dhphoto wrote:
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
How about this challenge instead. You prove to me that it attracts dust under the front element. I work in the Oil and Gas industry here in Alberta and have put my lens through a hell of a lot of abuse and there is no dust in it. I have also taken it out in mild stand storms down in Drumheller taking photos of the Hoo-Doos, yet no dust.
Again you are still judging the lens on its price against competitors that do not offer the same features, namely IS/OS or constant f/2.8 . And yes it is not made for a 1 series body, but neither is your Tamron 17-50mm right from them (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp)
Di II: Lenses are designed for exclusive use on digital cameras with smaller-size imagers and inherit all of the benefits of our Di products. These lenses are not designed for conventional cameras and digital cameras with image sensors larger than 24mm x 16mm.
Your Sigma 17-70 is not a constant f/2.8 through out the whole zoom range, again different feature set. It also is not built for a 1 series body from Sigma (http://www.sigmaphoto.com).
DC (DC Lens)
These are special lenses designed so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras, the compact and lightweight construction is an added bonus ! including compact and lightweight construction.
So please stop bashing a lens you know nothing about, or have not used. Or at least lets start making an informed judgment.
Prove to me it's that good, it should be easy at that price, no?
so far I've seen no examples that would show why anyone would choose that lens over the OP's other option of 24-105L, so if the 17-55IS is that brilliant a lens it shouldn't be hard to show good it is.
dhphoto wrote:
Prove to me it's that good, it should be easy at that price, no?
so far I've seen no examples that would show why anyone would choose that lens over the OP's other option of 24-105L, so if the 17-55IS is that brilliant a lens it shouldn't be hard to show good it is.
you are avoiding what i said. In the end without having the 24-105 i can not compare them or either Sigma or Tamron. Also in relation to the OP's question he asked between the two Canon lenses and neither of the 3rd party ones. Also add to that most have already said that 24 on a 1.6x body would most likely not be wide enough.
In the end it is all semantics trying to talk to you, as your hang-up is and always will be the price of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. You want us to justify your purchases over this lens and also the price of it as it does not come white with a nice red ring around it.
I only have one L to compare it to, and in the end it is of a different focal length and needed for a different purpose.
Why won't you put your money where your mouth is and post some super 17-55IS samples? I've got a 24-105L and a 24-70L and I know how good those lenses are (the 24-105L not so much actually, 24-70L is superb)
I honestly want to be convinced. I have nothing against the 17-55IS except it's price and the fact everyone says it is so good but won't back it up
I think it is brand loyalty taken to the extreme - you've paid a fortune for it and you're darn well not going to have someone diss your pride and joy - but HONESTLY I'd like a good excuse to spend the money, but so far I haven't seen one
I love Canon lenses, I've got dozens of them, but in this particualar category I bought my only two non-Canon optics, the Sigma and the Tamron, please show me the error of my ways
dhphoto wrote:
Why won't you put your money where your mouth is and post some super 17-55IS samples? I've got a 24-105L and a 24-70L and I know how good those lenses are (the 24-105L not so much actually, 24-70L is superb)
I honestly want to be convinced. I have nothing against the 17-55IS except it's price and the fact everyone says it is so good but won't back it up
I think it is brand loyalty taken to the extreme - you've paid a fortune for it and you're darn well not going to have someone diss your pride and joy - but HONESTLY I'd like a good excuse to spend the money, but so far I haven't seen one
I love Canon lenses, I've got dozens of them, but in this particualar category I bought my only two non-Canon optics, the Sigma and the Tamron, please show me the error of my ways
Brand loyalty? Not a chance (I currently own two Sigma's and had a third before an upgrade two years ago), you ask me to put my money where my mouth is, i have said the same to you and you still have not either. According to your profile you are a pro of 30 years, I am just a hobbyist that does some portraits, but mainly wildlife and flora. So nothing I have will do the lens justice, but in the end anything you do with your gear will show the experience differences.
