Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

[USLatin]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

Has anyone used this lens?

I am trying to find out about the focus ring. It seems a bit small but I am just concerned with how it feels and finding out how long of a throw there is on it.

[mhood]

Should I be concerned that it is only for APS-C cameras? If "body flipping" takes me to a full frame, I'd be stuck with a very expensive EF-S lens wouldn't I?

[cameron12x]

Has this lens been compared for sharpness and IQ to the 17-40mm F4L? Other than the IS, the nominal extra reach, and the single-stop of speed, how do the two lenses stack up?

[Rakesh Jacob]

Absolutely mhood
Can only be used with 1.6x crop APS-C.
No Full Frame
No APS-H 1.3x crop

[mico]

Should I be concerned that it is only for APS-C cameras? If "body flipping" takes me to a full frame, I'd be stuck with a very expensive EF-S lens wouldn't I?

No. Check ebay. These lenses sell for almost what the retail price is. APS-c will be here for a long time.

[Humanoid Typhoon]

This lens is one of the sharpest canon has. It's actually regarded as an "L" without the red ring.

A must have if you have an APS-C camera. I had this lens when I had a crop cam and loved it.

[USLatin]

No. Check ebay. These lenses sell for almost what the retail price is. APS-c will be here for a long time.

My thoughts exactly. Especially considering this:


This lens is one of the sharpest canon has. It's actually regarded as an "L" without the red ring.

So about the focus ring, has anyone gotten their hands on one before?

[mhood]

I had this lens when I had a crop cam and loved it.

It's that word "had" that bothers me. The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L is beginning to sound like a "must have" to me.

[USLatin]

I also would get the 35mm, and the 24mm if I could. But that is three times the cost with only a normal length. So you can't compare them apples to apples.

This is a "full range" f/2.8 L-series quality zoom that is sharp at f/2.8. If anything I'd say this and the 35mm would make a great pair. But that is still $2,500 in lenses with no long portrait. Add $500 for a 100mm f/2.0 and you are at $3,000 in lenses.

There has to be someone out there than knows about the focus ring...

[Kholi]

It's not going to have a pull worthy focus wheel. And I'd wager no hard stops. My suggestions would be to buy a zoom under the pretense that either you're not pulling focus on it often or you're really good at pullig by hand and eye while operating.

I haven't used this lens but I've used Zooms extensively and they all are about the same.

Explore your options outside of canon as well if you're looking for an all puprose.

Mhood: don't think too much about it. I feel the first an most important lens in any arsenal is either the 35mm or 24mm. I would highly recommend grabbing a great 35/1.4 first out of any lens. Then a cheap learner zoom or even the kit lens.

[Humanoid Typhoon]

The rest of the sentence answers why I no longer have it ;). Its HAD because I couldn't use it on my 5d classic.

If you have a crop camera and like zoom lenses, 17-55 2.8 IS is really a must have.

As for the focus ring, I never did manual focus back then so I can't comment accurately on that.

If anyone talks bad about the 17-55 2.8 IS optically, they've never shot with one. An impressive lens to say the least. I have heard of a few with dust issues (that never show in the pics) and some with IS dying suddenly though.

[USLatin]

I just called Samy's Camera and they said they have a demo on hand. I should go check it out.


Explore your options outside of canon as well if you're looking for an all puprose.

What are your recommendations? It really doesn't have to include zooms other than the Tokina.

I was considering getting the Tokina with the 35mm f/1.4 and a 100mm... despite the immense jumps in perspective. Perhaps I could put up with it and later add the 50mm and the 24mm, if I started getting steady still photography work to justify them.

[Kholi]

The 17-55 sounds like a great lens if you can condition yourself to pull focus on it when needed.

Them an 85mm or 100mm.

What you leap in perspective you can make up by recomposing.

The 17-55 also retains value. Always invest in somehing that will recoup investment through use then secondly through resale.

[USLatin]

The 17-55 sounds like a great lens if you can condition yourself to pull focus on it when needed.

Them an 85mm or 100mm.

