Well I did it, I bought a 17-55mm f2.8 IS - Page 2

Mark · 21-07-2010, 22:58

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.

Mondo · 21-07-2010, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

Mark · 21-07-2010, 23:34

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!

Jonny69 · 22-07-2010, 12:12

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?

Mondo · 22-07-2010, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonny69

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.

Mark · 22-07-2010, 22:29

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!

Jonny69 · 23-07-2010, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonny69

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

Here is one I took earlier

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.

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

Jonny69 · 27-07-2010, 17:47

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?

22-07-2010, 12:12	#14
Jonny69 Noob Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Socialist Republik of Kent Posts: 5,032	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? __________________

26-07-2010, 09:53	#19
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	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. 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 __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

27-07-2010, 17:47	#20
Jonny69 Noob Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Socialist Republik of Kent Posts: 5,032	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? __________________

21-07-2010, 22:58	#11
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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.

21-07-2010, 23:34	#13
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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!

22-07-2010, 22:29	#16
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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!