Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

[Fr1so]

Last I was browsing on the Canon website through the lenses. And I was thinking, why would you buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 lens? At the long end It is too short, at the wide end it is too narrow. What was Canon thinking wen they took this lens in their product line? And the lens is quite expensive for a no L lens.

What do you think?

[paulr5604]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

You could say the same about the Canon 17-40 and the 16-35.

I haven't used it but it is supposed to be a very nice lens.

I use the tamron 17-50 2.8 on my crop camera and find that it is quite a nice walk around lens

[Fr1so]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

Yes indeed between the 17-40 and the 16-35 there is not much differences.

[Wayne Els]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

I think the 17-55 makes sense if you want a fast mid range zoom with high IQ on a crop. Other than primes you cannot easily replicate this range at F2.8.
The 16-35's and 17-40 is a bit of a red herring as are designed as full frame WA lenses and are lacking at the longer end, also 2 of the 3 are not as fast.

[Tigger]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

Yes indeed between the 17-40 and the 16-35 there is not much differences.

other than IS....that makes a huge difference if shooting in low light - I've taken shots down to 1/10 handheld, would I get away with that without IS, I don't think so

[El Sid]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

Last I was browsing on the Canon website through the lenses. And I was thinking, why would you buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 lens?

Because it's f2.8 and that's the kind of wide aperture that's more usually the province of prime lenses. It's also of useful for low light and shallow depth of field.

At the long end It is too short, at the wide end it is too narrow. What was Canon thinking wen they took this lens in their product line?

They were thinking that users of APS format cameras might like a fast, high quality, standard zoom instead of the rather slow and mediocre 18-55mm and 17-85 kit lens that were the norm at the time. Canon's lens range is very much about choice if you examine it carefully.

Allowing for the 1.6x crop factor it's actually got a longer range than the equivalent full frame fast standard zoom of the time - 27-88mm equivalent vs the 28-70 f2.8L.

And the lens is quite expensive for a no L lens.

And is generally acknowledged as delivering pretty much the equivalent quality - it's as close to an L lens as any EF-S model has ever come. It's cheaper than the equivalent Nikon too...

What do you think?

You know now...

[Fr1so]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

Yes, thanks!

[DrJon]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

The bigger the zoom ratio (55/17 = 3x) the lower the quality, multiply that by how wide the aperture is plus how wide-angle the lens goes. I suspect that's the widest range they can do a good quality lens over. I have a friend who uses one of these and it's an excellent lens.

[raymon]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

I owned this lens several years ago when I had a a 7d mk1, I thought it was a brilliant optic and the focal range was very similar to a 24-70 on a full frame, in my opinion this a very useful range for a walkabout lens, the IS and 2.8 aperture is also a nice to have and both worked extremely well. the quality of images was also as good as some "L" lenses, although sadly the build quality is nowhere near the "L" standard with rather bad lens creep, unforgiveably the lens hood is also not included in a plus £500 lens)

As it says in the feedbacks "Yes I would recommend to a friend"

ray