Good, I am glad to hear you like my idea... wonder how that zoom will pull though.

What 100mm would you get?


Always invest in somehing that will recoup investment through use then secondly through resale.

Certainly. I feel safe with the Tokina, as well as the 17-55, but I have no clue if the 100mm f/2 is going to be considered a good investment.

[Kholi]

100 is an obsurce focal length believeit or not. Maybe get an 85 or 135.

The zoom is gonna be a learning experience. Just have to expect it and spend the time learning.

[USLatin]

That's what this is all about. I just hope it won't be prohibitive. I should try to get to Samy's as soon as I can.

Maybe what I seem to like is something slightly longer than 85mm. Guessing that since 85mm's are common, then maybe I find something a little longer makes as a bit different/special. Not sure.

I know about recomposing the shot, but the amount of background visible behind foreground objects changes. And perhaps I notice a bit more compression on their faces. That is what I mean by perspective. I guess those are the only two things that change despite re framing a shot.

I also seem to like 135mm's, but 100's more. Though this preference of mine isn't terribly defined.

What 85's would you look at/have?

[Emanuel]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

Has anyone used this lens?

I am trying to find out about the focus ring. It seems a bit small but I am just concerned with how it feels and finding out how long of a throw there is on it.Roberto,

There's some distortion on the wide end, enough for a better choice towards the 10-22mm or even the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

Beyond that, IS and its L class sharpness make it a no-brainer.

E. :-)

[mhood]

How important is the 2.8? The 10-22 3.5-4.5 USM is well reviewed...can it work in available light?

[squig]

I wouldn't get anything slower than f/2.8 for an APS-C body, f/2.8 being the sweet spot for cine-like DOF on a 1.6x crop sensor. I'm considering getting one myself for the IS and using it with my blackbird stabilizer but I'm not sure I want to part with my nikkor primes for one.

[Boz]

I'm sticking with the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0. The 7D body alone was a stretch for me cost wise, so I personally can't drop another $1400 on a single lens... wish I could. For less than $300 the 35mm f/2.0 will do me fine...

... or should I cough up a few extra bucks and pick up the Sigma 30mm 1.4? Not tremendously more expensive and even lower light. Thoughts?

http://www.adorama.com/SG3014EOS.html

[squig]

you can get a nikkor ai 35mm f/2 prime for like $120 on ebay....pentax takumar glass for even less.

[John Froton]

Roberto,

You might consider the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8

Pros -
better build
sharper a bit on the end ranges
much less dust prone than the 17-55mm
slighlty wider

Cons -
Shorter zoom
heavier build

[USLatin]

Roberto,

You might consider the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8

Pros -
better build
sharper a bit on the end ranges
much less dust prone than the 17-55mm
slighlty wider

Cons -
Shorter zoom
heavier build

Hey John!

Forgot about the price. :)

The idea behind the zoom is to have a lens that can left on the camera for long periods and it also happens to be the only with this range.

I am however quite worried about dust... even if it is not supposed to affect the image in a noticeable way.

This is hard... it might be easier once I can narrow down my exact budget.

[shrigg]

much less dust prone than the 17-55mm

How is it less dust-prone? Please explain.

[Vascilli]

How is it less dust-prone? Please explain.
The 17-55mm is known for becoming fairly dusty. I think it's just people overreacting, but people have gone so far as to create tutorials on how to take the lens apart to clean it. (Most of the dust accumulates near the front) The 16-35mm f/2.8L II has weather sealing (Rubber gaskets, etc) and will stay dust-free.

[John Froton]

How is it less dust-prone? Please explain.

I only say this based on some reviews stating that dust tends to get into this particular lens much more than should be acceptable. I think it has to do with a less solid build but do not know any specific details.

Beyond that, it seems to be a good lens for the money, especially considering the focal range and f/2.8 aperture. Just not quite as good as a few of the higher priced Canon lenses out there -- or so I would assume. There are quite a few out there who claim it to be the best walk around lens in it's class for DSLRs.

[USLatin]

As far as I understand it is because of the lack of weather sealing that is added to the L-Series. And perhaps it isn't that much of a problem, but perhaps a perception deal when people expect it to perform like an L since it basically is an L lens. They just get carried away.

What I want to know is if there is something I can do to seal it. :huh: Though I guess there isn't a simple way which doesn't hurt the resale value, or service-ability of the lens. Otherwise there would be a tutorial on that. Am I wrong?

[FatDaddy]

Roberto,

You might consider the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8

Pros -
better build
sharper a bit on the end ranges
much less dust prone than the 17-55mm
slighlty wider

Cons -
Shorter zoom
heavier build


Another con would be no IS, but I have made my decision not to go with the 17-55. It is an EF-S lens and I know the next version of the 5D will have the bells and whistles and more. Want to invest in glass that will work on a variety of cameras and that means and EF or L lens. Heck, the 1D Mark 4 is coming and who knows what goodness that will have (the price is high, but compared to video?).

I think I will go with a couple of EF primes and a cheap zoom and rent L lenses for bigger jobs. The 16-35 II is a nice lens for almost the same price, minus a little zoom range and IS.

[mhood]

That's what I did (EF USM primes and the 28-135 kit zoom) but I am stumped for something fast and wide that is either prime or non EF-S....that doesn't cost more than the 7D.

[John Froton]

The 16-35mm f/2.8 is a great fast and wide.

also the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is a great zoom

The combination of both will cover a great deal of shots. Both are fast and give solid results.

[USLatin]

How many of you would get the Tokina and the 24-70mm f/2.8 in my scenario?

PROS
_ Resale! FF, Perfect for FF, Popular
_ Only a few hundred more
_ Should be a nice "hold me over" for portraits!!! :)
_ No vignetting at all with APS-C
_ Very close focus
_ 24mm to 16mm jump shouldn't be astronomical

CONS

_ Wide end will hurt
_ Just a tad heavier (0.67lbs)
_ 24mm to 16mm jump isn't small at all

What am I missing?

[Humanoid Typhoon]

I'm sticking with the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0. The 7D body alone was a stretch for me cost wise, so I personally can't drop another $1400 on a single lens... wish I could. For less than $300 the 35mm f/2.0 will do me fine...

... or should I cough up a few extra bucks and pick up the Sigma 30mm 1.4? Not tremendously more expensive and even lower light. Thoughts?

http://www.adorama.com/SG3014EOS.html

I've had a sigma 30 1.4. Fantastic lens. Just get a good copy and you'll be happy with it.

[USLatin]

Can you really get this shallow with the 24-70mm f/2.8L?

It is a tad too tight though... but:
Supposedly APS-C (350D), 54mm, f/2.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/protomesh/3829695828/in/pool-24-70l
Supposedly APS-C (350D), 70mm, f/2.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/protomesh/3828895401/in/pool-24-70l

It doesn't seem to make people look very alive though. :)

[FatDaddy]

How many of you would get the Tokina and the 24-70mm f/2.8 in my scenario?

PROS
_ Resale! FF, Perfect for FF, Popular
_ Only a few hundred more
_ Should be a nice "hold me over" for portraits!!! :)
_ No vignetting at all with APS-C
_ Very close focus
_ 24mm to 16mm jump shouldn't be astronomical

CONS

_ Wide end will hurt
_ Just a tad heavier (0.67lbs)
_ 24mm to 16mm jump isn't small at all

What am I missing?

I think it should be a good lens. I had the Tamron 28-75 on a Nikon D70 shooting stills and it was a nice lens for the price. I use this website to look up Canon lenses (they also have Tamron and Sigma reviews): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Also try borrowlenses.com and see about rentals. Some of these go pretty cheap for rental, so you can test some before you buy.

