Is 17-55mm IS USM the Best Leave On Lens for 1.6x Bodies?

[crabball]

I like my 18-55mm... that is my favourite lens till I encounter 11-16.. ha ha

 

[nathaniel]

Actually, the you could have just gotten a resale 24 f2.8, don't really need the L version. Landscape most of the time is done at day time, f1.4 is not needed for me. In terms of sharpness, it almost matches the L version. If you buy 24 f2.8 + 50 f1.4 off B&S, it should only cost you less than $800. Remaining money still can buy flash, if you compare it to the 17-55 price.

thanks for the suggestion. most people suggest the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as an alternative to the 17-55, rather than a combination of two primes. haven't read the reviews on the 24/2.8, though as i was looking more at the Sigma 30/1.4, the Canon 85/1.8, or the new Sigma 85/1.4... still deciding.

 

[Tigerbear]

How about 17-40mm f/4L ?

 

[Deathegg]

How about 17-40mm f/4L ?

The 17-40mm has narrower aperture and also no IS.

 

[zurichdo]

thanks for the suggestion. most people suggest the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as an alternative to the 17-55, rather than a combination of two primes. haven't read the reviews on the 24/2.8, though as i was looking more at the Sigma 30/1.4, the Canon 85/1.8, or the new Sigma 85/1.4... still deciding.

No problems. Just sharing my thoughts, as I have used them quite extensively. By the way, all the lenses that you have listed are very good. You should be satisfied with their output.

 

[driveanegg]

Depends what you like to do with the camera....

 

[Deathegg]

Depends what you like to do with the camera....

Probably title wasn't that specific, but I think I was targeting at a walk-around/all-purpose lens.


I have been reading The Digital Picture and here's a quote

All said, I think the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is one of the best Canon walk-around/all-purpose lenses made. Be sure to read the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens review and, if you are using an EF-S capable body, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens review before making your decision.

I am in for a wider aperture, but not really sure if the IS on the 17-55mm is really better than the 24-70mm or even the 16-35mm, both w/o IS.

In some of the reviews, the IS looks really handy.

 

[nathaniel]

Probably title wasn't that specific, but I think I was targeting at a walk-around/all-purpose lens.

I have been reading The Digital Picture and here's a quote

I am in for a wider aperture, but not really sure if the IS on the 17-55mm is really better than the 24-70mm or even the 16-35mm, both w/o IS.

In some of the reviews, the IS looks really handy.

for IS, I have good results shooting night portrait at around 1/6 sec shutter, ISO 1600.

I feel 24-70 is not wide enough for indoor, (too bad many HDB flats aren't very big) though there me be others who may be okay with this. I guess 16-35/2.8 is okay if u don't need the IS/reach, not sure how it's sharpness/distortion compares.