Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS USM

Hi this is my first post on this forum. I have read a few post and realzie the lens I have been researching is the subject of quite a few opinions.


Iown theCanon 40D, and 3 lenses~ a fixed EF 50mm, f1.8, (the 28-135mm, f3.5 IS USM that was purchased with the camera body as kit), and an EF70-300, f4-5.6 IS USM. I have had this camera for a year, and love it. I have been interested in photograhy forever, and learned on a film SLR. I guess you could say I'm past the ametaur stage, but the technical aspect/math understanding lens ratio's gets complicated for me.


I take a lot of pics of my kids, and my friends children & families--as well as sporting events, indoor, (my oldest son, 13 is in a band~and actually has "gig's" i shoot), wildlife, landscape, and some macro. I like it all, and I shoota lot. Family has inspired me to start my own business. Thinking about taking the leap, (keeping my day job, lol!).I know Ineed a new lens, or lenses to take this further. I am not a big tripod user unless I'm doing macro work~and occasionally low light situations. Iwould like to, someday, work my way up to a full frame camera body~tho it may be a while! [:S] I would like to keep my 40D as a back-up, if I ever get the oppertunity to shoot a wedding. With that being said, as many have posted before, do I spend the money now for L series lenses, orspend the $ for17-55mm EF-S IS USM, and leave it as one of my dedicated 40D lenses~savingthe purchase ofthe L series for the full frame camera someday?? It seems like a great all-around lens to have. I'm sure my 28-135 is no where comparable~but I love the range on it.


We are planning a trip to the NC mountains soon~and I thought I could also use it as a wide angle? The 10-22mm didn't seem to havemuch greater of a range?? I want something that will give me more "bokeh" with the lower f stop~also need it for low light situations, and portraits?


Is this a good lens to start with? or should I build slowly with fixed lenses?


Whatever lenses you can suggest fora "future pro"would be greatly appreciated!! [:D]

I love the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-S lens. It's my favorite general purpose lens for my 40D. After that comes the 24-105mm f/4 L IS that gives more reach but gives up at the wide end on a APS-C camera. My other most used lenses are the 10-22mm EF-S wide angle, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and the 100-400mm L IS zoom. Between them, they cover 90% of my photographs. But the most used is the 17-55mm. I don't think you would regret buying it at all, the image quality is wonderful and it is very versatile. Only in terms of ruggedness does it compare less-well to the L lenses, but it is still well-built and perfectly strong enough for my uses (mostly landscape and architectural photography).

Thanks, sounds like I am on the right track for a better lens for my current camera. Just hard to spend the $ for an EF-S lens when the 24-70L is so close in price. But I guess it really wouldn't do justice on a 1.6x crop body, and will be a while before I canmake thejump up to the full frame.

Here are my 2¢ as an amature who has only owned a DSLR for a year,


If you really expect to move up to FF some time go ahead and spend the extra money on an L series lens. I would recommend (mostly from reading Brian's reviews) the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM for the wide angle. This an especially good idea if you are already happy with your 28-135mm as it would be expanding your range and be adding excellent glass at the same time. Granted that lens will probably run you $1500 so you might not be too interested in that kind of an investment right now.


In light of that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is an extremely good lens. I have heard many people who are happy with the lens. If you are willing to try out third party lenses, though, I would suggest that you first look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II. Brian says the optics preform very similarly to the EF-S 17-55mm and it is also an f/2.8 which would fill your lower light needs. If that is not enough there is an image stabilized version too. The Tamron will go for about $500 and with image stabilizer about $750.


As a side note, if you really are going to start to get out in the portrait world I will strongly suggest that you get the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. That lens is very incredible for the price you pay and you will never want to go back to the cheaper optics that Canon offers. It is very sharp and really nice to shoot with. I really like the amount of bokeh it has.


Hope this helps some,


Samuel

A few things I did not mention; first the EF 16-35mm is weather sealed and that will be very nice to have if you move up to the FF body. Also right now the 16-35mm has a rebate of $100 while the 17-55mm has a rebate of $70 (they end sometime in january I believe). Finally if you are really serious about going into wedding photography you might think twice about the loud AF motor on the Tamron.


Samuel

Samuel, your 2cents means allot! I was just looking at the 16-35L you suggested. I hand hold my camera a lot to catch children in action/sports~I guess that's why the IS lens appealed to me, along with having APS-C sensor. I was also looking at the 24-70mm f2.8L, and wondering if it wouldn't be a better place to start? It's cheaper, than the 16-35Land I could sell my 28-135...& use my 70-300 until I can get another toy? or....keep the 28-135 as a designated lens for the future?Don't want to have gaps in my focal lengths unitl I see more of a trend of my fav length for shoots.


Sorry for all the questionsthis is a tough decision for me! It's allot of $ and I want to be smart about it. I forgot to mention I also have the 430 EX11 speedlight, (learning curve with this too).