So again why don't you pick on something else other than the price and hearsay to bash the lens with. As so far what you have posted I have refuted with fact from the 3rd party lens makers websites.
I don't actually understand much of your post, but I did get that you own the 17-55IS but don't think your samples are good enough to post, which I doubt, you're here and you obviously buy expensive lenses
I have a beef about this particular lens because I think it's stupidly expensive and no-one will show me why not. I don't think that's all that unreasonable, I really don't, this is a gear forum and I'm genuinely interested.
BTW I did post some quick samples above, which almost no-one else did. Here's another sample I've posted here before, Tamron 17-50, 450D, ISO 800 wide open, unsurprisingly, no IS
dhphoto wrote:
I have a beef about this particular lens because I think it's stupidly expensive and no-one will show me why not.
I'm assuming you want a reason as to the cost.
It's 2.8 throughout the range, IS, and contains L glass (2 Ultra-low Dispersion elements). It has a polycarbonate housing. That's monumentally worse than Mg-alloy? This last weekend I went to look at a 24-105. I could have sworn the housing was polycarbonate, and not metal.
The prowess of the 17-55 is well documented across the Internet, so if you are looking for examples, you most certainly should be able to find them.
I don't understand why you are on such a rampage about this, David. Does a lens have to have a red ring in order to be expensive? Personally, I'm paying for the optics of a lens, not its paint job.
Some people like to drive Corvettes - to me, they are just an over-priced Chevy in a plastic housing, but undeniably can hold their own with the other gamut of "super cars". Does that make them only worth the value of a Kia?
Regarding the pictures you have posted above here with the off-brand lenses, I'm personally not "wowed" by them. That is in *no way* a comment of your skills, but purely from an interpretation of what has been presented; to me, they all look soft, and the picture of the hall/museum has noticeable barrel distortion.
dhphoto wrote:
I honestly want to be convinced. I have nothing against the 17-55IS except it's price and the fact everyone says it is so good but won't back it up
I think it is brand loyalty taken to the extreme - you've paid a fortune for it and you're darn well not going to have someone diss your pride and joy - but HONESTLY I'd like a good excuse to spend the money, but so far I haven't seen one
I love Canon lenses, I've got dozens of them, but in this particualar category I bought my only two non-Canon optics, the Sigma and the Tamron, please show me the error of my ways...Show more →
I dont think buying the Siggy or Tammy is an error. It's a choice. I started with the 17-70 Siggy, but hated the barrel distortion, and my wife couldnt use it b/c she's terrible at hand-holding. So, I bought the 17-55 and havent looked back. I thought it was an excellent value.
Like I said, its a choice. If people want to spend the money on a 17-55, they can. If they want to spend it on the Tammy or Siggy, they can.
I don't understand why there has to be justification of cost?
First: Define "three times as good" in lens terms. What is your standard of "proof" and how is it measured? Would you agree that a lens that is somewhat better can be worth twice as much? Would you say that the 50mm f/1.4 is 7 or 8 times better than the 50mm f/1.8? Why or why not? Is a long L tele zoom prime twice as good as a shorter L tele zoom prime?
Get my drift?
"I have a beef about this particular lens because I think it's stupidly expensive and no-one will show me why not." You are welcome to that opinion. Others are welcome to the opinion that compared to the typical prices for lenses with similar features and performance it is not a bad deal at all.
And, have you looked at the slrgrear.com interactive blur charts for this and equivalent L lenses yet? I think I dropped the link here earlier, perhaps more than once.
dhphoto wrote:
If someone can actually *prove* to me that the 17-55 IS is actually worth three times the price of the Tamron 17-50 I will, actually go out and buy one to show I'm impressed.
RalphJ wrote on page 3:
The Canon 24-105 w/IS costs three times as much as the Tamron 24-135 w/o IS and they have about the same rating in the review section...
Let's put those two thoughts together: dphoto, can you *prove* that your 24-105 is actually worth three times the cost of the 24-135?
