Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS USM

[Flaming]

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

[DBECK]

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></o>


<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></o>


<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></o>


<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></o>


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

[Pamela]

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! [] I'll be back...


Pamela

[Pamela]

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

[BCalkins]

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...