Hmm,
17-55mm is 3000pln ($900) out here, which I think is cheaper than in the USA (for once the downward euro has some use to me...)
the canon 10-22mm is a bit cheaper at around 2800pln ($850), but the f is higher...
But rereading the review on that 17-55mm, it seems like that lens just rocks..
I'm going to agree with neuro and his never ending quest to guide people to the light at the end of the tunnel that is the 17-55mm. Can't go wrong with that lens. Especially if you're used to the kit lens.
Originally Posted by mikehillman89
Yes, you can go wrong with that lens. The 17-55 is not a truly durable lens - the IS unit has "issues" after being handled a fair amount. Both times I've rented the 17-55, it's had a jerky IS unit (and both times, LensRentals has taken excellent care of me). And, if a 1D or a full-frame body is in your future, the 17-55 will be somewhat obsoleted at that point.
Yes, IF your shutter speeds are in the range of 1/10th to 1/50th. If you're trying to stop-action with people, you need higher shutter speeds anyway.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Lensrentals.com's failure rate probably not the best way to judge lens durability. Granted, the fact that they stock >50 of them gives them good experience with the lens. However, they stock >50 of them because it's a very popular lens, for a reason. In general, rentals have a significantly higher failure rate than purchased products - they are transported more frequently, and used by people who don't have a vested interest in protecting their investment (especially since the damage insurance is relatively cheap to add). The 17-55mm is a very well-built lens. No, it's not L-quality build, despite the L-quality images it produces (and the L-like cost).
The OP has a 400D with a kit lens (18-55mm). It's hard to imagine a less durable lens than the 18-55mm kit lenses, with their plastic mounts and low/mid-grade plastic barrels (maybe the 50mm f/1.8 II comes close). Point is, if the OP has kept that lens in usable shape since buying the 400D, the 17-55mm will hold up just fine.
Yes, IF your shutter speeds are in the range of 1/10th to 1/50th. If you're trying to stop-action with people, you need higher shutter speeds anyway.
Peety3, you initially recommended the 17-40mm f/4L. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a stop faster, and has a wider range. Even so, it's not going to freeze people in dim environments. But, it's quite possible to shoot 'still' scenes with the 17-55mm handheld at night. I have a handheld shot with that lens with barely perceptible motion blur (can't see it on the 8x10" print, but it's there if I zoom to 100%) - I wanted to get nice water blur of a lit fountain at night, and the exposure was 1.6 seconds. That sort of shot would be impossible with either the 17-40mm f/4L or the 16-35mm f/2.8L.
Only if the 1.6x crop is gotten rid of. When I get a FF body, I'll be keeping my crop body - and I'll want the 17-55mm to use one it. Also, the OP is talking about a forthcoming upgrade to the T2i/550D - a very nice body, to be sure. But, there are generally a lot of upgrade steps between a Rebel and FF. I would think a few years' use (through multiple 1.6x bodies) of a great lens like the 17-55mm will be more than enough to recoup the value from that lens.
Yes, IF your shutter speeds are in the range of 1/10th to 1/50th. If you're trying to stop-action with people, you need higher shutter speeds anyway.
Of course IS wont help you stop action. But the OP wants to do night photography with no flash. Probably won't be stopping much fast action
You have steady hands, dude. My best with the 24-105 (similar effective fl, though perhaps with inferior IS) is about 1/2 second.
2.8 still isn't that fast. For what you are considering paying for the 16-35L (which is awesome on a FF) you can get the 17-55 2.8 and a 50 1.4 or Sigma 30 1.4 (for night shooting).
looks like a 17-55mm lens is what I need to get []
I'd tell you to look at the refurb line of Canon at Adorama and save $200, but the last time I looked (which had been a couple days at least), it listed the 17-55 refurb as discontinued. I'm not sure how to take that. They usually have it or they don't. The "discontinued" threw me for a loop. Maybe I just caught them in-between updates on the server.
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
Probably just means that they had a refurb, someone bought it, and the system was waiting for the sale to go through, or something like that. In any case they don't have a refurb 17-55mm currently. Of course, it doesn't matter to the OP, since I'm not sure buying from Adorama in New York and having it shipped to Poland would be cost-effective.
Not to mention that based on the exchange rate, it's cheaper new in Poland than Adorama would charge for a refurb anyway!
I remembered reading the first page before and just skipped to the second. After making my post, I went back to read the first end again and it all came back to meOh well. Thanks for keeping me honest.
I guess that would have been me... I waited for about a week and a half for it to show up at my doorstep. I finally went back to my in box and look at the invoice to see when it was shipped only it wasn't a shipping date, but a refund for the lens as they oversold the lens and issued refunds to everyone. I wonder if I can write off a trip to Poland on my taxes to pick up a lens?
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote