Is this a good decision?

Turnstone · Aug 10, 2008

Hi. I've been saving for a year to get a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Now that I'm ready to buy it I'm having second thoughts. I've read all the good things about the quality of the glass, etc. It's just that I'm also seeing a lot of other lenses people say are just as good so now I'm wondering if I'm making the right decision. I'm ok with it being EF-S. I want the IS and and I love the f/2.8. I want a really good basic lens that will give me some wide angle options and will produce photographs that are sharp. The lens that came with the camera disappoints every time. My next lens will be a macro, because that's what I love to shoot, but for now I need a good general lens for everything - travel shots, people, all the usual stuff. So....should I just bite the bullet and part with the money for the 17-55 or do you think I should be looking at something else? I'd appreciate any opinions. Thanks!

Overread · Aug 10, 2008

Depends what general stuff is for you - if 17-55mm is all you need for such a lens then go for it - IS and f2.8 is fantastic in a lens. For me 55mm max is a little too short for what I consider a walkaround lens - but that is me and my work not you.
So work out if 55mm is enough for you

for me this is the walkaround lens I am after:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-24-10...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1218407221&sr=8-1
its only advantage is that it is an L lens - so it has good glass, though it is a little slower at f4.
There is also the more expensive 24-70mm f2.8 L - but that comes without IS and is around £200 more.

JustAnEngineer · Aug 10, 2008

I'm happy with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens for most of my photographs. When that's too short, I switch to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. :camera:

keith204 · Aug 10, 2008

Overread said:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-24-10...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1218407221&sr=8-1
its only advantage is that it is an L lens - so it has good glass, though it is a little slower at f4.
There is also the more expensive 24-70mm f2.8 L - but that comes without IS and is around £200 more.

The bold statement is debatable. While L glass is definitely good and sharp, the glass isn't necessarily better than the glass in the 17-55. I have actually read several reviews of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS that claim the glass is actually sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4. These are from people that own BOTH lenses, and say they prefer the sharpness of the 17-55 over their 24-70. I haven't compared the lenses, but the fact that it's debatable was good enough reason for me to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

As mentioned, I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it is a truly remarkable lens.

Range? A true "walkaround" lens for a crop body would certainly not be a chunk of glass that is widest at 24mm. IMO from experience, the 17-55 is a better walkaround than the 24-105.

Shoot, if you're getting into Macro, problem solved. This past week on vacation, I wore cargo pants/shorts so I could keep my Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro in a pocket, while the 17-55 was on my 40D. If I needed a telephoto length, it was an easy switch. If you're feeling nerdy, get a fanny pack.