Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS [Sitemap] - Digital Grin Photography Forum

Andy

Feb-21-2006, 10:25 AM

W.W. Webster

Feb-21-2006, 11:00 AM

If there was any doubt regarding Canon's long term commitment to its 1.6X crop factor user base, that must now be completely dispelled!

Mongrel

Feb-21-2006, 03:28 PM

with this one. Just wish it was a smidgeon longer....

Question is how will it hold up next to the 24-105L for image quality? Sure you lose a stop but you gain the reach.

A 10-22, 17-55, and 70-300 IS would make a nice travel package for a crop cam no doubt.

I wait a wee bit and see how it stacks up. Give me time to pay off my dentist :D

Mike Lane

Feb-21-2006, 04:09 PM

Yeah, I've been looking and looking for a lens that's wide and fast and not $20000 like the L glass. The 17-40 was looking pretty good but now I think I may have to sell my 17-85 and go with the 17-55. It shouldn't be too big of a problem since I've got the bigma, but I will miss having that little bit extra on the long end. But I will like the extra 2/3rds to 2 stops than I have now.

Andy, when you get tired of yours (which will be arriving any time now I bet), I'll take it off your hands :thumb

gluwater

Feb-21-2006, 04:33 PM

Why IS on such a short lens. Do you really think it will give that much help for the money? I think I would like this lens better if it was non-IS and a bit cheaper.

Andy

Feb-21-2006, 04:34 PM

Why IS on such a short lens. Do you really think it will give that much help for the money? I think I would like this lens better if it was non-IS and a bit cheaper.

LOWlight, d00d. f/2.8, 18mm, indoors, dark church, you can go slow! No jitters. No camera shake. Still get the goods. :deal

Mike Lane

Feb-21-2006, 04:35 PM

Why IS on such a short lens. Do you really think it will give that much help for the money? I think I would like this lens better if it was non-IS and a bit cheaper.

I like the IS on my current 17-85. I don't always want to resort to stopping down the aperture or using a flash. The IS really does work (obviously not for stopping action I know) and it helps even for wide lenses.

mercphoto

Feb-21-2006, 04:54 PM

If there was any doubt regarding Canon's long term commitment to its 1.6X crop factor user base, that must now be completely dispelled!
I concur. :)

Blurmore

Feb-21-2006, 06:23 PM

Everyone is giving their take on this lens so here is mine.

I own a EF-S 17-85 IS and while I use it and have no specific complaints about it when I compare bang4buck to my like priced 70-200 f4 L there is no real comparison. There is NO, and I repeat NO way, no matter how good it tests, I will shell out 1100 dollars for another lens without the red ring. Why? Because if Canon isn't prepared to bestow the 12th letter on the thing, why should I be expected to pay like it has? So it is 'designed for digital' big frickin whoop, the 28-70 f2.8 L was designed solely for film and it still beats the pants off of the EF-S lens on a digital body. I don't really see the advantage in IS in this lens unless like the 17-85 you have to stop down 1.5 stops to get any sharpness out of it. In all honesty the IS on the 17-85 is all that makes the thing useable, because I can handhold speeds at f8 for sharpness that w/o IS I could not. Bottom line I feel screwed by Canon by EF-S in general, and if they aren't prepared to stand behind a 1100 dollar piece of glass with their professional reputation on the line neither am I.

Andy

Feb-21-2006, 06:28 PM

Everyone is giving their take on this lens so here is mine.

*That* was very well said, Blurmore!

PhotoHound

Feb-21-2006, 06:43 PM

At least to me, the new Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, 1:2.3 macro (http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/17_70_28_45.htm) is still looking better than this. Personnally, IS on this focal range is rarely going to be needed :dunno (especially with the max apeture) and only compounds the cost of this non-L monster with its L-level price tag...

It will be interesting to see the reviews though!

Scott

Mike Lane

Feb-21-2006, 06:44 PM

Everyone is giving their take on this lens so here is mine.
So what would be your non-L lens of choice that would give you an equivalent of around 24-80 or 120 on a 20D? Any brand will do.

EDIT: oooh, the Sigma 17-70 macro... That does sound interesting photohound. Whoa and only $369 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EN0KPS/sr=8-6/qid=1140576907/ref=sr_1_6/104-5100888-8852741?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

Blurmore

Feb-21-2006, 07:42 PM

So what would be your non-L lens of choice that would give you an equivalent of around 24-80 or 120 on a 20D? Any brand will do.

EDIT: oooh, the Sigma 17-70 macro... That does sound interesting photohound. Whoa and only $369 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EN0KPS/sr=8-6/qid=1140576907/ref=sr_1_6/104-5100888-8852741?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

For me there isn't one. I cut my teeth in shooting weddings with 2 prime lenses a 80mm planar and a 150mm Sonnar on a 500C Hasselblad. 90% of what I shoot at weddings now is with a 28 f2.8 and an 85 f1.8 the other 10% is split between the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 f4 L...WHY? 2 reasons I "think" in primes. That crappy 90 dollar 28mm f2.8 is sharper at f3.5 than the 17-85 IS is at 28mm, and f5.6. I won't replace the 17-85 with a non L zoom of any manufacture. If I do replace it it will be with a 24(or 28)-70 f2.8 L and an ultra-wide prime, and even then this combo would only replace the 28 f2.8, I'd still shoot portraits with the 85 prime. The sharpness is my biggest gripe with the 17-85 but the contrast, flare resistance, and saturation characteristics are all lacking when compared to even non-L Canon primes. I'm not one of those people that think zooms should be as sharp as primes, but modern zooms priced over 500 bucks should at least rival them in contrast and saturation.

Mongrel

Feb-21-2006, 08:30 PM

Personnally, IS on this focal range is rarely going to be needed :dunno Scott

Personally, IS on this focal range will OFTEN be needed (for me anyway...). Depending on what you shoot, IS may or may not be worth it. For me having a 'tripod' on the lens *is* worth it-in spades.

I have been in way too many situations where if I could get one or two stops more out of my exposure I would have got the shot as it were. Especially shooting architecture and stuff when out and about at night. In these circumstances even ISO1600 AND f/1.4 won't even always get me what I need. Try walking around a busy city street with a tripod on your back, it's a drag-trust me. Not to mention, inside churches, museums, and a number of other places where using a tripod is not allowed or just too impractical.

For my desired style of shooting IS makes perfect sense on *any* focal length lens, so for me a lens like this just fits me.

As always-ymmv

Red Bull

Feb-21-2006, 09:02 PM

Bob Bell

Feb-21-2006, 09:39 PM

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.

I have a hacked 18-55 that someone gave me that works on all canon bodies, looks pretty simple to remove that plastic bump that makes it EF-S and makes you use that white square alignment mark.

Shay Stephens

Feb-21-2006, 09:58 PM

Well after pondering the imponderables, I have come to my senses. If I did buy the lens, I would still have to use the 16-35mm on the 5D. My goal is to have interchangeable gear. So for now, that means sticking with EF lenses.

Hey, I can hope there will be an EF update to the 16-35....hmmm...dreams.

Bob Bell

Feb-21-2006, 10:28 PM

Shay Stephens

Feb-21-2006, 10:45 PM

I like the wide end, and I am fairly satisfied with it, but I would like it to go to 50. That may hose the image quality, so if I had to choose, I would stick with the 16-35. I would like IS on it. If they came out with a 16-35 with IS I would probably pick it up.

I switch between the 70-200 IS and the 16-35 and utilize the IS feature 100%, except when I use the 16-35.

I guess it is more a case of the wants rather than the needs :wink

Shay I'm with you on the all EF lineup, well except for that 18-55.

Why do you want an update to the 16-35?

Red Bull

Feb-22-2006, 01:07 AM

I have a hacked 18-55 that someone gave me that works on all canon bodies, looks pretty simple to remove that plastic bump that makes it EF-S and makes you use that white square alignment mark.

EF-S 18-55 - $80 (somewhere around there)

EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS - $1100

I would not want to screw around with a thousand dollar lens. If you screwed up you would be out that much money.

mynakedsoda

Feb-22-2006, 05:51 AM

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022113canonefs1755f28g.asp

I have been refusing to buy EF-S lenses, however, this lens is seriously challenging that policy. F/2.8 throughout and IS is huge for me. This may just be the lens that get's me to buy.

I am currently using the 16-35mm f/2.8 and keep hoping for a little more reach beyond the 35mm.
The title of my reply is my advice on this lens. It will be tested to death by independant reviewers. Only after that could I see buying this lens.

