EFS 17-55 F2.8 has arrived

[nightwolf75]

Think life's too short to keep thinking whether something is worth the $$ or not. So long as you want it and can afford it without selling yourself (or your wife) , just get it.

If you cant live with the purchase, then sell it. Nowadays so many people play with DSLRs, so there will be no lack of buyers. Just gotta lose a bit lor...

amen...

and dats the whole point.

 

[kenrai]

If u want a guaranteed hit, go for the 17-40. I guarantee you'll find a seller if u decide to sell, esp. if the lens is new ... But from what I see this lens will never command a premium in the resale market. Its too expensive so the market is small. Less buyers = lower demand = lower prices.

IMHO... the 17-55mm (provided that the optics is good enough) may change the demand pattern for 17-40 since there wasn't much choice for x1.6 crop users before this lens - considering only Canon lenses here of course.

The more expensive the lens (if it is well demanded) the more "active" the secondary market ... besides I think there is much more 1.6x crop users than full frame users.

 

[tanwn]

I repeat, 17-55 is using L lens optics, check out dpreview. MTF resolution is also higher, as confirmed by Canon themselves and also all the indepth review out there (photozone.de etc). Picture quality (CA, MTF etc) surpassed current L lens except vignetting which can be stopped down. Why does it command such a high price? Because it is using L optics, infact it is using 2 UD element compared to only 1 UD for 17-40, 16-35 n 24-70. Price is justifiable my friend as besides L, it also incorporates IS USM.
Now think for a moment, Canon does not want to spoil its L lens market, if it does come out with a 17-55 L lens or 17-70 L lens, the cost will be in the region of $3.2K to $4K then you will realise that 17-55 EFS IS USM is value for money.
Please remember that it is using L optics and therefore price is $1.8K.

 

[kenrai]

I repeat, 17-55 is using L lens optics, check out dpreview. MTF resolution is also higher, as confirmed by Canon themselves and also all the indepth review out there (photozone.de etc). Picture quality (CA, MTF etc) surpassed current L lens except vignetting which can be stopped down. Why does it command such a high price? Because it is using L optics, infact it is using 2 UD element compared to only 1 UD for 17-40, 16-35 n 24-70. Price is justifiable my friend as besides L, it also incorporates IS USM.
Now think for a moment, Canon does not want to spoil its L lens market, if it does come out with a 17-55 L lens or 17-70 L lens, the cost will be in the region of $3.2K to $4K then you will realise that 17-55 EFS IS USM is value for money.
Please remember that it is using L optics and therefore price is $1.8K.

Could you further convince the members of this club by posing some quality sample pics with comparison to equivalent L lenses (e.g. 17-40 or 16-35 perhaps). I'm sure it will help in this manner ...

 

[sweat100]

Btw, the 16-35 uses 2 UD instead of 1. While the 17-40 uses Super UD which canon claims it to be the power of 2 normal UD combined. Well, many people talk about weather sealing, I guess its no point talking about it because there is yet to have a body in the EFS range that is weather sealed. From here we can guess that the EFS series is unlikely to have bodys or lenses in the future that is weather sealed.

 

[kenrai]

Hi,

I was hopping that to see more reviews like below in the forum on this lens …

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=167165

 

[solarii]

IMHO... the 17-55mm (provided that the optics is good enough) may change the demand pattern for 17-40 since there wasn't much choice for x1.6 crop users before this lens - considering only Canon lenses here of course.

The more expensive the lens (if it is well demanded) the more "active" the secondary market ... besides I think there is much more 1.6x crop users than full frame users.

Price will always be an impt factor. $1.8 for non-L lens is too ex. for mass appeal.

I can use u as an example. Despite what you say, I still see u bidding for a used 17-40 in BnS:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=196733
U had a choice, u made yr choice.
U obviously recognise the value the 17-40 represents, and chose it over the 17-55.

So will the 17-55 change the demand pattern for 17-40s? Unlikely. The 17-40 will still move more units, brand new or used. U're doing yr part to help ensure that.

 

[kenrai]

Price will always be an impt factor. $1.8 for non-L lens is too ex. for mass appeal.

I can use u as an example. Despite what you say, I still see u bidding for a used 17-40 in BnS:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=196733
U had a choice, u made yr choice.
U obviously recognise the value the 17-40 represents, and chose it over the 17-55.

So will the 17-55 change the demand pattern for 17-40s? Unlikely. The 17-40 will still move more units, brand new or used. U're doing yr part to help ensure that.

