EFS 17-55 F2.8 has arrived

[thw]

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?

What is the point of getting a 17-55 and then realize one can only use it from 28-55? Will you spend $2000 on a lens so that you can use it on its restricted range???? :nono:

 

[thw]

ignore the troll , his is on my ignore list!

Why are Nikon trolls (Watcher) in the Canon forum discussing Canon lenses? Because the Canon lens is slightly cheaper, offers IS and has better optical performance? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[shinken]

Why are Nikon trolls (Watcher) in the Canon forum discussing Canon lenses? Because the Canon lens is slightly cheaper, offers IS and has better optical performance? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Hi there. Wouldn't it be better if the discussion would to able to avoid such baits and be focused on its objectives? It's not meant to be a Nikon vs Canon thread, and without Watcher digressing, the topic wouldn't evolve that way. Terms like "Nikon trolls" are also sensitive, even if you were just referring to Watcher. Because there arent really anyone else. But even then, the thread could still stay focused. It's really pointless to compare one brand against another imho ;p

 

[Watcher]

Calling me a troll? Ha ha ha. :bsmilie:

Who mentioned and compared to Nikon first? Spectrum in post #66 see:

It got 'IS' & constant f/2.8 plus price is cheaper than the Nikon 17-55 by almost 300 bucks.

Personal attack and name calling when you have no counter arguement? :bsmilie:

 

[Watcher]

What is the point of getting a 17-55 and then realize one can only use it from 28-55? Will you spend $2000 on a lens so that you can use it on its restricted range???? :nono:

The same can be said on the 24-105L lens (in the other Canon thread) where this is vignetting and someone said that by stepping down, it will be reduced. The same reason was used when 24-70/2.8L on the 5D showed 40% light loss (measured by Canon pro Phil Askey) on 5D and yet was told "just step down".

What is good for the goose is good for the gander Why by a f/2.8 lens when you have to step down? Why buy primes at all if they have fixed focal length if reduced length makes the lens of little value or use?

 

[Watcher]

Hi there. Wouldn't it be better if the discussion would to able to avoid such baits and be focused on its objectives? It's not meant to be a Nikon vs Canon thread, and without Watcher digressing, the topic wouldn't evolve that way. Terms like "Nikon trolls" are also sensitive, even if you were just referring to Watcher. Because there arent really anyone else. But even then, the thread could still stay focused. It's really pointless to compare one brand against another imho ;p

I actually want to stay out since goering requested so and answered Spectrum post #75 via PM to avoid OT. However, since I'm specifically name called and targeted... Well :bsmilie:

Furthermore, post #66 showed that Spectrum compared it to Nikon; not me. Digression? Just answering Spectrum

 

[AhSeng]

Well... The Nikon XXXXX description fits him well enough. How else do you explain why he-->"Watcher" resorts to name calling me a zealot in the other thread if he isn't overtly obsessed with the "Nikon" brand? See Link --> http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=196180&page=3. I am obviously not a zealot as he mentioned as i had even recommended another brand in the same thread. We do not need such ungraceful mind that resorts to name calling in our forums. Maybe the forum ops should send him a private message reminding him to be objective to the subject of the thread in his postings.

BTW, regarding the EFS 17-55 F2.8 , i think many would find the IS useful.. especially if you need to stop down for more DOF in some not so desirable lighting conditions. Maybe in...erm.... wedding dinner table shots..:dunno: where not everyone is line up in the thin DOF of a F2.8. But.. then again.. normally for such a shot, one would always use a flash. Even so, there's always a chance that the batteries juice runs out. IS eats up far less battery juice.

 

[ricleo]

However, you should note that stepping down to reduce light fall off on a full frame camera in the 5D case above is completely different from comparing the use of a DX lens on a film camera.

Light fall off of a 24-70 or 24-105 on a full frame camera is just light fall off, and can be reduced by stopping down. Light fall off is not even normally noticeable in everyday shots unless u are shooting scenes with a big blue sky within it, or shooting a huge white blank wall for example.

If you choose to use the 17-55DX on a Nikon film camera, what you have is not light fall off, but black borders around the frame between 17mm-24mm. No amount of stopping down will remove that, so once again, this is not even an apples to apples comparison.

Also, to better explain the "40% light loss" you mentioned, here's a quote from the same page in dpreview for the 5D review.

"...falloff of -30% would mean that if the luminance center of the frame was at exactly 100% (pure white) the average luminance of the corners would be 70%. Anything more than -20% may well be visible in everyday shots, although this depends on the framing of the shot and the exposure. "

Note that a fall off of xx% just means that the average luminance at the corners is 100-xx%. The 40% light falloff does not mean that the sensor receives 40% less light from the lens wide open.

So, if you guys really wanna compare the Canon and Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 for their merits/faults, you should be comparing them on the 1.5/1.6 crop factor cameras, where they were originally designed to be used on.