1. It's got more elements than the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX and IS while the Nikon does not yet still weighs less. I'm still trying to figure that out. If it isn't the optical quality then it certainly must be the build. I personally don't mind shelling out a few grand here and there for what I want/need but expect a certain build quality.
2. People have been paying outrageous sums like this for the Nikon for awhile because it was optimized for low light. It's Nikons sharpnest wide or normal range zoom wide open with contrast and saturation that matches the price. I'm wondering if this new Canon will be a lens that will have to be stopped down to preform. Now IS can offset that disadvantage slightly but...
3. If this is a lens that has to be stopped down then it does bring up the old IS vs. speed issue. A lens that costs more because it is constant apeture but doesn't perform wide open hardly makes sense (yet many exist). If this is the case then it makes more sense for wedding shooters (among others) to get a better lens from the Canon lineup that actually performs at 2.8 unless your weddings lack any and all movement. For those that need IS in this range because of the "portable tripod" theory fine. It does make me wonder if people are shooting architecture in near pitch black darness and still can't see how they'd be better off with a tripod.
4. Finally if it actually can perform at 2.8 and they haven't cut major corners (IE poor build = huge sample variation) then it's not like you still won't be able to get it. I never feel sorry for people that "have" to be early adopters and get bit for it.

Cameron

Feb-22-2006, 06:11 AM

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.
We'll have to wait and see what the build quality will be, but one thing is for sure, the EF-S size helps them make things smaller. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS weighs 300 grams less than the 24-70L (~2/3 lb). Playing devil's advocate and assuming optical quality WILL be comparable to an L lens, you're getting the same range and aperture with a more compact system.
Now, if you're only planning on upgrading to FF later on, the cost is likely not worth it. However, it appears we may finally see some of the benefits of a cropped system in size/weight, perhaps without sacrificing much quality. The reviews will be interesting to read.

NHBubba

Feb-22-2006, 07:49 AM

mercphoto

Feb-22-2006, 08:09 AM

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.
Chuck Westfall at Canon says this lens will equal L-series in image quality. What it is lacking is weather sealing, and possibly build quality. But your comparison is not as black and white as it would appear. Consider this:

1) No weather sealing, because no 1.6 body is weather sealed either. Has to factor in to the lower cost.

2) You mention the 24-70/2.8, but this EF-S lens overlaps with both the 16-35 and 24-70. It can very nearly replace two L-lenses with one purchase!

3) The image stabilizer is worth something to a lot of shooters. And that costs money in the lens.

4) The EF-S lens is smaller and lighter than either the 16-35 or 24-70. That is worth something as well.

I think this lens is a good buy for those who want to stay with the 1.6 crop factor bodies. Canon is coming out with some serious lenses for the EF-S mount, why is this a bad thing? I think people need to get over the fact it doesn't have a little red ring around it. I would buy it if I wasn't wanting to get a 1.3 crop factor camera next.

Daniel, don't fear the crop factor. :) Buy a used 20D and a 10-22 and enjoy your landscapes.

Cameron

Feb-22-2006, 08:20 AM

...
4) The EF-S lens is smaller and lighter than either the 16-35 or 24-70. That is worth something as well.

I think this lens is a good buy for those who want to stay with the 1.6 crop factor bodies. Canon is coming out with some serious lenses for the EF-S mount, why is this a bad thing? I think people need to get over the fact it doesn't have a little red ring around it. I would buy it if I wasn't wanting to get a 1.3 crop factor camera next.

I agree - while I may find myself using a FF camera at some point, I think the crop factor bodies DO have some merits that often get brushed aside. That 17-55 lens is 300 grams lighter than the 24-70L - people not wanting to tote a heavy load may find the crop-factor bodies appealing.

arroyoshark

Feb-22-2006, 09:30 AM

For me there isn't one. I cut my teeth in shooting weddings with 2 prime lenses a 80mm planar and a 150mm Sonnar on a 500C Hasselblad. 90% of what I shoot at weddings now is with a 28 f2.8 and an 85 f1.8 the other 10% is split between the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 f4 L...WHY? 2 reasons I "think" in primes....

Twenty (or so) years ago, I was getting a lot of jobs to shoot weddings. I used two 35mm cameras, one with a 35mm f2 and the other with an 85mm f1.8. It was a very useful combo.

mercphoto

Feb-22-2006, 11:55 AM

I own a EF-S 17-85 IS and while I use it and have no specific complaints about it when I compare bang4buck to my like priced 70-200 f4 L there is no real comparison. There is NO, and I repeat NO way, no matter how good it tests, I will shell out 1100 dollars for another lens without the red ring.

Don't know if this comparison has been brought up or not, but the Nikon equivalent 17-55/2.8 DX lens is more expensive than this new Canon lens, and it does not have image stabilization (VR in Nikon-speak).