Thanks so much for you help!

Pamela;


I'm in the same boat...40D and eventually wanting to upgrade to a FF body and keeping the 40D as a back up.


After a couple of years of circling the EF-S lens and L lens conundrum, I've come to the conclusion of buying the lens that best suits my needs using the 40D today.


I currently own the 17-55 2.8 IS (traded in my 17-85, specifically for the fixed 2.8) and the 100-400 IS lenses for my landscape, indoor family gatherings and wildlife shootings.


I've also used both these lenses for indoor high school sports, e.g. volleyball and swimming w/very suitable results.


I am now venturing into Real Estate photography (just sold my first shoot the other day) and will purchase the 10-22 in the next few weeks to help w/the tighter shots and expand my landscape shots.


My point of this diatribe is; buy for today's needs (wants) and allow your (future) sales to buy the (really expensive) FF body and lenses for your kit.


My next (priority) purchases will be the 70-200 2.8 IS (low light Hummingbird shots), 100 Macro, and finally the FF body. And if after purchasing the FF, I find it necessary, I will then purchase the 16-35 2.8.


Just my game plan (opinion) for buying equipment I can't afford to buy all at once.


Two final thoughts; remember IS is for low light, relatively static
subject, situations. IS will not stop a subjects movement, i.e. "to
catch children in action/sports". Secondly, the 40D isn't weather (wx)
sealed, so don't become overly concerned about lenses that are...wx
sealed lenses won't help your 40D to stand up to inclement conditions.


Good luck and frequent this site's reviews of the equipment you want.....often.


Regards


Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pamela

I hand hold my camera a lot to catch children in action/sports~I guess that's why the IS lens appealed to me, along with having APS-C sensor. I was also looking at the 24-70mm f2.8L, and wondering if it wouldn't be a better place to start?

---

Hi Pamela,


I went through many of the same thoughts recently, and there are literally hundreds of posts across multiple forums debating the 17-55 f2.8 IS vs. the 24-70 f2.8L. I decided on the 17-55.


Do keep in mind what IS will and won't do - it will help for hand-holding in low-light situations, but it won't help stop action so if your goal is to freeze a running child in your picture you need a fast shutter speed, and that eliminates the effect of camera shake (meaning no need for IS).


Having said that, there are quiet moments indoors where you'll want to take a shot in natural light - the IS will be a big help there.


The other issue that's relevant is the wider end of the focal length - 24-70 mm on your APS-C sensor equates to 38-112 mm for full frame. 38 mm does not have a very wide field of view and may be tough to use for group shots or in small rooms. Compare that to the 17 mm wide end of the 17-55, which equates to 27 mm, a bona fide wide angle lens. I suspect if you decide on the 24-70, you'll find yourself wanting the 10-22 to fill in the wide end. Conversely, if you go with the 16-35 and sell the 28-135, you'll find there's too big a gap between 35 and 70 mm. You likely will not notice the gap between 55 and 70 mm.


The 'classic' combination of a 24-70 and a 16-35 on a full frame sensor is equivalent to the 17-55 plus the 10-22 on an APS-C body. One point on the overlap there - 10 mm doesn't sound much different than 17 mm, but a look through both lenses at their widest will convince you that there is a significant difference between the angles of view.


I think, with an APS-C body you'll be much better off with the 17-55, and since you stated you intend to keep that camera as a backup down the road, you'll have a continued use for the lens.


(Side note: For portraits, I absolutely concur with Samuel's recommendation of the 85mm f1.8 lens - on a crop body the 136mm equivalent length is ideal for close-up shots. That lens would also come in handy for your son's gigs - you'll pull in a lot more light with that lens than your current zoom lenses (the 70-300 will be at f4 at 85 mm, and the 28-135 will be at f5 at 85 mm) - no doubt you've seen that your 50mm f1.8 performs well in low-light - the 85mm 1.8 adds some focal length along with much faster autofocus and a much smoother background blur.)

Bill puts this very well and my own upgrade history closely matches his. I should add that I have since bought a 5D II, but I'm keeping the 17-55mm and upgrading my APS-C to a 7D to make best use of it. That's how much I like this lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musickna

Bill puts this very well and my own upgrade history closely matches his. I should add that I have since bought a 5D II, but I'm keeping the 17-55mm and upgrading my APS-C to a 7D to make best use of it. That's how much I like this lens.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

It's because of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that I've never been seriously interested in the 5D Mark II. Don't get me wrong, if someone gave me the camera, I'd use it. But there isn't a lens comparable to the 17-55 (at this time) for full frame bodies. The 17-55 lens is my most-used and most-loved lens. It isn't perfect, but it's the best general purpose lens out there for APS-C bodies.