[FatDaddy]

Here are two galleries I shot with the D70 and Tamron 28-75 2.8 in Africa
http://JohnGyovai.zenfolio.com/p539231376/slideshow
http://JohnGyovai.zenfolio.com/p980823729/slideshow

[iniosante]

Amen- I love the Sigma 30mm f1.4

[studio1972]

As far as I understand it is because of the lack of weather sealing that is added to the L-Series. And perhaps it isn't that much of a problem, but perhaps a perception deal when people expect it to perform like an L since it basically is an L lens. They just get carried away.

What I want to know is if there is something I can do to seal it. :huh: Though I guess there isn't a simple way which doesn't hurt the resale value, or service-ability of the lens. Otherwise there would be a tutorial on that. Am I wrong?

Don't try to seal it, you will probably end up damaging it. I have one of these lenses. Been used at about 30 weddings now. It has gathered some dust inside but it doesn't have any effect on the images at all!

BTW, it is tack sharp as already mentioned, great lens!

[USLatin]

Thanks studio. I decided to go with the 24-70 since I can't get additional lenses right now and the portrait range is a bit more important to me right now. Together with the ultra wide Tokina I will get the best coverage for my budget and my immediate needs.

I'll rent the 85mm f/1.2 as needed, and if I need to shoot more serious narrative on this camera I'll try to rent ZF's or something like that.

Thanks to everyone that's been helping me! :beer:

[sdewitt]

So this is not a concern (from Canon website re: this lens) -

*Note: Only compatible With the 20D, 30D, Digital Rebel, Rebel XT,

I assume that is just old info that has not been updated?

[Stephen Mick]

This lens (17-55 f2.8 EF-S) WILL WORK fine with the 7D. It's what I've got on my 7D, and it's a killer lens. Expensive, but it really feels like an "L" lens, just without the red ring.

--SM

[sdewitt]

I am thinking of exchanging the EF 24-70 F2.8 for this one. I know I'll lose the future FF possibility,and the weather proofing, but it seems that since I am mostly shooting video the IS will be really helpful. I am finding that with handheld the EF 24-70 always has shake, even wide.


This lens (17-55 f2.8 EF-S) WILL WORK fine with the 7D. It's what I've got on my 7D, and it's a killer lens. Expensive, but it really feels like an "L" lens, just without the red ring.

--SM

[Stephen Mick]

That's a tough call. If you can stabilize the 7D, with some kind of shoulder rig, you might keep the 24-70. If you're looking for a bit more "wide," then definitely look at the 17-55. But if you're happy with 24mm as your "widest," I'd say look at the 24-105 f4L IS. That's the "kit lens" for the 5DMkII and it's a really, really sharp lens, as long as f4 is fast enough for you.

Either way, if you're looking to exchange, trade or sell lenses, check out the "Buy & Sell" forum at fredmiranda.com.

--SM

[sdewitt]

Yeah, the speed was what drew me to the 24-70, and I really want to be able to shoot handheld and light with the 7D. I had the EFS- 18-135 and exchanged it for the 24-70 (love 17th st. photo in NYC), now I think I am going to exchange again as the 18-135, though it was not fast, was nice and stable with the IS


That's a tough call. If you can stabilize the 7D, with some kind of shoulder rig, you might keep the 24-70. If you're looking for a bit more "wide," then definitely look at the 17-55. But if you're happy with 24mm as your "widest," I'd say look at the 24-105 f4L IS. That's the "kit lens" for the 5DMkII and it's a really, really sharp lens, as long as f4 is fast enough for you.

Either way, if you're looking to exchange, trade or sell lenses, check out the "Buy & Sell" forum at fredmiranda.com.

--SM

[USLatin]

I got my 24-70mm f/2.8 and I have to be honest... I sort of regret it.

The difference from 55mm to 70mm is so very small. I am let down... should have taken a closer look at that.

24mm can be VERY prohibitive if you don't have something wider or the time to swap.

Finally, the 24-70mm is a heavy sucker, which I think is the reason there is shake to be concerned with. You get smooth stuff till you are tired. It is considerable heavy for such a long (physical dimension) lens.

The 17-55mm weights only about 2/3's!! (and is a hear shorter in physical size which does help a bit)

All of this makes me think that the 17-55mm must be a dream come true for shooting around with one lens on a 7D.


