C100: Canon 17-55 2.8 IS

J

jthabel

Well-known member
My Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS is on another project for a couple weeks, and I need to rent either the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS or the Canon 24-70 2.8 II for a couple days from my local gear shop to take it's place on a small one-day shoot later this week. I'm leaning toward the 17-55 because I'll likely need the IS for many of the shots we're planning.

I've never actually used the 17-55 on a shoot, but I've worked with many local ops who have, and it seems to be kind of a love/hate relationship. Complaints I hear revolve around dust getting into the lens easily and the IS failing after a relatively short time.

I know a lot of you guys use this lens, so I'd love to hear about your experiences. Also, if anyone could share some of your recent footage shot with a 17-55, I'd love to see it. There's stuff on Youtube and Vimeo but I'd like something to give me a sense of just how sharp it is or isn't. Thanks in advance!
 
If you need the IS, grab the 17-55. Particularly if it is a rental, I'd not sweat the issues you are concerned about - rare things for short-term use.

The 17-55 has been my main doc lens for over two years (working in a dusty barn for much of it) and there is a small amount of fine dust in there now but it has been solid. Never a problem with the IS. Slight distortion at the 17-20mm end.
 
The Canon 17-55 IS is my main documentary lens , its wide enough at the wide end, not long enough at the long end ( 75 to 80mm would be ideal) but then there are these things we have called feet, which can function as a zoom lens.... I have used the 24-105 as a doc lens, however I find that the 24 mm wide is just not wide enough in the situations i was shooting- Interiors of a ship or school classrooms where I might have my back against a wall to cover what is happening at a group of desks right in front of me. I shot the film Beyond Measure http://beyondmeasurefilm.com/ with the 17-55 as my main lens, augmented with a 50 and 85 prime and the 24-105 playing occasionally. The 17-55 isn't the greatest lens but it does the job and allowed me to keep the camera minimallist- no rig - and still do what I needed to do. As an aside, I would never use anything I see on the net to judge the sharpness qualities of a lens in any critical way. You just never know what has been done to the image along the way. If you want to judge something gross like how much a lens breathes, that might be ok but sharpness is really out of the question. Perception of sharpness is relative so unless you see Lens A compared to lens B side by side on the same scene you really don't have a lot to go by.
 
Mark Smith said:
The Canon 17-55 IS is my main documentary lens , its wide enough at the wide end, not long enough at the long end ( 75 to 80mm would be ideal)
Click to expand...

I love the 17-55 for shallower DOF. But, this is exactly why MY main lens is the Canon 15-85mm. It tends to be very much overlooked because it's not constant aperture. But in 5.6 it works as a constant aperture lens. It also has a "je ne sais quoi" beautiful image - color, contrast and sharpness are all there. If you can live with some vignetting (use a lens hood instead of UV filter to protect it) it's hard to beat. If I have to choose a single lens to use, it's the one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top