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

Thanks for that confirmation

Thanks for that confirmation

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.

stephenmick said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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

stephenmick said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
KeithAndrews.TV said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Save yourself some money....

Save yourself some money....

...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=
5158R0AFBBL._SS500_.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
Owning a Tamron 28-75mm currently, I'm staying clear of any future Tamron models; QC isn't up to scratch in my opinion.
 
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
 
edbarton said:
Owning a Tamron 28-75mm currently, I'm staying clear of any future Tamron models; QC isn't up to scratch in my opinion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
USLatin said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

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