Still, personally...
...I think I made the right choice based on my specific needs, and the fact that I have a Tokina 11-16mm. But I would have already returned it and gotten the 17-55mm if it was just for shooting a personal motion project.

Also, coupled with my Tokina it would be a bad-ass combo for interiors! No gap in wide end focal lenghts and covering the all important 18mm focal length for scouting and as a directors view finder.

The only thing that would worry me is the bit more of distortion that it seems to have based on reviews, but you first need to HAVE the shot to even begin to worry about distortion.

Unfortunatelly, I don't have a sharp lens beyond my OM 50mm f/1.8. The OM gives me much more pleasing headshots than the 24-70, but while 70mm isn't very different, it does introduce a bit of the "spying on a different world" feel that you get from telephotos. Even if just a very subtle one, that does add a touch of mystique to the photo. You can take wonderful portraits at 55mm but it would still feel almost like a normal with nearly imperceptible compression.

What I really need is the 17-55mm and an 85mm f/1.4 or faster, so I am making compromises left and right... because of this, I value the supposed better resale value of the 24-70, even if just a minor difference. I know I'll be able to sell it for about $100 less than I payed at Newegg 6 months from now, and I feel safer with weather sealing since I am going to shoot in Fargo, Minnesota this winter, going in and out of double digits below zero temperature.
My humble 0.02:
If you need to shoot a motion project and have no wider lens, or if you need run and gun at its best... get the 17-55mm! Your wrists won't fall off without a shoulder rig, and you won't have to swap lenses 90% of the time other than for very tight rooms like bathrooms, cars, etc, and for telephoto.



:undecided
...I might still swap it out for the 17-55mm...

[andrew00]

Am I right in saying none of the Canon 2.8 zooms have manual iris control?

That's the big advantage of using Nikon lenses I suppose.

However, as someone who shoots handheld a lot the idea of the IS lenses was a big appeal.

And also, having used both a manual 105mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.4 on my D90, the manual I could use in M mode w/o problem, but using the 50mm in A - app priority - was annoying.

I presume Nikon also have image stabilisation lenses - if so what's their code?

[KeithAndrews.TV]

Just wait a couple of weeks when the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM becomes available and more people review the lens. I am betting it will perform like the 17-55mm f/2.8. Not as fast on the wide end, but the 17-55mm is only 2/3rds of a stop faster. Not worth the money in my book. The 15-85mm has IS and is an EF-S just like the 17-55mm so I would hold off on any purchases until at least the end of October if considering any lenses in this range.

[USLatin]

Just wait a couple of weeks when the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM becomes available and more people review the lens. I am betting it will perform like the 17-55mm f/2.8. Not as fast on the wide end, but the 17-55mm is only 2/3rds of a stop faster. Not worth the money in my book. The 15-85mm has IS and is an EF-S just like the 17-55mm so I would hold off on any purchases until at least the end of October if considering any lenses in this range.

Good point! The 24-70 is full frame so it makes more sense, but with a retail of $800.- a 2/3 of a stop difference would be very worth having a BIG chunk more range on BOTH ends!! But, don't lie to yourself about the speed, when you zoom in you'd be at f/5.6!

What I would want is something like a 18-70 f/2.8 fixed for $1,200.- then I'd take it regardless of L or no L, full frame or not, weather sealing, what have you. I'd even pay more than that for it.

[mhood]

After seeing the resolution results of Mr. Green's 7D tests, I am inclined to think the Tamron 17-50 2.8 with IS (whatever Tamron calls it) might be as good a lens as any on the 7D. I already have the Tamron 17-50 without IS but will probably get the IS model when it comes out. I don't think the 7D can "see" the difference in the Tamron and any L lenses.

[jensenfilms]

...why not the Tamron 17-50 at less than half the price? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EXR0SI/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5158R0AFBBL._SS500_.jpg

[Stephen Mick]

The Tamron is nice, for sure, but I don't believe it has any kind of Image Stabilization. IS may not be important to some, but it's key for me, even with a lens that wide.

