EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS Good?
- Thread starter koljaho
- Start date
- Status
Can get 3rd party lens hood...... cheaper, and work just as well. :thumbsup:
Try here - http://store.tagotech.com
Both have it's 'Pro' & 'Con' :bsmilie:
EF 17-40mm f4 L -
Pro
L lens, great build, super 'butter smooth' zooming, lens doesn't extend when zooming, smaller & lighter.
Con
f4 only (but not everyone need f2.8 :sweat
, No IS, shorter in range compare to 17-55mm.EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS -
Pro
f2.8, IS, using the same UD glass as L lens, longer range compare to EF 17-40mm.
Con
Big & heavy & more $$$ when compare to EF 17-40m. While the built is no bad.... way off when compare to L lense.
I did own a EF 17-40mm f4 L before changing to the 17-55mm.... Much as I missed the butter smooth zooming of the L lens, still very much LOVING my 17-55mm :bsmilie:
Both have it's 'Pro' & 'Con' :bsmilie:
EF 17-40mm f4 L -
Pro
L lens, great build, super 'butter smooth' zooming, lens doesn't extend when zooming, smaller & lighter.
Con
f4 only (but not everyone need f2.8 :sweat
EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS -
Pro
f2.8, IS, using the same UD glass as L lens, longer range compare to EF 17-40mm.
Con
Big & heavy & more $$$ when compare to EF 17-40m. While the built is no bad.... way off when compare to L lense.
I did own a EF 17-40mm f4 L before changing to the 17-55mm.... Much as I missed the butter smooth zooming of the L lens, still very much LOVING my 17-55mm :bsmilie:
Just to add, the 17-55mm is EF-S only, which might be a consideration if you are planning to upgrade to full-frame
non-issue i believe. you can always sell it off and get enough cash to buy a new 17-40. then you can search for a walkabout lens. you probably lose about $100-200-ish.
On my recent trip to Tokyo, I took around 220 shots. Mostly was using my 17-55 f/2.8.
I only changed lens to 10-22 when I took some mountain and lake pictures (30+ shots).
I don't get to shoot much, only 4,000 plus shutter count since I bought my 40D. But the 17-55 is mounted 90% of the time.
Absolutely love my 17-55.:heart:
I only changed lens to 10-22 when I took some mountain and lake pictures (30+ shots).
I don't get to shoot much, only 4,000 plus shutter count since I bought my 40D. But the 17-55 is mounted 90% of the time.
Absolutely love my 17-55.:heart:
Last edited:
Fully agree .. that is the one single reason why it took me so long to decide on moving to 5DMK2...
Agree with the 'a little short' part.... thats why I travel with 2 lens, always.... my 17-55mm and the 70-200mm f4 IS L. But to be honest.... I use my 17-55mm at least 85% of the time.... with the remaining 15% using the 70-200mm. :bsmilie:
Whiplash, you are not wrong by saying that. many a times, especially for street and city shots, i wished it could be longer. i guess at least 80-85 thereabouts.
makes me think whether i should get the 24-105 f/4L. the "next" popular walk-about lens. :dunno:
If I buy the 24-105, it is to "support" the 17-55. Out of these 2, I would need to decide my uses and type of shots.
Although the 24-105 is 1 stop slower, most of my holidays shots are during the day, so speed is not so important. And the range, extra "55-105" is useful for me.
Plus, when I travel, always prefer UWAs so the 10-22 will come along. So range wise, 10-22 & 24-105 is complete enough for me. Don't shoot too much tele at 70-200 during holidays or travelling.
Also, I decided after reading through the treads here. Always minimize lenses and bag weight during travels. My Think Tank UD35 was sometimes getting "weighty" especially after a long day walking.
Seriously, the only time I would seriously use the 70-200 is during the F1 season, Japan GT (Autobacs cup) races at Sepang or maybe when shooting my kids' school concert. All these situations, give much use to the focal length range.
IMO.
If I buy the 24-105, it is to "support" the 17-55. Out of these 2, I would need to decide my uses and type of shots.
Although the 24-105 is 1 stop slower, most of my holidays shots are during the day, so speed is not so important. And the range, extra "55-105" is useful for me.
Plus, when I travel, always prefer UWAs so the 10-22 will come along. So range wise, 10-22 & 24-105 is complete enough for me. Don't shoot too much tele at 70-200 during holidays or travelling.
Also, I decided after reading through the treads here. Always minimize lenses and bag weight during travels. My Think Tank UD35 was sometimes getting "weighty" especially after a long day walking.
Seriously, the only time I would seriously use the 70-200 is during the F1 season, Japan GT (Autobacs cup) races at Sepang or maybe when shooting my kids' school concert. All these situations, give much use to the focal length range.
IMO.
Hmmm, interesting, from what I read, I would think the 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200mm more or less covers all you need. But hey, its your money.
Hmmm, interesting, from what I read, I would think the 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200mm more or less covers all you need. But hey, its your money.
Hahaha!! Yes, you ARE correct. My range is already complete. The 24-105 is just something hanging on the back of my head (not in a major way).
Anyway...... not a good time to spend money on lenses. "hang cheng pai pai", should save money.:bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