That's my take on it. :-)

Hi again,


Here is why I would not bother to drop the $1000 on the 17-55mm if I were going to buy a FF (in the relatively near future) and keep my ASP-C: first, the focal length of the 24-70mm is just fine for me. I currently own the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and seldom do I find myself wishing that I had a wider angle lens (I am running it on a 10D). Second, my backup camera would seldom cover the same ZOOM range as the FF and would most likely have a fast prime on it, especially if I were shooting a wedding indoors where light is often low. Third, I would want to have my best glass on my best camera. Fourth, (it has been said don't worry about this now as you don't have wx on the 40D but,) weather sealing will eventually be a great thing to have as there are certain shots that you just can't get unless you are in a dusty or wet place. Combine the 24-70mm and the 5D Mk II and you will have a great outdoors weather sealed setup. Finally, it would be just fine with me (if it were feasable) to get the 24-70mm and complement it with the 10-22 on my ASP-C camera. Then you are covering the whole gamut on you ASP-C and later with the FF body you will be able to have a wide lens on your backup and a nice walk-around lens on the FF.


If you are not so keen on having the 24-70mm right away I would again recommend you check out the Tamron 17-50mm review on this site. It may be a good lens to tide you over till you get that 5D Mk II (or whatever you might buy).


Also, Sean, you said, "there isn't a lens comprable to the 17-55mm (at this time) for FF bodies" and I would not thoroughly agree; the 17-55mm covers and equivelent 27-88mm range which is very close to both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Granted I understand that you either have to have a slower lens with IS or the faster one without it, but to me IS is not necessarily the answer. Each person will have to decide on that because one lens can shoot in less light as long as the subject is not moving while the other can shoot at faster. Many of my shots are of moving subjects anyway, (especially when light gets low) so it would not really benefit me too much to have IS. Just a thought.


Hope this makes sense and helps a little,


Samuel

Hi


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]I just got my 17-55mm and430EXII this weekend. Have the 28-135, 70-300 and 50 1,8 like you only different is that my camera is the 400D and I don&acute;t intend to go FF. Cash......<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]My first impression is that colors/contrast is better than mymostly jousted 28-135 and autofocus was spot on and silent. Low light indoor shot only - it has been raining for two weeks ;-(<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]There is a huge difference from 28 to 17mm on a 1,6 crop.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]Just my 2 c&acute;<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]Sorry for the english

Sorry for not responding sooner...I've been out of town. Just wanted to say thank you for all the great suggestions on the lenses. All of you have listed some great things for me to consider before putting a lot of $ into this lens. I haven't heard many cons about it other than the price &amp; dedicated status. For now, I think the best thing for me to do before getting locked into the the 17-55 EF-S lens is to rent it first--maybe even the 24-70 also. (I'll wait unitl I have another shoot scheduled and make it worth my while.)


One lens that everyone seems to agree on is the fixed 85mm 2.8, and I think this will be a sure purchase for me, and it isn't super expensive, and will work for both camera bodies.


Thanks again everyone for taking the time to reply to my post! It is helpful &amp; appreciated!


Love this forum! [:D] I'll be back...


Pamela

oops meant 85mm 1.8 ~ (or 1.2 if i save longer!)

Renting is a great idea - it is surprising how much a weekend can tell you about a lens. I think both lenses you are considering are capable of excellent results. To me there are two main differences between the lenses:


1. Range/IS. To me, the 17-55 wasn't enough reach for portrait type shots, even of the kids. I often wished I could zoom tighter. If you are mostly interested in portraits, I'd go with the 24-70 over the 17-55. If your focus is more environmental portraits, or landscapes, etc. then the 17-55 has a more useful range. IS doens't help with action on a focal length this wide- I find with the kids moving anything below 1/125s is starting to get some blur - and you don't need IS for 1/125s in this focal length range. Also - the IS doesn't handle panning, so if you are following something moving it won't help you there, either. On the other hand, IS can be great for picking up some ambient light behind a flash illuminated subject. The 17-55 was great for babies, but once they start walking it isn't as useful.


2. Build quality / size. There is definitely a trade off between weight and build quality. True, if the body isn't weather sealed you don't have a sealed package, but I still think there is some merit to having a sealed lens, even if the body isn't. Anecdotal evidence is never convincing, but I did have to get my 17-55mm serviced after the IS/aperture ring failed after about a year. My L lenses feel much better built. That said, it shouldn't be a huge factor if you don't shoot in bad weather and take good care of your equipment.


I used to have the 17-55 and eventually got a 24-105L. I had both for a long time, and rarely got out the 17-55mm, despite the faster aperture. Nothing to do with the quality of the shots, everything to do with the focal length range. When I really did want a wide lens, 17 wasn't wide enough (interior room shots, etc.). I ultimately decided to sell the 17-55 and replaced it with a 10-22mm. This isn't a simple choice, of course, since the 10-22mm + 24-xxx is almost twice the cost of just the 17-55mm. Just wanted to add my experience to the mix - keep in mind that focal length range is very personal - there are just as many who would argue the opposite: 24mm isn't wide enough for a walk around lens ona crop body...