As I said I have no good examples of this lens, one I am holidays and do not pack around all my photos and two I only use it in low light situations sometimes. And when I do it is with a higher ISO so I am not relying on the IS so much.
dhphoto wrote:
Why won't you put your money where your mouth is and post some super 17-55IS samples? I've got a 24-105L and a 24-70L and I know how good those lenses are (the 24-105L not so much actually, 24-70L is superb)
Firstly, if the 24-105 isn't superb why did you buy it at £600 when the 24-70 is a similar price. The 24-70 is obviously soo much better, its got 2.8 and good IQ. But I guarentee you bought it because it has a nicer range and IS. Well the 17-55 IS has superb IQ and fantastic handling in my opinion and my images show this also. Below is an image I took recently in cornwall and a 100% crop to go with it. It is not the sharpest of my pictures largely due to my technique but it is a photo I like none the less.
dhphoto wrote:
I think it is brand loyalty taken to the extreme - you've paid a fortune for it and you're darn well not going to have someone diss your pride and joy
I certainly don't care where my lenses come from. I am in the process of buying a Sigma 10-20 at the moment and have no wish to fork up for the Canon. When I was with the Sony system I had 1 Sony lens and 4 Sigma lenses during my stay. I simply moved to Canon to get the best. The 17-55 is the best and I am a proud owner and I thoroughly believe it was worth it.
I traded my 24-105 for the 17-55. IMHO they have the same IQ. Excellent sharpness but only so-so flare resistance.
Lance Couture wrote:
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.
I agree. In these cases I switch to the 10-22 and crop later. The 10-22 is 100% flare proof. I am amazed each time I use it.
dhphoto wrote:
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
Anyone up to the challenge?
David
Which proof would be admissible to you? I'm with Dan here. Here is a wide open shot I took with it. Would you believe me that it is as sharp at 100% or will the other 100% crops uploaded here do?
danmitchell wrote:
First: Define "three times as good" in lens terms. What is your standard of "proof" and how is it measured? Would you agree that a lens that is somewhat better can be worth twice as much? Would you say that the 50mm f/1.4 is 7 or 8 times better than the 50mm f/1.8? Why or why not? Is a long L tele zoom prime twice as good as a shorter L tele zoom prime?
I feel I should reiterate, I know the 17-55IS is a good lens, the photozone.de review (although somewhat patchy) and the other reviews here tell me so and I would like the excuse to buy one, I really would.
But I need to see that it is that much better than what I have, which are two very good lenses, both without IS that do the business at a third the price each
I have of course searched pbase and other places for samples but you can't get any real impression that way, so why not ask here, where the lens has such a loyal fanbase?
I'm honestly not trying to be contrary, I just want to be convinced
Show me that it's worth the extra over the Tamron for instance, that for sheer optical quality it's significantly better, or the focus or contrast is better and that I wouldn't be paying 2/3rds extra for IS and a Canon logo (and no lens hood)
Well, I don't think that the sheer optical quality it's significantly better. The copy of 17-50 I played with was only marginally inferior to my 17-55 and you had to look at 100% crops to see it. If IQ is your major consideration and if IS and Ring USM are only minor considerations to you then I think it's safe to say that for you, the Canon is indeed not worth it. Than again, I - like many others - consider IS and Ring USM as major advantages so for us, the Canon is well worth the added price.
If you can't see the advantages of the 17-55 IS and don't feel it is neccesary over your tammy or siggy then thats fine.
If you want one, get one.
Its just fantastic in lowlight though.
I moved to Canon for many reasons but mainly because of this lens and the 70-200L 2.8 IS and so getting them was the whole part of my plan - I didn't want anything 2nd Grade or that I could have had with the Sony.
you are avoiding what i said. In the end without having the 24-105 i can not compare them or either Sigma or Tamron. Also in relation to the OP's question he asked between the two Canon lenses and neither of the 3rd party ones. Also add to that most have already said that 24 on a 1.6x body would most likely not be wide enough.