So I think Canon actually has a good lens here, all things considered.

mynakedsoda

Feb-23-2006, 01:39 AM

Don't know if this comparison has been brought up or not, but the Nikon equivalent 17-55/2.8 DX lens is more expensive than this new Canon lens, and it does not have image stabilization (VR in Nikon-speak).

So I think Canon actually has a good lens here, all things considered.
Once again only if the reviews and usesr experiences bear out a tack sharp, high contrast lens even wide open. The usefullness of IS dimishes when you have to stop down constantly for acceptable sharpness (if that's the case.)

TristanP

Feb-23-2006, 05:28 AM

The usefullness of IS dimishes when you have to stop down constantly for acceptable sharpness (if that's the case.)

Wouldn't IS be more useful in this case, since stopping down means longer exposures?

mynakedsoda

Feb-23-2006, 05:47 AM

Wouldn't IS be more useful in this case, since stopping down means longer exposures?
I'd rather have a lens that is tack sharp wide open and not have to stop down. The added benefit is I can utilize a higher shutter speed when needed because of motion within the scene.

Mongrel

Feb-23-2006, 10:43 AM

mynakedsoda

Feb-23-2006, 12:33 PM

just for 'sharpness', but many times for DOF.

I need a lens that will give me in focus group shots sometimes several people deep, f/2.8 won't cut it for that anyway.

So...if you are going to be stopped down anyway, you may as well have IS than not....
This is again where I'd question the usefullness of IS on a fast wide optic. What shutter speed does IS allow that wouldn't be handholdable already with a wide zoom yet would still eliminate all motion induced blur in the scene? 1/10? I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to handhold that at 17mm already. Unless people are really steady I don't want to do many things at 1/10 anyway.

Mike Lane

Feb-23-2006, 02:16 PM

This is again where I'd question the usefullness of IS on a fast wide optic. What shutter speed does IS allow that wouldn't be handholdable already with a wide zoom yet would still eliminate all motion induced blur in the scene? 1/10? I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to handhold that at 17mm already. Unless people are really steady I don't want to do many things at 1/10 anyway.

How about 1 second?

http://mikelane.smugmug.com/photos/56298643-M-1.jpg (http://mikelane.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=56298643)

Okay, not a great pic but it was shot handheld with a 17-85mm EF-S IS with a shutter speed of 1s (click pic for exif).

mynakedsoda

Feb-23-2006, 04:15 PM

How about 1 second?

http://mikelane.smugmug.com/photos/56298643-M-1.jpg (http://mikelane.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=56298643)

Okay, not a great pic but it was shot handheld with a 17-85mm EF-S IS with a shutter speed of 1s (click pic for exif).
It looks pretty good for one second. :thumb

But the fact is that your subjects had to be stationary for a whole second of time. If they were moving then IS wouldn't have helped one bit.

Mike Lane

Feb-23-2006, 04:31 PM

It looks pretty good for one second. :thumb

But the fact is that your subjects had to be stationary for a whole second of time. If they were moving then IS wouldn't have helped one bit.

Yes, that's true. But if I didn't have IS I couldn't have gotten a shot at all. I didn't have my tripod with me that trip so I would have been out of luck without IS. A shot is better than no shot IMHO.

At any rate let's think about that shot without IS. That was shot at ISO 3200, f/4.0, 1 sec, and 17mm. I don't know any 17mm lenses that have an aperture of better than 2.8. That's one stop. So for this pic with a non IS f/2.8 lens you'd have ISO 3200, f/2.8, at 1/2 sec. You wouldn't be able to stop action OR get a clean shot without IS. So what if there was a lens that went down another 2 stops on top of that to f/1.4? You'd get to 1/8 sec at f/1.4 and you still couldn't handhold it and you'd still have a motion blur issue (albeit not as much of one). Plus your depth would likely be so small that you may not be able to get the shot you want - depending on the shot of course.

The math doesn't lie. IS is quite useful even at this focal length.

I think this shot shows precisely why IS is e

mynakedsoda

Feb-23-2006, 05:08 PM

Yes, that's true. But if I didn't have IS I couldn't have gotten a shot at all. I didn't have my tripod with me that trip so I would have been out of luck without IS. A shot is better than no shot IMHO.

At any rate let's think about that shot without IS. That was shot at ISO 3200, f/4.0, 1 sec, and 17mm. I don't know any 17mm lenses that have an aperture of better than 2.8. That's one stop. So for this pic with a non IS f/2.8 lens you'd have ISO 3200, f/2.8, at 1/2 sec. You wouldn't be able to stop action OR get a clean shot without IS. So what if there was a lens that went down another 2 stops on top of that to f/1.4? You'd get to 1/8 sec at f/1.4 and you still couldn't handhold it and you'd still have a motion blur issue (albeit not as much of one). Plus your depth would likely be so small that you may not be able to get the shot you want - depending on the shot of course.

The math doesn't lie. IS is quite useful even at this focal length.

I think this shot shows precisely why IS is e
I agree that you probably couldn't get a clean shot even with a 1.4 lens in that situation without IS. I wouldn't agree about stopping action though. My original point though was about people settling on a lower quality lens that must be stopped down and thus IS is almost mandatory vs. a higher quality lens without IS but is actually sharp wide open.

Actually I'd say if you are steady enough with IS at 1 entire second to make that shot then with a 1/4 second exposure and no IS in the equation you could make the shot also. Wouldn't you agree? I do agree about the DOF issue but I think it's less critical at the 17mm focal length.

Mike Lane

Feb-23-2006, 06:00 PM

I agree that you probably couldn't get a clean shot even with a 1.4 lens in that situation without IS. I wouldn't agree about stopping action though.

That depends on the action I suppose. 1/8 sec isn't exactly speedy.

My original point though was about people settling on a lower quality lens that must be stopped down and thus IS is almost mandatory vs. a higher quality lens without IS but is actually sharp wide open.

A lesser lens is better than no lens and if that lesser quality lens has IS, all the better.

Actually I'd say if you are steady enough with IS at 1 entire second to make that shot then with a 1/4 second exposure and no IS in the equation you could make the shot also. Wouldn't you agree? I do agree about the DOF issue but I think it's less critical at the 17mm focal length.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm not really that steady of a shooter yet I took that shot without much problem. Honestly I haven't tried it out. Maybe you're right, maybe not. The typical handhold speed that I've heard is 1/focal length in seconds. So at 17mm a reasonable handholding speed would be 1/15 sec. So going off of that I wouldn't say that you could get to 1/4 sec without IS on a 17mm lens. But again, I haven't tried it.

And DOF is critical depending on the shot.

Red Bull

Feb-23-2006, 06:23 PM

Is there any reason to believe the price for this lens will stay that high indefinitely? It seems that all the EF-S lenses have been introduced fairly high in price and then come down significantly. The EF-S 17-85 IS for example.. didn't that start at like $800? B&H will sell me one today for just a touch over $500! A nearly 40% drop in price after what, a year? Not bad in the long run.

Would this lens be far more attractive at ~60% of the price, around the ~$700?

Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $700-800 for this lens. Hopefully it will come down, because there's no way I will pay $1100 for it. Now if is super sharp wide open (read: sharpest lens in non-L category) and really good build and gets a 10 on FM, then maybe I will consider it.

mynakedsoda

Feb-23-2006, 08:32 PM

That depends on the action I suppose. 1/8 sec isn't exactly speedy.
Agreed.
A lesser lens is better than no lens and if that lesser quality lens has IS, all the better.
IS adds price. If the price of a better lens is equal to a lesser lens that has IS then I'd choose the better lens everytime.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm not really that steady of a shooter yet I took that shot without much problem. Honestly I haven't tried it out. Maybe you're right, maybe not. The typical handhold speed that I've heard is 1/focal length in seconds. So at 17mm a reasonable handholding speed would be 1/15 sec. So going off of that I wouldn't say that you could get to 1/4 sec without IS on a 17mm lens. But again, I haven't tried it.
1. Can you duplicate that (1 second exposure at 17mm) even half the time? If so then I'd say you are a steady shooter. If not then it was a poor point to make.:rofl
I could point out that I can handhold my 17mm at 1/10 and get a tack sharp image without IS or VR. The fact is that I can't do it every single time though. It makes one wonder if we don't want what is unreasonable and generally not even useful from Canon and Nikon. I mean what do we need to expose at 1/10, f/2.8, at 3200ISO, without flash that is even readily discernable to the human eye. At 1 second even the slightest movement will be seen. Does it even matter for that type of shot?
2. The focal length rule is sort of a general guideline and not really a rule. Everyone is different. I find that I can always beat the "rule" with wider lenses. I find that I need extra shutter speed at longer focal lengths.
And DOF is critical depending on the shot.
At 17mm and 2.8 you've got alot more DOF than you would have say at 50mm. I'm pointing out that one of the advantages of 17mm is increased DOF at 2.8.