Who has experience with Canon 17-55 f/2.8?

[mbbye]

Is this lens as sharp as the nifty fifty? I'm thinking about getting the 17-55 and unloading my 18-200 and 50. I've heard nothing but good things about the 17-55mm, but its still quite expensive, so I want to know how the image quality compares to that of the 50mm f/1.8.

Anyone who has experience with the 17-55 please give me your input. Thanks.

 

[santacruz]

The 50mm f/1.8 or fix lens alway give you the best and better than zoom lens.
I used to use it, then change to 24-70 because it provide me more on the portrait range.

-Santacruz

 

[tsaraleksi]

Everything I've seen indicates that the 17-55 is a pretty ideal lens for a crop Canon. If you think the zoom range will suit you and you can afford the premium, I'd go for it.

 

[reznap]

Consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well. It's not as good as the canon (which would be L glass if not for the EF-S mount) but it's half the price. I got mine used for $250 (1/4 the price of the canon 17-55).

 

[mbbye]

The 50mm f/1.8 or fix lens alway give you the best and better than zoom lens.
I used to use it, then change to 24-70 because it provide me more on the portrait range.

-Santacruz

Alright, how would you say the 17-55 compares to the 50 though? Is it noticeably less sharp? I'm thinking the 17-55 will be closer in image quality to my 50 than it would be to my 18-200, but if that isn't the case, I'll just hold onto the 18-200.

 

[mbbye]

Consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well. It's not as good as the canon (which would be L glass if not for the EF-S mount) but it's half the price. I got mine used for $250 (1/4 the price of the canon 17-55).

Thanks for the tip, but I think I want to stick to the Canon lenses. I guess I'm a brand snob.

 

[tsaraleksi]

The 50mm f/1.8 or fix lens alway give you the best and better than zoom lens.
I used to use it, then change to 24-70 because it provide me more on the portrait range.

-Santacruz

Alright, how would you say the 17-55 compares to the 50 though? Is it noticeably less sharp? I'm thinking the 17-55 will be closer in image quality to my 50 than it would be to my 18-200, but if that isn't the case, I'll just hold onto the 18-200.

You can use this tool: The Digital Picture to make comparisons in sharpness between lenses. It's worth noting, of course, that the 17-55 is also going to give you an advantage in aperture over the 18-200.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I doubt you'd notice a difference in sharpness between the two under normal shooting conditions, and of course the 17-55mm has IS which is going help out (and does) at longer shutter speeds. After heading down the 5DII/'L' series route, I went and got myself a 7D body, just so I could use my 17-55mm again. As a lens it's very difficult to fault IMO.

 

[mbbye]

You can use this tool: The Digital Picture to make comparisons in sharpness between lenses. It's worth noting, of course, that the 17-55 is also going to give you an advantage in aperture over the 18-200.

Wow, that is an awesome tool! Thanks.