[mhood]

That's coming soon to an Amazon near you.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Vibration-Compensation-Digital/dp/B002LVUIXA/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2724QKVY3A7HA&colid=1IBRIJKL5VYWK

[tiny]

I got this 17-55mm on saturday and boy I love it!

I had Tamron 28-75 for ages, and I knew that with 1.6x factor it is very limited on wide end.

I also considered new 17-50mm from Tamron with VC, but it Canon won me over.

IS is working fine on video, however you'll hear it running and internal mic picks it up quite well. It sounds like harddrive when IS is running on video. Anyone else experience this on IS lenses?

Well, time to buy Rode or Sennheiser then.

[edbarton]

Owning a Tamron 28-75mm currently, I'm staying clear of any future Tamron models; QC isn't up to scratch in my opinion.

[Bounce]

Hehe. Tamron are the sharpest lenses i own - best to get a good copy - really worth it even if you get two and throw one out. it will be as good as a Nikon and a fraction of the cost

[tiny]

Owning a Tamron 28-75mm currently, I'm staying clear of any future Tamron models; QC isn't up to scratch in my opinion.

I still have Tamron 28-75, but I borrowed to my friend who is taking only stills. I think still that it's great lens. I was offered 160 euros from local store (same time I bought Canon 17-55 2.8) so I decided to keep it as backup. My copy is as sharp as Canon 24-70 2.8L but it's not wide enough for shooting inside or as walkarounder as 17-55mm.

I'm Getting Canon 70-200 4L and maybe Tokina 11-16 as well.

Samyang 85/1.4 looks interesting as well.

[cjwolff]

I got my 24-70mm f/2.8 and I have to be honest... I sort of regret it.

24mm can be VERY prohibitive if you don't have something wider or the time to swap.

All of this makes me think that the 17-55mm must be a dream come true for shooting around with one lens on a 7D.
.

I shot random events with the kit 28-135 zoom this weekend and hate it with a passion. I called up a photographer colleague and borrowed his 17-55 and it was a dream come true. I shot all day at 17 and know if I was really in a pinch I could zoom in. At this point I'm convinced that's the workhorse lens. Question is, which manufacturer's variation is the best investment...It was either tamron or tokina that just introduced a 2.8 with IS

[cjwolff]

That's coming soon to an Amazon near you.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Vibration-Compensation-Digital/dp/B002LVUIXA/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2724QKVY3A7HA&colid=1IBRIJKL5VYWK

Does vibration compensation mean IS?

[FatDaddy]

Does vibration compensation mean IS?

yes.

[ryansheffer]

I really don't think image stabilization is needed on that wide of a lens. I have no problem balancing my Tamron 17-50 without image stabilization. I truly think your money is better spent elsewhere.

Also - image stabilization motors ruin the onboard mic. If you are doing double system audio this can be an issue, since pluraleyes is magic, but the magic is gone if you ruin your onboard audio.

Buy the Tamron 17-50. Take the extra money and buy a Zoom H4n. And if you're considering the canon, you'll have enough for a zoom and a moderately priced shotgun/boom set up as well.

Lastly - The tamron, though it has a short focus throw, has hard stops at infinity and macro. USM lenses don't have this and thus when used on a follow focus if you accidentally overcrank your lens, your marks are off.

[tiny]

Tamron is a very good choice. However I chosed Canon because I still/also shoot stills and since AF is system is so good it would have been too compromise to take Tamron.

I'm happy that I can use focus dial no matter what position I have it during shooting. No more forgetting to put it back to AF when taking stills :) I can mostly keep it in AF but still do manual focus. I don't know what is the case on Tamron 17-55, but at least Tamron 28-75 is focus locked when AF is set.

Remember you can easily turn that IS off while shooting video, and turn it again when you need it. It's also somewhat true wide lens helps it quite steady. I'm ok with natural movement, but I hate jitter shake made by my hands.

And IS makes the difference if you don't plan always to carry your rig with you.

http://www.vimeo.com/6869518

I think also that Canon will keep it's value better than Tamron.

