Quality issues with the 17-55?

[blue archer]

I am another satisfy user of Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
Have it almost 1 year, never give me any problem.
I almost forget my other lenses after having this lens.

 

[doodah]

i have both the 70-200 F4 IS and 17-55 2.8 IS for more than a year. It's a great combo, you won't need any other zoom lens, unless you go prime.

my 17-55 don't give me any problems, very sharp and IS is great!

Absolutely agreed!

Until Canon/Nikon/Sony/Panasonic comes with some equivalent lenses in other mounts/formats that are of similar size/weight + optical quality + features as my following lenses, I have no plans of switching from the Canon APS-C format: 10-22 + 17-55 f/2.8 IS + 70-200 f/4 IS + 100 HIS Macro.

Sadly, no one can offer anything remotely close to the above combo, so I am 'stuck' with Canon APS-C for a very long time... No viable alternative.

 

[soons]

Absolutely agreed!

Until Canon/Nikon/Sony/Panasonic comes with some equivalent lenses in other mounts/formats that are of similar size/weight + optical quality + features as my following lenses, I have no plans of switching from the Canon APS-C format: 10-22 + 17-55 f/2.8 IS + 70-200 f/4 IS + 100 HIS Macro.

You meant olympus right...?

I have my S5 IS to cover macro & Telephoto needs.

 

[doodah]

You meant olympus right...?

I meant Canon FF. There's nothing to match the weight/size and performance of 10-22 on APS-C. Neither the 16-35 f/2.8 II nor 17-40 f/4 on FF.

Of course, one can argue sigma 12-24 on FF has no APS-C equivalent... but I have not run into a situation that requires ultra-ultra-wide angle. :bsmilie:

 

[linkk]

Absolutely agreed!

Until Canon/Nikon/Sony/Panasonic comes with some equivalent lenses in other mounts/formats that are of similar size/weight + optical quality + features as my following lenses, I have no plans of switching from the Canon APS-C format: 10-22 + 17-55 f/2.8 IS + 70-200 f/4 IS + 100 HIS Macro.

Sadly, no one can offer anything remotely close to the above combo, so I am 'stuck' with Canon APS-C for a very long time... No viable alternative.

we have almost the same set of lenses except for the 10-22, considering this lens too

btt, to ts get the 17-55 you won't regret it.

 

[Technospaz]

Got the 17-55. The shots are astounding. Very crisp. Very nice. Very pleased

I also have the 10-22. A great lens but watch out for the vignetting.

Next... 70-200?

 

[varf]

next, how about.. shoot?

 

[muvouser]

Tough question. I really like the versatility of the 18-200 IS. Many situations this lens is more appropriate than the 70-200f4.

I have no qualms taking the 18-200 out anywhere, including coffeeshop and HDB neighbourhood shops. Using the 70-200f4 does look a little exaggerated - like a mini rocket launcher. But no denying the 70-200f4 is one sharp sharp lens... but heck nobody is paying me for my photos anyway so I will take the 18-200 - one lens solution!

17-55 is a wonder lens. Super sharp with very good contrast...even better than the 24-70L and 24-105L in image sharpness and contrast. NO. I am not saying because of "sour grapes". I also own 24-70L and 24-105L and have compared all of them side by side.

No, I am not advocating that good pictures must come from good lens. Lenses are my gadgets, not because I really need these expensive lenses. Heck... many people would be fine with a humble EF-S 17-85IS, provided they dun need fast lens. I still use my humble 17-85IS and love it!

But if you can afford 17-55IS, buy it! It is a very fun toy! haha

But you have all of the lenses...
Some ( well most) have limited budgets.

If you can only afford to own only two of the lenses mentioned which two would you keep?

 

[jdbatino]

Tough question. I really like the size of the 18-200 IS. Many situations this lens is more appropriate than the 70-200f4.

I have no qualms taking the 18-200 out anywhere, including coffeeshop and HDB neighbourhood shops. Using the 70-200f4 does look a little exaggerated - like a mini rocket launcher. But no denying the 70-200f4 is one sharp sharp lens... but heck nobody is paying me for my photos anyway so I will take the 18-200 - one lens solution!

hahaha. actually if you take out the hood, the 70-200m F4 looks puny compared to an 18-200mm. :bsmilie:
I remember the first time i saw it , was really disappointed with how the 70-200mm looked. It looked like water pipe. Then my bro told me to attach the hood. voila.

 

[muvouser]

Where got? The 18-200IS is about the same length as the 70-200 only when it is fully zoomed.

The white color of L makes it look big and like a mini rocket!

hahaha. actually if you take out the hood, the 70-200m F4 looks puny compared to an 18-200mm. :bsmilie:
I remember the first time i saw it , was really disappointed with how the 70-200mm looked. It looked like water pipe. Then my bro told me to attach the hood. voila.

 

[soons]

I have no qualms taking the 18-200 out anywhere, including coffeeshop and HDB neighbourhood shops. Using the 70-200f4 does look a little exaggerated - like a mini rocket launcher. But no denying the 70-200f4 is one sharp sharp lens... but heck nobody is paying me for my photos anyway so I will take the 18-200 - one lens solution!

Gaffer your lens black.

 

[muvouser]

That would be a solution. But gaffer lens require efforts, I too lazy!;p Furthermore looks a little ugly to me.

I wish they make the 70-200L in 2 colors.

Gaffer your lens black.

 

[jdbatino]

Where got? The 18-200IS is about the same length as the 70-200 only when it is fully zoomed.

The white color of L makes it look big and like a mini rocket!

But its a lot thicker! And you'd always want a hood with the 18-200 coz of flaring . :bsmilie:

 

[muvouser]

Bro,

you sure boh? A lot thicker? these 2 lens are side by side in my cabinet. The 18-200 is only slightly thicker, NOT a lot thicker! And when you are not on full zoom, its shorter.

But its a lot thicker! And you'd always want a hood with the 18-200 coz of flaring . :bsmilie: