EFS 17-55 F2.8 has arrived

[solarii]

....... 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.

:thumbsup: Well said.

Now if only some pple would heed this advice and stop asking others to help them make up their minds.

Every other day I see a new thread popping up asking people to choose btw ridiculous choices..... 17-85 IS USM or Sigma 17-50 f.8.

Yes they're newbies, but even they should realise what Gilbert just said.
Other's users' recommendations are worth bollocks cos their needs/budget are different. So read the technical reviews and make up your own minds.

 

[TYM76]

Why are we comparing the 17-55 to so many lens or body, tats confusing.

Idea is simple:

If one is 1.6X cam eg 350D, 20D, 30D and the upcoming cycle of 35D/40D: the 17-55mm is a very capable and excellent general walkaround lens (as Canon has meant it to be)

If FF like 5D or 1D, go for 24-105L for general walkaround combo, or 17-40/16-35 with 24-70 excellent combo.

For both parties, can build on top of these lens with special needs with eg. fixed focal lens, macro lens, zoom lens etc

Both system works excellent and delivers, just get what you need. Theres something good for both groups of users, as Canon has meant it to be.

 

[txv611]

ah... you seems to have misunderstood. Of course you cannot give absolute recommendations on which lens is the better one, becos each lens serve different needs, and every shooters have their own shooting styles.

In the first place, I do not think anyone insisted that everyone must use 'L' anywhere in this forum. We are only discussing about the various pros and cons of each lens. We cannot deny that having good lenses can help picture taking in less than ideal conditions.

But does that mean general recommendations cannot be made? Of course not! For example, non-L recommendations with good quality could be lenses like:

Canon 50mm f.18 prime - Good low light capa and sharp
Canon 85mm f1.8 prime - Good low light capa and sharp
Canon 24 - 85mm zoom - Good contrast, fast AF, light
Canon 17 -85 IS - Good focal range, IS
Many more ...


Nobody is asking for you to dictate what lens they should have. Each recommendations should come with some comments like the above. Forumers are intelligent enough to see which key features tickle them and serves their needs. By the way, I was only kidding when I posted about recommendations of Non-L lens which are better than 'L'. There simply isnt a competition. The best 'L' will certainly be better than normal consumer lenses ...But but but we shouldnt compare them since they are in different leagues and at very different price brackets all together!

So why has this thread generated so much interests and misunderstandings? Simply becos the subject in question is a Non-L lens (efs 17 -55) that is priced very similarly to the highly regarded 'L' class lenses. For some strange reasons, the thread has gone a little off track but well thats the fun of the Internet public forums ...

....... 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.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

i agree on your saying what we are discussing is 17-55 2.8 has an L price tag or close to, so what i'm trying to say is L lens or not, is not the most important factor or any factor at all as the L will not help to make your pictures better.

I know you are trying to say L has better optics but i disagree somewhat. Not all L lenses are great, in fact some are crap and heavy.

IF, a big IF the 17-55 f2.8 has has great optics and can produce a sharper, less distrotion, better corners than the L brothers, i will say having the L is just in the name.

My stance reminds, do not think using L lens will produce a far superior image, buy a lens that you need the optical properties for, not for the L branding.

i rather all my lenses that i need got no L branding can can be bought for 50-70% cheaper than there are presently priced.

ah... you seems to have misunderstood. Of course you cannot give absolute recommendations on which lens is the better one, becos each lens serve different needs, and every shooters have their own shooting styles.

In the first place, I do not think anyone insisted that everyone must use 'L' anywhere in this forum. We are only discussing about the various pros and cons of each lens. We cannot deny that having good lenses can help picture taking in less than ideal conditions.

But does that mean general recommendations cannot be made? Of course not! For example, non-L recommendations with good quality could be lenses like:

Canon 50mm f.18 prime - Good low light capa and sharp
Canon 85mm f1.8 prime - Good low light capa and sharp
Canon 24 - 85mm zoom - Good contrast, fast AF, light
Canon 17 -85 IS - Good focal range, IS
Many more ...


Nobody is asking for you to dictate what lens they should have. Each recommendations should come with some comments like the above. Forumers are intelligent enough to see which key features tickle them and serves their needs. By the way, I was only kidding when I posted about recommendations of Non-L lens which are better than 'L'. There simply isnt a competition. The best 'L' will certainly be better than normal consumer lenses ...But but but we shouldnt compare them since they are in different leagues and at very different price brackets all together!

So why has this thread generated so much interests and misunderstandings? Simply becos the subject in question is a Non-L lens (efs 17 -55) that is priced very similarly to the highly regarded 'L' class lenses. For some strange reasons, the thread has gone a little off track but well thats the fun of the Internet public forums ...

 

[CSlye]

Hi,

Went along with a friend to CP to buy the 17-55. We decided to take a similar shot (@f/4 1/10 sec at 55mm) with the his 17-55 and my 24-105. Can you tell the difference?

Anyway, here is another shot from my friend using the 17-55 when the really nice and friendly saleperson (Jason) was servicing my 24-105 without me asking or knowing (I was in the wash room then)...

Not sure if the pics will help those who wish to purchase the new lens though :think: ... all the best!

 

[Spectrum]

Gosh, this lens is expensive! :bigeyes: At this price point it rivals the prices of some L lenses.

It got 'IS' & constant f/2.8 plus price is cheaper than the Nikon 17-55 by almost 300 bucks. Anyway, I just write for the sake of writing here bro. No offence. Cheers

 

[syncpuppet]

I guess the top pict is taken with 24-105.

Hi,

Went along with a friend to CP to buy the 17-55. We decided to take a similar shot (@f/4 1/10 sec at 55mm) with the his 17-55 and my 24-105. Can you tell the difference?

 

[tanwn]

ok, i own both a 24-105L and the new 17-55. I've also compared it to 16-35L, 24-70L. This is my take:

First and foremost, those who are concerned about the optics rest assured that it is definitely using 2UD elements and 3 aspherical lens (you can check out the specs or at dpreview). This means that it is using L lens optics and not some compromised glass which justifies the higher price of around 1.8K. Current L lens are using either 2UD element or 1 super ud element. think about it, if canon were to make say a 17-55 or 17-70 is usm L lens, which i doubt they will or they will shoot themselves in the foot, the price will be in the region of 3.2K to 4K, so 1.8K with L optics is justifiable.
I do not have any sophisticated equipment to measure resolution etc. But please read up the review at photozone.de and others for a very comprehensive test. The resolution, CA etc is improved and better than L but this is very slight unless you blow up the picture to at least A4 and above. Why is it better than L? Don't forget that the current L lens are a few years old, and canon definitely is capable of improving upon the new series of lens either through improved coating techniques or better optic tolerance manufacturing. Again, the current L lens is excellent , my copy of 24-105L is so sharp that i can't really discern the difference between it and 17-55 which goes to show how fantastic a piece of lens it is.
The only weakness about 17-55 is the vignetting (darker borders at f2.8). This is due impart that it is not meant for full frame. It is not objectionable and some may prefer this effect as it shifts the focus to the main subject. It can be eliminated at above f2.8.
To conclude, the 17-55 has the same 77mm diameter, body diameter and length is also about the same. Built wise, of course the L lens has magnesium alloy body, weather sealed but at higher cost. It also does not have the trade mark Red ring which some may or may not be bothered. But at the end of the day, it can produce L quality or better at a lower cost. would you go for 16-35 2.8 (no is), 24-70 (no is), 24-105 (f4) or 17-55 (is usm f2.8). If money no object, i will take all. If you are on a budget which the 17-55 is aimed at, take it you will not regret it. Take my word, go to the shop, shoot with 17-55 and another L lens using your memory card, go home and view it or print it.

 

[honda]

I think internet is a good place to ask and find out about the things you want to know. Questions about lens advice and recommendation is useful because we can learn from others experience rather than going through it ourself. So we dont have to splurge to buy a lens to try it ourself or to buy 2 lenses to compare before deciding which one is suitable for us. Of course most opinions are subjective. So take it with a pinch of salt.
http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com

 

[Watcher]

It got 'IS' & constant f/2.8 plus price is cheaper than the Nikon 17-55 by almost 300 bucks. Anyway, I just write for the sake of writing here bro. No offence. Cheers

The 17-55 DX can be mounted on any F-mount camera and used with minimal vignetting (a fraction of that of the 24-70 on 5D ) from 28-55.

Can the EF-S 17-55 be even mounted on higher end (ie > S$3k) DSLRs?

