Anyone have any thoughts on these two lens? I am looking at them. Supposedly the 17-55mm is close in quality to the 16-35L. True?

Originally Posted by macmac Anyone have any thoughts on these two lens? I am looking at them. Supposedly the 17-55mm is close in quality to the 16-35L. True?

Joe,

I made this a new thread because it didn't seem to add anything to the previous thread you had attached to.

The two lenses you mention have a similar function at the wide end, and the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and Canon Ef 16-35 2.8L USM are both fine lenses, but they are really designed for different applications.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm is a crop camera only lens, and has a substantially less expensive construction, but much greater range. The intended audience is the photographer who does not need a rugged all-weather construction, so it is not designed for the everyday rigors of the professional photographer. Not to say that professionals don't use the lens, you just have to be a bit more carefull in the use of the lens.

Still, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm has a lot going for it, so for a crop camera general purpose wedding and event and walk-around lens, I think it's almost ideal.

If anything happens to my Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC, for Canon XT, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm is a definite contender.

Then again, I use a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM on a Canon 1D MKII body, and that makes a pretty good match.

Thanks for the reply. I'll go by a camera shop to get my hands on both of them to compare. I definately want a fast, wide angle lens.

I have the 17/55 Canon EFS lens.

I read a lot of reviews, and user comments prior to purchasing.

Many people say it's not an "L" lens; that's true. It's not weather sealed as the L's are, and it isn't quite as smooth as an "L". You will note that I have an "L" to compare it to.

The 24/105 was my first lens, and I added the 17/55. When they are on the camera, the primary difference between them is that the focus and zooms rings are reversed. The feel is that close.

When I look at pictures that are are taken with a mix of these two lenses, I must look at the EXIF data to tell which lens was used - provided that the focal lengths are similar between pics.

To put it simply, for a 1.6 crop, this is a kick-a** lens.

I've never regretted getting it for a moment.

Glenn,
thanks for the post. Since I shoot a 30D, which I am very, very pleased with, the 17-55 seems like a good lens to go with. I like the 2.8f and the range is similar to the kit lens that I am used to.

I also have the 17-55. I use it on both my 20D and 30D and absolutely love the lens. It is pretty much my "go to" glass for anything reasonably close in.

I do believe that, if you get the lens, you won't regret it for a minute (unless you are an L-choholic ).

I should have mentioned one other thing:

There are owners of this lens that have reported that it is a dust collector; while many do not experience this problem. Personally I keep looking through it at a bright light and never see anything. That being said, I follow some simple precautions:

1. When not being used, both lens caps are on (naturally), and I keep it in a plastic Ziploc bag (one could use the bag it came in) AND I put it in it's own case.

2. Before extending it out, I use a cloth to wipe away any dust at the juncture where the lens extends. This is the only joint that is open, and since the lens gets longer zoomed out, it gains volume. The only way it can gain volume is if air goes into the lens (this is true of any zoom lens by the way).

The 24/105L lens has a seal at this point, the 17/55 does not. I know this because I tried to slip a narrow piece of paper into this space on both lenses - it goes it about 12 mm on the 17/55, but not on the 24/105. In fact the seal can be seen on the 24/105.

3. Obviously keep it out of extreme dust, but this goes for any photographic equipment.

Joe,

The 16-35L and 17-55IS both are very good lenses. If I didn't have
a 1D, I'd probably sell the 16-35...

What about the Sigma 18-55? How would it compare to the 17-55. I looked at this lens today on the Sigma web site.

I think I would get the 17-55 over the 16-35 at this point due to cost and zoom range. The Sigma 18-55 is a good price but how does the lens quality compare to the Canon 17-55?

Scott, at this point, no "L's"...

I've got the kit lens which I'm seeking to replace with the 17-55 or now, maybe the Sigma.
I have a Canon EF 28-135 that I like a lot.
And an EF 75-200.

Joe,

I don't own the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, but I have the Tamron 17-50
f2.8. It's a good alternative to the Canon 17-55. It's comparable
sharpness, just doesn't have IS and the build quality isn't as good.
But it costs a lot less...

The IS of the 17-55 may or may not be a decision criteria. Unless I missed it in reading the thread, I don't see a mention of the type(s) of photography you do. If you shoot in dim environs and your subjects are kinda' slow moving, the IS would provide you a couple "shootable" stops. But, bear in mind, that IS does not stop action. So, don't depend on the IS to allow you to shoot a hockey game in a dimmly lit rink at 1/100 - just wont happen.

Thanks George, I will look at the Tamron, too.

I have a 350D, and initially went for the 17-85 to replace the kit lens. It was OK but I was never really satisfied with it (a bit soft, build quality not as good as I thought it would be).

I replaced the 17-85 with the 17-55. I have a 70-200 F4L as well so have a slight hole in the range where previously there was an overlap. Anything shorter than a 55 and I'd have to have another lens in the bag.

However, the 17-55 is just so much better - much sharper, very nicely made with smooth plush zoom & focus rings, the 2.8 is great for short DOF shots, and the colours it produces are more vibrant. It is heavy though, significantly more than the 17-85, but I guess that's the result of the better quality & larger glass.

Overall, a top quality lens, recommended.

Same experience here. Started with the 17-85 because it was the best at the time, then the 17-55 came out and I saved up for it because I wanted the constant f/2.8 for better speed and DOF, and I LOVE this lens. I am going to sell the 17-85 because it hasn't been on the camera since. (I'll get a 24-105 after saving up some more.)

One aspect of the 17-55 is that I sometimes forget to apply sharpening to the raw images...because the images already look refreshingly crisp.

I can't comment on the 16-35, and I've never owned L glass, but to me the 17-55 is a winner.

Only problem is that with the 17-55 and a 580EX on top, it gets hard to handle the little Rebel XT. I may have to get that grip. It will be better balanced on your 30D.

This may help you with your decision:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

I agree with Colourbox - you do need the battery grip - the camer feels much easier to handle with it. Mine is on the camera all the time now.