Good observation … after reading the review which I have posted and since I only needed a good wide angle performance lense for landscape purposes, I may get a 17-40 purely for that - I pretty much have covered the portrait and low light side of things with other lenses. However, for those who need more than what I do in one lense, the 17-55 may be a nice choice – again depending on more reviews on the performance. Therefore, I still think it may be a good alternative for many 1.6x crop users … let’s see … time will tell. Cheers!

 

[txv611]

Perhaps you guys should learn to see it in a different light and with a little more in depth. At the moment, all EFS-compatible bodies are indeed not weather-sealed. But does that negate the uselessfulness of weather sealing on the lens? Obviously not! Why?

Weather-sealing of a lens slows down aging of your lens. Thats includes less humidlity damages like fungus growth and less dust from getting inside the lens. A lens is much more difficult to be serviced and thus cost more $$$ to be cleaned.

Why do most people think that "if got rain, camera also cannot take it so why bother with weather sealing for lenses?". Isnt that a simpleton's way of looking at things? Weather sealing is not simply about using it in the rain! It is about slower aging, a more robust and more resistant to the harmful natural elements, increased reliability .....longer service life before servicing is required etc etc.

Bro Streetlite here may have misinterpreted some of the forumers intention here. Many of us do not buy equipment for fun or for buy/sell/resell game. But purchases have to be wisely made too. Sometimes we are not sure if an item will be able to fulfilled our needs and when they do not, selling it away may be inevitable to fund for other purchases. Didnt you tried to sell me your few months old 85mm f1.8 lens to me not too long ago yourself? isnt you selling your Tokina, Sigma and flash for the past days? Good that you are out shooting, rather than wasting time brainstorming with us in this thread on which is the better lens to buy (We know there are many choices, we are just doing some homework).

Not a single camera that can accomodate an EF-S lens is weather sealed.
So what's with the gripe about weather sealing anyways people....

If want to play the buy/sell/resell game, play stocks and shares instead.

And while you are wondering and worrying about what the value of your camera equipment will be in 3 years time, I will be out shooting with mine right now, thank you very much.

Food for thought.

 

[katrob]

Guys,

I just bought 17-55mm f2.8
Wanna share some pic with it
Some f4 1sec shots without shaking!
But the purple fringing and vignetting is also so bugging me!


But can't insert image here...Must have a link to outside.
Can someone teach me how to post a pic in this thread?

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

My god, pleaesssee as if the red line around your lens puts your pictures to higher ground!

IS improves your hand holding techniques

2.8 gathers more light than its slower brothers

L or not, does not matter, as long as the optics serve your purposes.

if you need it, pay of it and use it

if you cannot move on and get something else that does.

 

[kenrai]

Guys,

I just bought 17-55mm f2.8
Wanna share some pic with it
Some f4 1sec shots without shaking!
But the purple fringing and vignetting is also so bugging me!


But can't insert image here...Must have a link to outside.
Can someone teach me how to post a pic in this thread?

Hi,

Sign up on the "Gallery" section and upload your pics. Once you have done so ... insert the "

 

[txv611]

That depends. A newbie wont fare well with an L. But If you are a pro or an experienced photographer, it is just easier to get great pictures with better lenses, especially in less than ideal conditions.

My god, pleaesssee as if the red line around your lens puts your pictures to higher ground!

IS improves your hand holding techniques

2.8 gathers more light than its slower brothers

L or not, does not matter, as long as the optics serve your purposes.

if you need it, pay of it and use it

if you cannot move on and get something else that does.

 

[TYM76]

wow, tried the 17-55 and 17-40L together and took some pics. Gosh, the 17-55 is sharper than the 17-40L with IS off, and i tot 17-40 is sharp enuf. Canon knows it and priced it above the 17-40 intentionally, I guess they know it got "stuff". Dun believe me, just try borrow one and try it out

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

That depends. A newbie wont fare well with an L. But If you are a pro or an experienced photographer, it is just easier to get great pictures with better lenses, especially in less than ideal conditions.

what i'm trying to say L DOES NOT EQUAL TO BETTER!!!

its just a marketing ploy people! use what you need, not because its an L

 

[Ally]

Too ex. for an EF-S lens. :bigeyes:

Agree that it's pricey for EF-S... and can't mount on FF i presume..
(not that i have lah... )

 

[katrob]

All of this picture were taken handheld, no monopod, no support for hand, just standing in front of my window

1/8 sec, f4, ISO 3200

1/4sec, f4. ISO 3200

1 sec, f4, ISO 800

For people who argue:
1. Cannot be used for FF --> Until when you want to wait the FF price to be affordable?
1 year? 2 year? If in 1 day you make 1 photo, ini 1 year you'll lose 365 photo

2. 17-55mm doesn't need IS --> For my unsteady hand, I get 80% good result with shutter >1/10 sec, 60% for 1/10-0.xx sec and 40% with 0.3" to 1".
Without IS? 0% <1/30 sec...It always blur!
IS worth it? Definitely!

