canon 17-55 2.8 or primes?

K

keaten

Active member
For everyone that has this lens... Where does it get sharp at? I am deciding on getting this lens or some primes. I already have the canon 50mm 1.4. The main reason I was looking at this lens was due to the fact I can't afford the L series primes and those are really the only primes that go below 2.8 in that range. I mean is the 20mm 2.8 really that much sharper than the 17-55 at 20mm 2.8?
 
keaten said:
For everyone that has this lens... Where does it get sharp at? I am deciding on getting this lens or some primes. I already have the canon 50mm 1.4. The main reason I was looking at this lens was due to the fact I can't afford the L series primes and those are really the only primes that go below 2.8 in that range. I mean is the 20mm 2.8 really that much sharper than the 17-55 at 20mm 2.8?
Click to expand...

I'd like some feedback on the 20mm 2.8 as well if anybody is working with one. Prime lenses are the way to go. Also the 20mm is a FF lens which is something to consider for the long haul. I'm adding a 5D when they come out with the next generation so I wouldn't invest in any EF-s lenses personally.
 
Pretty much all lenses are at their best somewhere in the middle of the aperture range, but it won't really matter if you're using it primarily for video. You won't see the difference at such low resolution. Even in stills it's hard to find.
 
Cassius said:
but it won't really matter if you're using it primarily for video.
Click to expand...

Right, I had great results with old, relatively cheap, manual K-mount lenses, being not tack sharp they produce less aliasing but footage doesn't turn out less sharp, just more gentle.
 
Cassius said:
Pretty much all lenses are at their best somewhere in the middle of the aperture range, but it won't really matter if you're using it primarily for video. You won't see the difference at such low resolution. Even in stills it's hard to find.
Click to expand...

I know the general opinion is that the resolution of the video won't see the quality difference in higher end lenses.
I don't completely agree with this.
There are other things to consider like quality lens coatings transmitting less flair and ghosting, better contrast, and better lens design.
I also find myself shooting hundreds of stills every day with this amazing little camera. Better quality glass will make a huge difference with Raw still image 5184x3456.
 
why not both?

I use a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (basically cheaper equivalent to the canon), and a few primes.

My latest prime is the nikon 50mm 1.4. I got it for like $60 and another $12 for an adapter.
 
jonE5 said:
why not both?

I use a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (basically cheaper equivalent to the canon), and a few primes.

My latest prime is the nikon 50mm 1.4. I got it for like $60 and another $12 for an adapter.
Click to expand...

The tamron is cheaper because it is built cheaper. I need a good focus ring and a good zoom ring (if i decide to go for the zoom). I completely agree with everything Rockmore said.

So anyone out there ever shot with any of these range of primes and the 17-55? If so whats your opinion?
 
ROCKMORE said:
[...]
There are other things to consider like quality lens coatings transmitting less flair[...]
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but I want my subjects to transmit flair. :cheesy:

The main discernible difference between the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is three-stop image stabilization. The Tamron may not be tough, but it is quite solidly built. Although the Canon contains what is basically L glass, it does not have L build quality or environmental sealing.

Other, less important differences are:
1. The Canon is wider, longer, and heavier.
2. The Canon performs better from mid-zoom on but its performance suffers at close range.
3. The Canon shows more vignetting and is less flare-resistant.
4. The Canon's 17mm is narrower than the Tamron's 17mm (but the Canon has an extra 5mm).
5. The Canon has USM focusing.
 
I prefer the less popular 17-40 F4L. It is parfocal, nicely made, smaller and much cheaper than the 17-55. And crazy wide if you try it on a 5D. That said, I have primes to cover the big apertures so F4 doesn't present an issue for me. The main thing is, you have to have more than one lens anyway, so trying to find one for every situation is futile. There is no stills version of the Zeiss 10-100 T2. Sadly :(
 
if i had a choice its either tamron 17-50 2.8 (cheapest) or canon 16-35 2.8 (expensive)
id spend my money on the 16-35 2.8 though mmm...
 
dcloud said:
if i had a choice its either tamron 17-50 2.8 (cheapest) or canon 16-35 2.8 (expensive)
id spend my money on the 16-35 2.8 though mmm...
Click to expand...

I was faced with this same descision and I bought the 17-40 f4L and the tokina 11-16 instead of the getting the 16-35.
 
saneproductions said:
I was faced with this same descision and I bought the 17-40 f4L and the tokina 11-16 instead of the getting the 16-35.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. How do you like the Tokina 11-16? I have a Century x.7 wide adapter which brings the 17 to about a 12mm view. I've been testing with the 18-55 and it looks pretty good. You see the barrel distortion with straight lines but it's not noticeable with more organic shapes.
The Century is 77mm so it will fit on the 17-40mm, just wondering how it will compare to the Tokina. At least I already have the adapter and the 72mm adapter ring.
 
Funny you should ask this, but I just went out yesterday for around 3 hours shooting stills with the 11-16 and it is nothing short of amazing. You can download some of my selects here (watch out, 66MB). These are all shots of the Ballard neighborhood in Seattle WA (all shots with the T2i and Tokina 11-16).

http://www.saneproductions.com/Tokina_11-16.zip



Here are a few samples::

sage.jpg

staple_pole_2.jpg

tanks.jpg

train_hitch_3.jpg

warped_sign_stop.jpg

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top