Just my 2 cents.

[USLatin]

I wish my 11-16mm had IS.

[mcgeedigital]

Just got the 17-55 used.

Can't wait to try it out.

[USLatin]

Just got the 17-55 used.

Can't wait to try it out.

How much?

[mcgeedigital]

$900

[Stephen Mick]

Anyone looking for this lens in Central Texas or Dallas…

http://austin.craigslist.org/pho/1419598548.html

[mcgeedigital]

Is that yours SM?

[Stephen Mick]

Hell no. I'm keeping mine. It's a great lens.

I just threw that out there in case someone was looking for one. :D

[Boz]

I was going to get the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma as my next lens, but I think the Tamron is going to be a more flexible lens. The Sigma will have to wait for a while.

[FatDaddy]

Just got the 17-55 used.

Can't wait to try it out.

Someone posted on the DC Craigslist about two weeks ago one for $850. Did you get that one?

I gotta be coming around sometime soon to play with the room full of toys you have!

[mcgeedigital]

Someone posted on the DC Craigslist about two weeks ago one for $850. Did you get that one?

I gotta be coming around sometime soon to play with the room full of toys you have!

No, SM sent me to a photo board where that one was.

Yes you DO need to stop by the office, the Zacuto rig is in! :2vrolijk_08:

[Stephen Mick]

I know where Matt's office is, FatDaddy. We can hit it later tonight after he's gone.

[mcgeedigital]

Get past the rottie and the golden chalice is yours!

[Stephen Mick]

And as an FYI…

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/823741

[FatDaddy]

I know where Matt's office is, FatDaddy. We can hit it later tonight after he's gone.

Better yet, I know where the Irish Pub is close to his work. :beer:

[Rory_B]

The canon 17-55 is pretty awesome. The IS should not be underestimated if you like to do a lot of handheld work and you're trying to steal a location. Focus throw is pretty short, but pretty easy to master. Granted you can't use it on a FF camera; however, not every camera coming out for video is going to be FF, so it's a lens that will be versatile for other systems provided you don't mind keeping it wide open and tossing an ND filter on the front to control exposure. Simple enough these days with a fader nd or similar product.

[OPHERBA]

I have the Canon 17-55 lens since I got my 7d and I don't like it.

It's biggest limitation as far as I am concern: it does no have a hard stop at maximum and minimum focus.

Thanks.


Johnnie

[sunburst]

I have the Canon 17-55 lens since I got my 7d and I don't like it.

It's biggest limitation as far as I am concern: it does no have a hard stop at maximum and minimum focus.

Thanks.


Johnnie

interesting. im more interested in the new tamron , but i dont like the price.

[FatDaddy]

I can;t seem to find anything in the focal range with IS as the Canon 17-55. Price is high and I am not to worried about hard stops, but need a run and gun lens and think this is it. Not sure when the Tamron is coming out with their version of IS, but it is only $350 less than the Canon.

Need more wide IS choices...

[JamesBenet]

Comes out at the end of this month, Tamron 17-50 VC

[mhood]

I have a gr8 deal of buyer's remorse for having bought my Tamron 17-50 last month instead of w8ing for the VC version. A really stoopid move on my part.

[patssle]

They say the price is $650+ on the VC. If I was going to spend that much, I would just buy the Canon one, it has better reviews.

[FatDaddy]

Comes out at the end of this month, Tamron 17-50 VC

Just not sure it is worth saving $350 when the Canon gets pretty high reviews.

[cjwolff]

I have the Canon 17-55 lens since I got my 7d and I don't like it.

Johnnie

There is a 17-55 (or similar) floating around that was part of a rebel kit. It's quality is really hideous, which one did you end up with?

[USLatin]

I have the Canon 17-55 lens since I got my 7d and I don't like it.

It's biggest limitation as far as I am concern: it does no have a hard stop at maximum and minimum focus.

Thanks.


Johnnie

Is it just the hard stops? Could it also be the positioning and thickness of the focus ring? Does it feel accurate?

