dhphoto wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to show . . . the background looks very similar and so was presumably shot on a tripod.
Bingo! Point proven: A photo taken with an IS lens at the better part of 1 second shutter speed is so clear that it looks like it was taken with a tripod!
For those who don't ever wish for three more stops of handholdability (including people who don't make their living from photography), I agree with David: the IS isn't worth the price premium. If you shoot only in bright daylight, outdoors, IS is a waste on anything under than 100mm or so.
Many photographers, however, do value IS, and not just at telephoto lengths. Yakim's examples "clearly" show how far the people were able to walk through the frame while the shutter was open.
So what did you prove? That IS is good for long exposures? Yes I know that, I have several IS lenses myself and they have their uses, I never said otherwise.
But just the same shots could have been achieved using a tripod and a Tamron 17-50 for a third the price so big deal. You honestly think shots like that make the 17-55IS value for money?
Yes, but with this lens you could have achieved it without the tripod. I don't know what about you but when I go out and take my camera just in case I see anything interesting, I don't take my tripod with me. That is why I think that the added price of the Canon is worth it.
The 17-55mm is a very good lens. I have shot hundreds of weddings with a 24-105mm on my 5D, and when some equipment was out for repair I picked up a 17-55mm to use on a 40D until I got a 5D back. The image quality out of the 17-55mm/40D was every bit as good as what I was getting out of the 5D/24-105mm combo. The focus accuracy of the 40D was much better than the 5D, and the 40D was more forgiving when it came to exposure accuracy.
That being said, the 17-55mm doesn't get me wide enough, it has consumer build quality, and no weather sealing, it doesn't come with a hood and B&H wants over $50.00 for one, and its just plain stupid expensive for what it is. In my estimation its Canons attempt to force you to move to full frame in order to get a decent zoom range.
dhphoto wrote:
You honestly think shots like that make the 17-55IS value for money?
That's a cheap shot and uncalled for.
We can debate the value of particular lens features, but a) the photographs clearly illustrate a technique that one could not employ without a tripod with a non-IS lens and b) reflexively trashing the poster's aesthetic sense is a cheap argumentative device.
By the way, I do not own or use the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. However, I have gotten to know quite a bit about this lens, and I'm convinced that it is an excellent lens option for a variety of photographers shooting cropped sensor cameras.
Well Dan if you are going to post an example to try and prove a point, you have to expect that shot to get criticised if it really doesn't!
I just can't believe the cr@p that is talked about IS and especially about the IS in the 17-55IS, almost like, well, self-justification. But you re right, I thought the shots were awful and I should have kept my opinions to myself and for that I apologise
I posted this in another thread regarding the 17-55.
I'll just paste here, but my thoughts on it still stand...
I have the 17-55 for my 30D's and I must say, I am now conflicted over it.
Generally, I shoot tight. So, I'm now finding that I'm always switching out my 17-55 for my 85 or my 70-200. If you are a tight shooter like I am, the extra reach of the 24-105 is damn appealing.
Not only that, but this last weekend, I finally got into a situation where I experienced what many people have said is a detraction from the 17-55 - lens flare. I had a whole series of shots that were pretty much useless due to the lack of flare control of that lens. Granted, I was shooting almost into to the sunset from the penthouse balcony in a 20 story building, but I have shot sunsets like that before, and my 70-200 has always pulled off clean shots with very minimal flare.
Don't get me wrong, I think the 17-55 is an amazing piece of glass, but I think the O.P. really needs to think about their shooting style before taking the mob's advice here.
I had a chance to swap my 17-55 straight across for an incredibly sharp 24-105 a few months ago. More often than not these days, I regret not pulling the trigger on that deal...
dhphoto wrote:
Sorry Fred, but six hundred quid for a modest zoom range 2.8 EF-S with IS is ridiculous when Tamron can make a lens without IS with the same image quality for less than a third the price. And the Canon doesn't even come with a hood!
The 17-55IS is perhaps the best Canon example of Emperors new clothes since the awful 17-85IS
David
David,
So far your only complaint is that it is expensive in the UK. Rather than constantly bashing a lens you have never used, if you have a crop body rent it for a week and give it a fair judgment.
It has already been stated, that for some people the IS is good. For myself it is needed even on short focal length due to wrist problems after my previous job. Some people like it as they do not need to pack a tripod around with them to get the same image.
You are quite right, my bias against this lens is based on good experiences with it's (vastly cheaper) rivals and little or no first hand knowledge of the 17-55IS, just a broad distaste for paying six hundred UK pounds for a lens that will only work on crop cameras (and even then not a 1D series), that isn't particularly well made, that seems to attract dust under it's front element and that doesn't even come with a lens hood.
I have so many lenses already that I'm not minded to go and hire another, but if someone can actually *prove* to me that it's actually worth three times the price of the Tamron 17-50 I will, actually go out and buy one to show I'm impressed and then sell my Tamron and Sigma 17-70 to boot