 

[ricleo]

using the 17-55 DX from 28mm - 55 onwards can be hardly called proper use....not really a fair comparison isn't it. Point is both 17-55 F 2.8 lens by Nikon and Canon are designed for APS size C sensors, not for full frame sensors, and the Canon is cheaper than the Nikon, with IS to boot.

If non of the higher end DSLRs of Nikon (>S$3K) even provides full frame coverage, I don't really see the point of your last question.

The 17-55 DX can be mounted on any F-mount camera and used with minimal vignetting (a fraction of that of the 24-70 on 5D ) from 28-55.

Can the EF-S 17-55 be even mounted on higher end (ie > S$3k) DSLRs?

 

[NorthernLights]

using the 17-55 DX from 28mm - 55 onwards can be hardly called proper use....not really a fair comparison isn't it. Point is both 17-55 F 2.8 lens by Nikon and Canon are designed for APS size C sensors, not for full frame sensors, and the Canon is cheaper than the Nikon, with IS to boot.

If non of the higher end DSLRs of Nikon (>S$3K) even provides full frame coverage, I don't really see the point of your last question.

The 17-55 DX can be mounted on any F-mount camera and used with minimal vignetting (a fraction of that of the 24-70 on 5D ) from 28-55.

Can the EF-S 17-55 be even mounted on higher end (ie > S$3k) DSLRs?

Well, Watcher is right in the sense that at least the AF-S 17-55 DX can be used as 24.5-55mm on FF. There is a sigma 20-40mm lens. Not tha bad although not ideal.

The EF 17-55 IS cannot even be used as the mirror will hit the lens. Once you go 1.3x or FF, the lens will be useless.

 

[Watcher]

using the 17-55 DX from 28mm - 55 onwards can be hardly called proper use....not really a fair comparison isn't it. Point is both 17-55 F 2.8 lens by Nikon and Canon are designed for APS size C sensors, not for full frame sensors, and the Canon is cheaper than the Nikon, with IS to boot.

If non of the higher end DSLRs of Nikon (>S$3K) even provides full frame coverage, I don't really see the point of your last question.

Well, prime lenses have fixed focal points, then consider the DX as a "reduced" focal working distance lor. This is not much different when people say "too wide soft, so step down can leow" or "so what it vignette; step down is much better then ok what..." when it comes to certain lens (even L ones) / body combination

As Northern Lights said, when you move up to the higher end, more pro solution (5D or any one of the 1-series SLRs and DSLRs), all your EF-S lens have to be sold off as you can't even use it without potentially causing damage to the body and/or lens. For the SLRs I still can use, and in future for DSLRs when (not if, mind you) comes out with a DSLR with 24x36mm sensor, they can solve the compatibility by providing the solution I had mentioned more than 2 1/2 years ago. With the presence of HSC on D2X, it proves that it can be done. This is made more likely by the fact that Nikon demonstrated that it values backward compatibility by allowing D2-series of cameras to meter with manual lenses older than a few people on this board

 

[goering]

Can we please get back on topic on the 17-55 lens? Lets not go OT into the N vs C issue please

 

[Spectrum]

Well, Watcher is right in the sense that at least the AF-S 17-55 DX can be used as 24.5-55mm on FF. There is a sigma 20-40mm lens. Not tha bad although not ideal.

Does that means the Nikon AF-S 17-55 f/2.8 DX is compatible even using the later film camera like the F5/F100/F6 when it zoom to 25mm & onwards? Sorry for my ignorance here & please enlighten me. Thanks.

 

[donkuok]

i saw the tamron 17-50 f2.8 review from photozone. Not bad at all and it's sharper than EFS one.

 

[clicknick]

i saw the tamron 17-50 f2.8 review from photozone. Not bad at all and it's sharper than EFS one.

Can provide link please? I very interested to know how these 2 compares.

 

[donkuok]

Can provide link please? I very interested to know how these 2 compares.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm
It'a the sharpest in the market so far. I believe myself. However, the CA control so so only

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Can we please get back on topic on the 17-55 lens? Lets not go OT into the N vs C issue please

ignore the troll , his is on my ignore list!

 

[clicknick]

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm
It'a the sharpest in the market so far. I believe myself. However, the CA control so so only

Tamron looks good, very tempting. USM+IS is good to have, but paying so much for it, i must think twice now. When is Tamron coming out and how much, anyone know?