What about image quality?

[stoiqa]

i have this, and just love it. Good for macro and has a nice range.I also like that the lens is somewhat small....oh...and is super sharp indeed :))

[USLatin]

Let us see something at maximum macro, something like a coin or other common object. I really like the 24-70mm's "macro" ability. But I might be getting the 17-55mm as soon as I can afford it together with an 85mm MM or something like it.

[editman]

It will be more difficult to use the 17-55 on a rig with mattebox than a 16-35 due to the lens extrudes when zooming.

[OPHERBA]

There is a 17-55 (or similar) floating around that was part of a rebel kit. It's quality is really hideous, which one did you end up with?



Hi.

The lens Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM , I don't think is is part of the Rebel kit.

[OPHERBA]

Is it just the hard stops? Could it also be the positioning and thickness of the focus ring? Does it feel accurate?

What about image quality?

I could live with the lens thickness but the start/end focus makes me crazy...

Image quality is nice.

[Rory_B]

Is it just the hard stops? Could it also be the positioning and thickness of the focus ring? Does it feel accurate?

What about image quality?

I haven't had issues with focusing or IQ. I shot this (http://www.vimeo.com/7194053) yesterday on the 17-55mm.

Aside from horrible 720p aliasing in the first shot the lens held up really well in 720 and 1080. Outside of the driving shots everything else is handheld. So at least for me the lens is worth it.

[jensenfilms]

Filmbuff- I was very impressed with that clip. I'll be picking up a 17-55 soon:)

[Rory_B]

Thanks Jensen. One of these days I'll post something with the camera that is an actual narrative scene and not test footage haha. But I don't think you'd regret the lens. Plus usually you've got a week or two to take it back if you don't like it.

[jensenfilms]

Rory,
Where did you get your lens?
-Mike

[Rory_B]

Hey Mike,

I live in Vancouver, so I just went to a local shop to grab it. Kerrisdale cameras. after looking online at places in the states and up here. Prices weren't that different, so I decided to wander into the closest shop to me. Plus that way if I didn't like it, I wouldn't have to ship it back somewhere.

[patssle]

Jeeze this lens is heavy and big! But so far happy with it!

Wow, never realized the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8. Definitely keeping that Nikon 1.8 50mm prime for night shots, this one just doesn't get that low.

Here it is wide open under a street light at 6400 ISO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Edsd223LA8

[sunburst]

Jeeze this lens is heavy and big! But so far happy with it!

Wow, never realized the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8. Definitely keeping that Nikon 1.8 50mm prime for night shots, this one just doesn't get that low.

Here it is wide open under a street light at 6400 ISO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Edsd223LA8

thats the 2.8 or 1.8?

very smooth.

what sort of rig are u using?

[patssle]

thats the 2.8 or 1.8?

very smooth.

what sort of rig are u using?

That is 2.8. You can see the Nikon 1.8 here (and it was at a lower ISO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3rNBbq71k4

Glidecam 2000. Just bought it, so very little practice as of yet. Will be using it today for a shoot!

[sunburst]

That is 2.8. You can see the Nikon 1.8 here (and it was at a lower ISO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3rNBbq71k4

Glidecam 2000. Just bought it, so very little practice as of yet. Will be using it today for a shoot!


Hi patssle,

yeah, that is about the look im getting with my canon 50 mm 1.8.

It's been mentioned the new canon 1d mark iv camera is brighter than the eye can see. I think the 7d is also brighter than I see.

good luck on the shoot!

[patssle]

Hi patssle,

yeah, that is about the look im getting with my canon 50 mm 1.8.

It's been mentioned the new canon 1d mark iv camera is brighter than the eye can see. I think the 7d is also brighter than I see.

good luck on the shoot!

Yeah no doubt with a 1.8, the 7D is brighter than we can see at 6400 ISO. I'd love to see somebody with a 1.4 shoot some streetlights, at 6400 ISO then at the lowest possible ISO but with a bright image. Then we can compare!

Thanks!