3. Does'nt have weather sealed --> unless you are a traveller photographer like the National Photographic photographer, I don't think I can break this glass

Overall I'm very pleased with this lens. Only the vignetting in f2.8 is killing me. Even in f4 u can see heavy vignetting (see Pic 2)

But after comoared to my friends D200 + 18-200 VR, I feel that I want to throw away my Canon + lens :thumbsd:
The Canon camera produce "milky" picture, and the color (in Standard mode) is only 30% of Nikon color which is really WYSIWYG...can post some pic later...
Tried to play around with Picture Style, increase Saturation, the skin looks not natural. Increase contrast, doesn't help at all.
Is it common or all Canon camera except 5D and above must be post processed?

Agree that it's pricey for EF-S... and can't mount on FF i presume..
(not that i have lah... )

 

[goering]

what i'm trying to say L DOES NOT EQUAL TO BETTER!!!

its just a marketing ploy people! use what you need, not because its an L

Think life's too short to keep thinking whether something is worth the $$ or not. So long as you want it and can afford it without selling yourself (or your wife) , just get it.

If you cant live with the purchase, then sell it. Nowadays so many people play with DSLRs, so there will be no lack of buyers. Just gotta lose a bit lor...

Exactly - my feelings

Personally, I don't think it's worth the money. Given that price, I can get a 17-40L with another 85mm f/1.8. Even the 17-40L is not a 2.8, I'll go for the 16-35L if I were going for a 2.8. Unless one really needs a 2.8, the 4.0 is sufficient.

If it serves your needs well, then it's worth it. The 17-40L is not f2.8, the 16-35L is rather limited in range and has no IS - so if you are a 1.6X user, looking for IS, f2.8, USM, 17-55 range and good optical performance all in one lens, and as a result, it is convenient and makes you very happy then it is worth it.

 

[txv611]

haha, of course we know that not necessary only L can help to give good quality images. Thats the obvious reason why the 50mm primes and 85mm prime lens are so popular with many shooters.

But if you have any recommendations of NON-L lenses that is as good or even better than 'L", do share with us here so that we may enjoy the goodies at NON-L prices.

what i'm trying to say L DOES NOT EQUAL TO BETTER!!!

its just a marketing ploy people! use what you need, not because its an L

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

haha, of course we know that not necessary only L can help to give good quality images. Thats the obvious reason why the 50mm primes and 85mm prime lens are so popular with many shooters.

But if you have any recommendations of NON-L lenses that is as good or even better than 'L", do share with us here so that we may enjoy the goodies at NON-L prices.

....... i think we have an issue, my stand is not to advocate what is good or not, rather what i'm trying to say, use what you need, not what i need.

if you have usage for 17-55mm 2.8, by all means use it as i will not buy it due to the fact that 2/3 of my digtial and all my film bodies will not be able to use this lens.

i use the 50mm prime alot, so much so for my work, some do not enjoy this focal length, how am i to recomand my 'eye' to others?

i'm just realise that the 80mm non L is just as fantistic as the L brother, again, not many will use primes, so how to recomand???

i use the shift and tilt lenses 45mm and 90mm, for work again, non L lenses. Very expensive and little usage, what's the value? But it does stuff no other lenses dream about. Do you need such a lens? I do not usually, but i need to sometimes. Its great but can i recomand? only when you need it.

i love low light work and my workflow is geared towards that, i'm aiming for fast primes but the prices are a bummer, i rather fast primes without the L moniker and hopefully they sell about $1500 cheaper each. Do you need a 24mm or 35 1.4? i wish i could so that i can shoot above 1/8 shutter speed sometimes or lift my iso to hower between 640 to 1000. Most ppl shoot with flashes, do i advocate not to use flashes?
No again, because the way you and i make pictures are different, our tools differ.

Only you know what you need, i do not so i cannot recomand anything to you pal.