Thoughts?

[Kayaker72]

Hi all,


I was wondering if I could get some opinions from all of you. My current "kit" is primarily the EFS 15-85 and EF 100-400L. I really enjoy both of those lenses. But listening to many of you comment about the EFS 17-55 f/2.8, I have wondered. This morning I checked out the sale at Lensrentals.com andthe EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is availablefor ~$700. A great deal, but I am not sure I should make the jump.Iwould see the 17-55as my third lens, low light general purpose, but not replacing the 15-85 as I don't want to give up the 55-85 focal length rangewith my next lens starts at 100 mm. I had planned on my next purchases to be a flash and either the 85 mm f/1.8 or 100 mm macro (either L or non-L). But I am tempted by this deal.


Any thoughts or opinions? Right now I am slightly leaning towards "no"....but I came as close as having it in my "shopping cart" about 20 minutes ago.


Thank you in advance, and again, Happy Thanksgiving.


Brant

[Steven23]

thats a good price if the lens is in good shape. I wouldn

[Sean Setters]

Brant-


I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and it is my main go-to lens (I own 3 zooms and 3 primes). It is the best general purpose lens for a crop sensor. Even though it has a wide maximum aperture, however, I wouldn't consider it a "low light" lens. By my experience, it tends to hunt for focus when the ambient light is dim. Therefore, the 85mm f/1.8 you mentioned may fit your needs better (that is, assuming you have the room to work with it).


That said, it is indeed a very good price--and the lens is well worth the investment if it's going to be used.

[markcoons]

I

[neuroanatomist]

I own the 17-55 and highly recommend it...but not for you.


Why? You have a huge focal range - 15mm to 400mm - covered, but that

[Sheiky]

It remains one heck of a deal though! Considering it

[Kayaker72]

Thanks all. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.


I am off the ledge and will stick to my original plan of a flash and then either the 85 mm f/1.8 or one of the 100 mm macro lenses. I'll look at the 35 mm f/2 a little more and maybe add it to the list.


Jan, I appreciate your feedback. The bottom line is that I am not going to sell the 15-85. I use that full range constantly when I am shooting.I do wonder a little if I had the EFS 17-55 if I would begin to prefer it over the 15-85. Butright now I thinkthe 17-55 f/2.8 would have been used as a third zoom when I wanted to play with DOF or shoot in low light. I think I'll be able to accomplish that with a flash and some faster primes.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img](although I have no clue what it is about [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img])
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

[]You'd like it.A lot of good food, football on a Thursday (our kind offootball, of course) and a little bit of time toacknowledgethe people and things for which we are thankful. This is a very international forum, so thanks for rolling with those of us from the USA on this one.


Thanks again,


Brant

[Sheiky]

Brant, the 17-55 is an amazing lens and the aperture allows you to be very creative with depth of field. So that's the advantage.


This disadvantage is the focal range. If you're willing to give up the 15-16mm I think you cannot go wrong with the 17-55.


You could even sell your 15-85 for an 85mm prime to cover up the gap from 55-100, just a thought [A]


Good luck with whatever choice you make!


Happy Thanksgiving to you too! [](although I have no clue what it is about [:P])


Jan