View Full Version : Well I did it, I bought a 17-55mm f2.8 IS
Matblack
17-07-2010, 13:02
I have a 17-55 2.8 IS on the way, admittedly second hand so a bit cheaper than the excessive new price but I've been researching lenses for a while and finally came to the conclusion that if I am going to be taking shots indoors that this is the lens for me.
Constant 2.8 3 stops of IS and L glass beating clarity, no it won't fit on a full frame but with the advent of the 7D I don't think I'll be going FF and if I do then not for a good while. it was this or the 24-105 f4 L glass which is about the same price secondhand. The 17-55 very rarely comes up I presume because those who have one keep it unless they go FF, it seems to be THE mid zoom for crop bodies.
Should be delivered on Tuesday hopefully it isn't the only thing being delivered this week so I'll have a subject to make the most of it :cool:
Consequently I think I'll be selling my Sigma 17-70 and probably the 28mm 2.8 as well, although I be keeping the 50mm 1.8 as it is such a cracking lens and much much lighter than the 17-55mm
It's a big investment but I think it will be worth it :)
MB
well you know who'll have the 28mm (and possibly the Sigma too) if you do sell it! ;)
Congratulations, can't wait to see the pics!
Congrats, I know you'll love it. I did exactly the same and went from the Sigma 17-70 to the Canon 17-55, albeit via the Sigma 24-60 which I was seriously underwhelmed by.
Enjoy :)
I wouldn't say its L beating but it is up there with the L zooms certainly.
It is the lens to get if you are on crop though.
Matblack
20-07-2010, 16:40
The build quality isn't L but the pro reviewers are saying that it competes with and in some cases beats L lenses. Don't get me wrong if I was on a FF it would be L glass all the way but this gives me 2.8, IS and its cheaper then the set of Ls I'd need to cover the range. If I could afford it I'd be using 2.8 L glass as the build is a lot better and I just love that little red ring, but the advent of the 7D means my chances of going full frame are slim so this is the lens for me at the moment. It should arrive tomorrow and we'll see if it lives up to the reviews. :)
MB
I must admit, the price of this lens makes my eyes water but I'd be interested to see the results and whether you think the IS is needed. I've always thought it to be much more use on a telephoto zoom, but I guess it will be useful for indoor shots which you'll be doing a lot of. The 17-40 L is my next lens purchase of choice and I was suprised to see it was cheaper, although you can see why with F2.8 vs F4.0 .
So is this fixed at F2.8, ie you can't click it to F8 or smaller for longer exposures?
So is this fixed at F2.8, ie you can't click it to F8 or smaller for longer exposures?
Nope, hence it's so expensive.
Stops down as far as f/22 if you're so inclined.
Stops down as far as f/22 if you're so inclined.
I don't think i've shot past f/5.6 in yearsssssssssssss. :D
I've just been leaving the camera to do its thing on Program AE recently, which tends to hover around f/8. I don't see that as a bad thing. :)
I've just been leaving the camera to do its thing on Program AE recently, which tends to hover around f/8. I don't see that as a bad thing. :)
Depends what you shoot really.
I like to control the aperture, and it is almost an addiction for me to shoot at shallow apertures. In some ways a challenge to shoot at shallow and nail it.
But i mainly shoot people though.
Whereas I mainly don't shoot people (unless I've been roped in to cover office events - done a few of those now and I'm now referred to as "resident photographer"). The bill's in the post! ;D
I'm still confused. So it's not fixed at F2.8?
Why is it expensive, just because it goes as shallow as 2.8?
I'm still confused. So it's not fixed at F2.8?
Why is it expensive, just because it goes as shallow as 2.8?
it is, its a "constant aperture", 2.8 at all focal length.
it is expensive mostly because it can do 2.8 and a zoom.
Add the quality of the glass (sharpness), and the IS.
If I shoot 7D instead of the 5D, i would get one too.
As Mondo says, it's f/2.8 to f/22 throughout the entire zoom range. Most lenses stop down as you zoom in, but this one doesn't. That's optically more complicated, and thus expensive, to do.
I'd probably go for the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6. Seems to come a close second to the 17-55 and suits my (outdoor) needs a little better for a little less cost. Borrowed one for a month and want my own! :)
As Mondo says, it's f/2.8 to f/22 throughout the entire zoom range. Most lenses stop down as you zoom in, but this one doesn't. That's optically more complicated, and thus expensive, to do.
Ah ok, I understand now.
Matblack
23-07-2010, 16:37
Ah ok, I understand now.
2.8 lets in a lot of light but is also reduces DoF which is great and I use it a lot to draw attention to the subject and blur out the background. Letting in a lot of light also allows the cameras auto focus to work better and be more accurate additionally a camera only closes down the iris to the higher f numbers when it takes the shot and unless you use the DoF preview button you'll always see the view at the lowest f stop, having 2.8 means you have a brighter viewfinder which is nice when composing shots :cool:
Here is one I took earlier
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs191.snc4/37892_415091041355_623516355_5201128_4094333_n.jpg
MB
Matblack
26-07-2010, 09:53
I really like this lens, it feels very solid on the 40D and balances it nicely, the range is very good and I am not noticing the loss of 20mm off the long end at the moment although I am shooting most inside at the moment. Some people would probably say that IS isn't needed on a mid zoom like this but I am finding that it really help me when shooting in doors and I can use a faster ISO or a slower speed where usually I would be compromising on noise for speed, this IS is pretty much silent and it wasn't until I did some test shots that I realised it was working as I expected it to cause a noticeable change in the viewfinder.
The optics are as sharp as any lens I have owned including the 50mm and detail is pretty sumptuous.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs190.snc4/37848_415812436355_623516355_5222441_3391704_n.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img203/6968/img3272m.jpg
All in all I believe that the cost was worth it, second hand this lens cost as much as you 40D body but with no sign of Canon moving away from the 1.6 crop sensor I think I'll be using this for a good while yet!
MB
So another noob question: with a crop sensor like yours and mine, when you buy a 17-55 do you actually get 17-55mm or do you get something 22-70 when you shoot with it? It's something that keeps confusing me with crop sensors. Or are there different lenses for full frame and crop?
So basically if I spend all my savings on a 12mm lens and stick it on my 350D do I get 12mm or do I get about 17mm, which I almost get with the 18-55 kit lens?
You're right, the nominal focal length of a lens, in this case 17-55mm, is relative to a full-frame (i.e. 35mm) sensor. If used on a crop, this thus equates to 1.6x the length, so roughly 27-88mm. You don't get different lenses for different sensors in terms of focal length ratings, but some lenses, like Canon's EFS range, only work on crop sensor cameras.
If you buy a 12mm lens then yes, on a crop camera it'll be the same as 17mm would on a full-frame camera. This isn't what you get with your 18-55 though as that would equate to 29-88 :)
Remember that, whilst equating 12mm to 17mm makes it sound far less impressive, 17mm on a full frame sensor is still very wide angle indeed. The wide angle choice of Canon pros on full frame sensors is the 16-35 :)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.