compared with 35mm film or FF.

So both lenses are not quite in the same range.

 

[Hardrock]

Its an Ef-s lense so its made for the crop body. As far as the lense I have no experience with it.

Lens

its still early you get the point.

 

[Samanax]

Hey everyone!!! I was just wondering if anyone has had the chance to try out the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and what they thought about it? I'm looking for a wider lens to complete my set for now. Right now I have the 28-135 kit lens that came with my 50d, 50mm 1.4, and 70-200mm L f/2.8 non-IS.

I have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens and use it a lot more than my EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens on my 40D. It's a sharp lens that focuses very quickly and has good color and contrast. The width is more than wide enough for what I shoot. For the focal length I don't think IS is absolutely necessary but nice to have. I use this lens more than any other lens I own.

I was thinking about getting the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens but I noticed a lot of my friends have sold theirs and will probably pass on it...I just don't think I need a lens that wide right now. I'm currently looking at getting the EF 135mm f/2.0L USM lens instead (for the great bokeh it's said to produce) or the new EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.

 

[rwphotography]

You might want to go wider then 17mm due to the fact the EF-S is a x1.6 setup. You would actually be getting a 27mm-88mm lens.

You would probably be able to find an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for the same money. You gain the L, lose the IS. Hard call.

For some reason, I think you maybe mis-understand EF vs EF-S lens regarding focal length and Field of View (FoV). I apologies ahead of time if it is not the case.

17-55mm lens on a 50D will have a field of view of 27-88mm when compared with 35mm film or FF.
24-70mm lens on a 50D will have a field of view of 38-112mm when compared with 35mm film or FF.

So both lenses are not quite in the same range.

Thanks for the info!!! I'm looking for something within the 17-55mm range because I'm pretty set right now at the longer range. I'm just looking for something a little better than the 28-135 lens I have without over lapping my 70-200mm lens. :thumbup: