dhphoto wrote:
Perhaps you should step back and chill a little goldvertigo, shouting at me won't make the lenses any better.
Every manufacturer makes some less than stellar lenses and every lens type has poor samples. I had a very low opinion of Sigma until I tried my 17-70, which is clearly a good one.
Don't dismiss every Sigma lens just because you have had a few bad experiences.
Oh, and lens focal lengths are not 'multiplied' on a crop camera, these are the 'equivalent' focal lengths on a full frame camera. A lens cannot change it's focal length (except within it's zoom range)
Here here, if you had tried my Sigma 100-300mm then you would have a different opinion of Simga entirely.
CraigLondon wrote:
One additional query if I may - I hope to use the 40D for dusk/long exposure night time shots on a tripod. Excuse the basic question, but will the f2.8 make a measurably larger difference to the f4.0 in these circumstances (i.e. in terms of picture sharpness?).
If you are doing long exposures of dusk/night subjects you almost certainly would NOT want to use the largest aperture on your lens. In these cases one is far more likely to use a smaller aperture - most likely around f/8 on your camera - and extend the exposure time.
While the lens's largest aperture is there to use if you need it (hand held in low light; getting narrowest possible DOF) you would not automatically use it in all low light situations. In the case you describe shooting at f/8 or so on the tripod will produce a generally sharper and more uniform image and will provide greater DOF.
When I do night photography I virtually never boost ISO or shoot at the largest aperture. My starting point is typically f/8 at ISO 100.
CraigLondon wrote:
..I would use the lens for general "walkaround", but with a real leaning toward landscapes, buildings, oft in B&W - and here in the UK, often in limited light conditions or at dawn/dusk/sometimes night. People/static cars etc would also be photographed, both indoors and out...
Your decision is made by the above statement. 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The 24-105 is not wide nor fast enough for what you want.
dhphoto wrote:
Whilst the 17-55IS is clearly a very good lens, it is hideously expensive in my opinion (especially in the UK, and if you buy from HK and get a duff one it's awkward)
As an alternate point of view...
The only downsides to the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS that I can see might include: competent build quality is not quite as solid as the Canon L lenses, and it only works on Canon 1.6x cropped sensor bodies.
Regarding the former, while L lenses may be more solidly constructed this lens is not exactly poorly constructed. It is actually quite fine in this regard. Regarding the latter, limitation only seems significant if you are moving very soon to full frame - and is not an issue at all if you will use a cropped sensor body for the foreseeable future.
Upsides of this lens include:
1. Image quality appears to be quite good. One of my favorite examples of this is found at slrgear.com, where you can open interactive blur charts for several of your favorite lenses and compare the results side-by-side. The EFS lens is a _better_ optical performer at all focal lengths and all apertures than either the EF 17-40mm f/4 L or the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L. I know that is difficult for many to accept - it sure surprised me - but take a look and see for yourself.
2. The focal length range is essentially idea for a general lens on a cropped sensor camera, being equivalent to something like 27mm - 88 mm on full frame. The focal length range is also wider than that on the Canon EF alternatives. (I can't speak to the third-party brands.)
3. It provides a f/2.8 maximum aperture. The only more or less equivalent Canon alternative is the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - and the EFS lens competes quite well with it wide open and throws in IS.
4. It provides image stabilization, which is not available in the alternative lenses that most would consider against this EFS lens. While we all know that the value of IS may be more or less depending on how/what you shoot, for many it is a very useful addition.
With all that in mind, it doesn't seem to me that this lens is really particularly overpriced in comparison to the lenses it competes with.
Dan, I have nothing against anyone who wants to buy a 17-55IS
I just think, from having held and examined one (not used) and having read much about it's virtues, that the Tamron or the Sigma represent just as good optical quality, without IS, for a third the price.
The 17-55 is indeed an EF-S lens, meaning anyone who wants to go to full frame or even to 1.3 crop must either sell it or leave it in their bag - you can get 3/4 of what you paid on ebay if you sell a mint Tamron or Sigma.
I just think it's a ripoff, and I've been ripped-off myself (I bought a 1Ds3 in the UK so how daft am I) but I just don't think the 17-55IS is worth it.
Take 30% off the price and I'd probably buy one though, although I'd still think that was pricey
Your points make sense regarding the alternatives, which I understand quite a few people do like. I just think that your description of the 17-55 as a "ripoff" is a bit of hyperbole. From a photographic perspective, if I shot crop (as opposed to cr@p... ;-) I'd sure take it over the 17-40 or the 16-35 for most purposes.
I have a love/hate relationship with my EF-S 17-55. My main frustration is that it is not long enough on my 40D. I find myself shooting more and more head-and-shoulder portraits and to pull that off with the 17-55 you have to get close. Normally not a problem, but friends and family find the lens+hood is intimidating and you can sense the unease as I move close for a quick candid. Because of this I have often thought of selling it.
Then I take it into an art gallery and fall in love all over again! The low light performance of this lens is outstanding, especially in places where tripods are not permitted. And here in DC, there are a LOT of places that do not permit tripods, from government buildings to museums to national monuments.
Because of the low-light versatility, I would recommend the 17-55. If you are still unsure about whether the 24-105 is the better choice, shoot with the 17-55 at 24mm @ f/4 for a couple of weeks. If you find that you're not desiring to go wider than 24mm, the aperture isn't too restrictive, and you really need to go longer, you can always sell it for a small loss and pick up the 24-105.
As for me, I bought a 85mm 1.8 for portraits, which solved my "do you mind not sticking that big thing in my face" problem.
It all comes down to how you use the lens. For me i got the 17-55 when it first came out and paid like 1700$CDN. Have gotten a lot of use out of it and the build compared to other lenses in my kit is good. Sure it is not as solid as my 70-200 and it was almost as much as it, but still has taken a beating and is still taking good photos.
17 is not wide enough for me on a crop body so I would have take a 10-22 with me anyway so I would opt for the 24-105. More range with the 10-22, and for me sharper and better contrast. The 17-... zooms really dont do anything for me.
The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is an expensive lens, not doubt about it; but in my opinion the price/value ratio makes it well worth the price.
Is it more expensive than some L-series lenses? Yes. But you're getting a wider aperture, really good glass, and image stabilization for those extra dollars. Right now, nothing else compares.
For some, the faster aperture and IS aren't worth the extra money, but for others it might be.
Some have questioned the need for IS on a short tele lens, but again it's a case of specifics. A few years ago I was shooting the wildlife at Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom. I was really enjoying shooting from the moving vehicles...until I looked at my shots on my computer. The trucks don't stop for photo ops, and the vehicle movement was clearly evident in the many blurred photos -- almost half of my shots were unusable. If I had had IS, I think the number of usable shots would have been more like 90%.
Another place where this lens would shine, in my opinion, is for candids at wedding receptions and other events where people are moving about and the photograper can't realistically use a tripod. Again, the extra stop of light gathering, the narrower depth of field (for isolating the subjects), and the IS could be worth their weight in gold.
Of course, the OP said his goal was mainly architectural shots, so IS and narrower DOF might not be justified in his case. If a 24mm maximum wide angle (38mm equivalent field of view on a 40D) will work, then the 24-105 f4L might be a good choice.
In my case, a 17-55 will stay on my 20D, and when I get my 3D in January or February I'll start collecting L-series lenses for it.
every agrees both are great lenses. its up to you to decide which focal length you are going to need. the 40D you are buying or already bought. did you get the kit or the camera separately? maybe you should try the new EF-S 18-55 IS for about $150 and see fi the focal lenght is good. i have heard great things from that lens.
17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, but has a ridiculous price here in the UK.
Heathrow duty free were selling it for 725 GB pounds...thats around $1,450 US.
The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S
the psoter above me is right..no mtter the relative merits of these wonderful items of photography gears, we are being RIPPED OFF in the most agressive and blatant manner....yet we still continue to pay these prices :-(
bluefox9er wrote:
17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, but has a ridiculous price here in the UK.
Heathrow duty free were selling it for 725 GB pounds...thats around $1,450 US.
The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S
the psoter above me is right..no mtter the relative merits of these wonderful items of photography gears, we are being RIPPED OFF in the most agressive and blatant manner....yet we still continue to pay these prices :-(
But that is not the fault of the lens but the pricing of Canon UK, so you can not fault the lens for it being priced higher where you are.
no, it's not the fault of the lens..the 17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a great elns...but at that sort of price, why SHOULDN'T it be the very best? you should be GUARANTEED a good copy, none of the dust that has plagued this lens, no distortion or pin cushioning, no fringing and no vignetting...
bluefox9er wrote:
17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, but has a ridiculous price here in the UK.
Heathrow duty free were selling it for 725 GB pounds...thats around $1,450 US.
The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S
Which suggests that this issue is not specific to the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS but general to Canon gear, right?
Aren't the alternatives also more expensive there than in the US?
I wonder what the price would be on a EF 27-90mm f/2.8 L with IS if Canon produced one? That would be the equivalent full frame lens...
bluefox9er wrote:
no, it's not the fault of the lens..the 17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a great elns...but at that sort of price, why SHOULDN'T it be the very best? you should be GUARANTEED a good copy, none of the dust that has plagued this lens, no distortion or pin cushioning, no fringing and no vignetting...
I have yet to get any of the issues that are reported like it being a vacuum, etc. There is a bit of distortion and the vignetting is pretty minimal from my experience. So far i have yet to see any other lens preform just as well.
In the end this is all semantics as only one of us owns the lens , but i would have to say the OPs question has been answered heh .
Dark_ wrote:
..but i would have to say the OPs question has been answered heh .
And as the OP, I would certainly agree! Thanks to all - very beneficial help to me in this post and looking forward to learning plenty with the 17-55mm I am going to purchase. Thanks again. Craig.
I use 24-105mm f/4 IS USM on a 30D and believe me,it's a terrific couple.IT never leave my 30d,so 20 months ago I had to buy another 30D to use it with my 70-300mm IS USM; I also have a friend that has 30D+17-55 AND we've made some tests together;17-55 is not a bad lens,but is not even close to my baby(24-105L).THE colors are more vibrant,more beautiful,the lens is moving faster to achieve focus,is weather sealed, and I think his IS is better than the one from 17-55. IT'S AN "L"!!!!!!
