Is the Canon 17-55mm lens considered the sharpest lens canon makes under 100mm?

[vision_filmz]

For a crop camera? I have a 17-40mm f4 and it's awesome... for full frame. For crop, it's probably not that great of a buy. I would look into the Tamron or the Sigma, honestly. The problem with these two lenses and the Canon lens is that the focus rings are super small.

http://www.lenstip.com/tmp/1706_tam17-50_1.jpg

http://www.lenstip.com/tmp/1606_can17-55_2.jpg

http://www.optyczne.pl/aparaty_image...sig17-50_1.jpg

Compare that to my 17-40mm f4:

http://www.lenstip.com/aparaty_image...can17-40_2.jpg

And it's a significant difference. But the thing is, paying 700 bucks for a 17-40 f4 on a crop camera is a rip off. Although focus rings are really important to me, personally.

But yeah, I would go with the Tamron and use the rest of your money for other stuff.

So many people have been telling me to get the Tamron, I guess Tamron it is. Also in this range I feel that I can handhold pretty good, so IS imo is not really something that important for video.

[Pookie]

So many people have been telling me to get the Tamron, I guess Tamron it is. Also in this range I feel that I can handhold pretty good, so IS imo is not really something that important for video.

You "feel you can handhold pretty good", so IS isn't ressecary......Bad move.Buy an IS lens.

[vision_filmz]

You "feel you can handhold pretty good", so IS isn't ressecary......Bad move.Buy an IS lens.

The way I shoot I do not need IS. Many people do not use them

[ROCKMORE]

Excuse me?

I was thinking the same thing. WTF?

[HansSteinert]

I was thinking the same thing. WTF?

You don't need it for video because the "sharpness" will be thrown away during the downscaling process anyways. And when you have too much sharpness from the lens, you improve the likelyhood or aliasing/moire during the downscaling process, meaning you would have been better off with a softer lens in the first place. Canon's worst lenses are capable of resolving enough for 1080p. They just suck in all other relevant categories as well.

Lens sharpness is somewhat overrated for photography, but for DSLR video, it's irrelevant.

[davebloomers]

I've rented a 17-55 a couple of times for photography and a video shoot with pretty good results. In comparison to the 18-55 cheapo kit lens, not sure it's really that much different for photography unless you absolutely need the 2.8 for low light, and really not worth the cost difference when the 24-70 is a way better photography zoom and not much more than the 17-55. For me the 17-55 isn't noticeably sharper than the 18-55, may appear that way since it can achieve a narrower DoF. With that in mind, getting narrow DoF with the 18-55 is almost impossible, so for video I'm thinking it's worth the extra $800, night and day at times. As far as the IS thing, man, I have shaky hands and I'm nervous to use anything but an IS lens under 1/250 for handheld photography and definitely for video without professional stabilization. I used a 70-200 II with IS recently and I feel like it's a necessity for Canon shooters that can afford it.

[khina]

Many people here will probably laugh at me of what I'm about to post. My favorite and I consider sharp is my EF-S 18-55mm f5.6, and I own 2 copies. I will swear by it and I will never trade for that more expensive zoom. I used to have the 17-55 f2.8 and I sold it and got myself one of my favorite architect zoom Tokina 11 16 and the 18-55. It's cheap and not pro grade but for a little over $100.00, it has been working $$$$ for me. Ok Ok. I will say this I say it's sharper than my former 17-55. Somebody hit me!

[davebloomers]

Many people here will probably laugh at me of what I'm about to post. My favorite and I consider sharp is my EF-S 18-55mm f5.6, and I own 2 copies. I will swear by it and I will never trade for that more expensive zoom. I used to have the 17-55 f2.8 and I sold it and got myself one of my favorite architect zoom Tokina 11 16 and the 18-55. It's cheap and not pro grade but for a little over $100.00, it has been working $$$$ for me. Ok Ok. I will say this I say it's sharper than my former 17-55. Somebody hit me!

Not sure if I agree that it's sharper, but not going to argue that it's any less sharp than the $1,000 17-55. Not laughing, I use my 18-55 for run and gun stuff/casual shooting all the time. It's a great zoom lens for around $100.

[Baddgsx]

http://www.mosaicengineering.com/pro...f/7d/main.html

What if one were to have this filter that fixes moire and aliasing on the 7d. Will the Ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 quality be better with the 7d then? I just purchased a 7d( mainly for video) and the mosaic engineering filter myself and haven't ordered my lens. I was going to purchase the f2.8 but some of you have me second guessing on this decision.

Any suggestions?

Thanks
Chris

[unadog]

The 24-70 is an absoltely great lens. You can find one used for around $1,200 or so.

If I had to live with one lens forever, that would be it! The new version is supposed to be fantastic, but it hasn't shipped yet, and is about $2,300.

I also have the 17-40 4.0. It is a very good quality lens, and the constant 4.0 is good. Variable aperature can be a pain if you have to zoom at wide open.

The 16-35 2.8 is probably better than the 17-40, I have never had a chance to test one. In fact I have almost always shot full frame, and have barely used the 17-40 in the 5 years or so that I have owned it.

I do really like the 2.8 zooms for the viewfinder brightness, even if I don't use them wide open.

Michael