I highly doubt that you will be able to find any official recommendation/word from Nikon that even says or encourage you to use any DX lens with the film cameras.

The same can be said on the 24-105L lens (in the other Canon thread) where this is vignetting and someone said that by stepping down, it will be reduced. The same reason was used when 24-70/2.8L on the 5D showed 40% light loss (measured by Canon pro Phil Askey) on 5D and yet was told "just step down".

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[goering]

I actually want to stay out since goering requested so and answered Spectrum post #75 via PM to avoid OT. However, since I'm specifically name called and targeted... Well :bsmilie:

Thanks for your consideration and so sorry that it has come to this. The 17-55 DX does have an advantage in that it can be fitted in all Nikon DSLRs due to Nikon's standard 1.5X crop. I have spoken to another Nikon user who says the build quality, distortion control is very good, possibly surpassing the EFS 17-55. However, this comparison does not arise here since the Nikon lenses are not directly compatible with Canon cameras and this thread is about the EFS 17-55

Meanwhile, can we get back on topic? Let me begin with Don's query

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

If you are referring to this review here,
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

did the author say it was sharper than the 17-55? The author seems more positive about the 17-55 when he said "The resolution figures are among the very best seen so far for an APS-C standard zoom lens"

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

If you do not need IS and USM, then the Tamron is a much cheaper alternative though

 

[BraveHart]

--Troll alert--

Heh...should we just put a sticky in the Canon forums that states:
1) DX lens can be used on all Nikon Cameras
2) *somebody* predicted that multi-crop sensors will be possible xx years ago
3) N is the superior brand

Its kinda boring reading the same thing in N vs C equipment threads over and over again....

--Troll alert end--

Sorry ... just bitchin abit ... bad day at work. :angry:

 

[NorthernLights]

The same can be said on the 24-105L lens (in the other Canon thread) where this is vignetting and someone said that by stepping down, it will be reduced. The same reason was used when 24-70/2.8L on the 5D showed 40% light loss (measured by Canon pro Phil Askey) on 5D and yet was told "just step down".

What is good for the goose is good for the gander Why by a f/2.8 lens when you have to step down? Why buy primes at all if they have fixed focal length if reduced length makes the lens of little value or use?

Please lah...everyone is welcome to comment. I know Watcher personally. He's a friendly guy. I think he is just stating the facts. there are no one-sided factless claims at all.

 

[LogicA]

pls everyone pls pls go back to the topic... i really wanna see reviews and comments on this new lens rather than all this endless 'shooting'

 

[Denosha]

Don't think anyone has posted the link to this review yet:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Getting very tempted myself..

 

[Watcher]

Please lah...everyone is welcome to comment. I know Watcher personally. He's a friendly guy. I think he is just stating the facts. there are no one-sided factless claims at all.

Ha ha, don't worry. I'm just enjoying myself seeing how some people behave and make a fool of themselves... :bsmilie:

 

[thw]

Ha ha, don't worry. I'm just enjoying myself seeing how some people behave and make a fool of themselves... :bsmilie:

The same way you are behaving? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[tanwn]

i told you, everything said about 17-55is usm is true. Go to the-digital-picture review. Ha ha

 

[sriram]

Wow, almost $2K for an EF-S lens. Maybe if I win a lottery. For now, I'll probably wait for the tamron 17-50/2.8, should cost 1/3 as much.

 

[TMC]

Well... The Nikon XXXXX description fits him well enough. How else do you explain why he-->"Watcher" resorts to name calling me a zealot in the other thread if he isn't overtly obsessed with the "Nikon" brand? See Link --> http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=196180&page=3. I am obviously not a zealot as he mentioned as i had even recommended another brand in the same thread. We do not need such ungraceful mind that resorts to name calling in our forums. Maybe the forum ops should send him a private message reminding him to be objective to the subject of the thread in his postings.

Is there a need to come running over to another thread and drag the argument over again? You are not a shining example of a graceful mind here either. 五十歩笑百歩 in this case.

So far all I see is that the Nikon lens was mentioned here and Watcher stated facts about it. Ease up people.

 

[agape01]

Irregardless whether watcher makes such a statement or not, it is shown right from the start that some of you just do not want to believe the truth.

Again, it is each one's choice to determine whether or not buying a EFs lens is suitable and like what Belle&Sebastian said dunno how many post earlier. Buy what you need to use and don't regret later. Buy for your own purposes.

If a EFs like would work for you and you have got no intention of moving to a different crop size, then buy all means buy a EFs lens.

You all can flame me for all you want, I will not be responding.

 

[wong1979]

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

I din't expect my bit of info sharing to turn out like this.

But let me ask u, what is all the hooha on FF if canon can incorporate 16 MP onto EFS mount cameras in the near future? Unless it's really technically impossible :dunno: