Finally bought a Canon 17-55 f2.8 lens and love it! Best zoom for video IMHO

D

draven4

Well-known member
I have a comfortable set of primes which I am very happy with but have always been lacking a good zoom lens so I decided with my tax return to go forward with purchasing one.

After months of research, reading on line on various photography forums, filmmaking forums and looking at lots of footage on You Tube and Vimeo I narrowed it down to what I could afford, by which lenses produced the best experiences and best looking footage. I tested the following lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR DiII VC LD Lens
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 with image stabilization
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L lens
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L lens
and lastly the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (almost L lens)

After testing them several times under various conditions I've come to the conclusion and bought the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

This lens is sharp, has IS and feels fantastic to use. I highly recommend.

I can honestly say that I believe for a crop camera this is the best VIDEO zoom lens available in terms of quality, build and optical quality.

The range is great (comes close to being a 24-70 if you were to compare what would equal the full frame equivalent of a lens). Also not to forget it has a constant aperture.

If someone is starting out I would say that they should start with two lenses:
Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS
and one of the two .... Canon 28mm 1.8 or Sigma 30mm 1.4 (for very low light shots)

Some will say the Canon 50mm but....
the 50mm is a great lens just too telephoto and cheap on the build. The 28mm or 30mm would be considered a standard focal length lens on a crop camera which would make sense as a general purpose lens.



THOUGHTS

I was thinking... I like my Tokina 11-16mm but If I had started with the 17-55 2.8 IS I probably would have not bought the Tokina and went for something with a longer focal length since the 17mm end is pretty darn good as a wide on this lens. I have the Tokina so I can tell you from experience.

The reason why I am saying this about the Tokina and the Canon 50mm is because I read advice a year ago when I first bought my DSLR to buy these lenses but if I could do it all over again I would buy first the two I recommended being as stated above.

Just sharing some thoughts in case anyone is wondering what lenses to get.

If I were to add a third lens to the mix I would say the 100mm 2.8 IS L lens.

IS is a great thing, it can really help sharpen your videos by removing so much blur on hand held shots.




LASTLY THE LENS CONCLUSIONS
In case you were wondering this is what I thought of the other lenses I tested (ones mentioned above)

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR DiII VC LD Lens ---(pretty good for the price, not bad, IS works very good.)

Sigma 17-50 f2.8 with image stabilization ---- (even better than the Tamron, pretty sharp on shots, focus and zoom rings are smoother than the Tamron, color rendition is similar but slightly better than the Tamron. Feels sharper than the Tamron too but it could just be in my mind since I own a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and I am already aware of how sharp Sigma can make a lens if they really try. The 30mm is great great great!)

Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L lens ---- (awesome wide angle lens, way more useful than a Tokina 11-16mm in my opinon because 16 is as wide as the Tokina but sharper and the color rendering on the canon blows away the Tokina. You get details that are amazing in all ranges of light from highlights to shadows. Also it is more useful to be able to zoom up to 35mm, as apposed to the Tokina's 11-16mm zoom. Problem with the Canon lens though..... it's too expensive for my budget currently. If I were starting over and had to choose though between a Tokina or save up for a year for the this 16-35L I would..........save up for it.

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L lens ----- (I'll be honest about this lens... I was disappointed. The build is fantastically strong but the lens is very heavy and the focus and zoom rings are very scratchy. That might have been just the demo I was using but I've tried two at two different photo stores and they both were the same. I would not buy this lens unless I was buying it for full frame and if I was buying it with IS. The lack of IS on this lens is a real bummer. In my opinion there are better things to spend your money on than this lens. Odd I say that since this is the most popular L lens next to the 70-200mm L IS lens.

While on the subject of the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens ---- i tried it , I love it, I wish I could own it but hey.... way out of my price range. Maybe one day. Best long length IS lens out there IMHO.

and lastly the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS ----- (almost L lens) (This lens just did it perfectly. The only thing it lacks is an L body with weather sealing. If canon would have added this it would have been canon's best crop body lens. For some reason Canon only cares to weather seal L lenses.. well I guess that's what makes them L lenses along with the glass inside. I hope Canon changes their mentality and says "hey let's make a weathered sealed crop lens since so much of the market owns a crop camera!" I would bet more people own crop Canon cameras than full frame. I could be wrong but I would think the majority of people can't afford full frame. The number one comment I hear on photo forums from customers who own this lens is... I love it.... just wish it was weather sealed!)
 
Last edited:
thanks for taking the time to do this review. I'm sure it will help many.

I do however disagree with your findings on the 24-70 2.8L . My experience with it was that the zoom and focus were silky smooth. You did test 2 though which is good....So maybe its a quality control issue?
 
Well done.

I agree it's strange not to have IS on the 24-70 2.8L. But the lens isn't nearly as telephoto on a 5D, maybe that's why. I can imagine how heavy it would be with IS on there... I had a 35mm f1.4L, a 50mm f1.2L, and the 24-70 f2.8L in the bag at the same time, and the @#$*er weighed about 50kg.

Like you say, add a 30mm f1.4 and you could shoot 80% of a feature...
 
draven4 said:
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR DiII VC LD Lens
Sigma 17-50 f2.8
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L lens
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L lens
and lastly the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (almost L lens)
Click to expand...

Interesting that you didn't try the non-VC version of that Tamron. Everyone here will tell you that the VC version is noticeably softer, and the non-VC is totally the way to go. While I'm sure that Canon lens is excellent, folks around here LOVE the Tamron non-VC as their all around zoom lens. I've love to hear how that compares to your tests.
 
Interesting that you didn't try the non-VC version of that Tamron. Everyone here will tell you that the VC version is noticeably softer, and the non-VC is totally the way to go. While I'm sure that Canon lens is excellent, folks around here LOVE the Tamron non-VC as their all around zoom lens. I've love to hear how that compares to your tests.
Click to expand...

Didn't try the non-VC version because I was looking for a zoom with IS or VC. I read online how people raved about the sharpness of the older Tamron and even the person at the photo store told me that many photographers felt that way too about the non VC version. I excluded it from my list due to the lack of VC.....even though I tried the Canon 24-70 without IS, I did this out of pure curiosity since many have raved about it.
 
Oh I forgot to add the Sigma listed in my review above has image stabilization. I'll update it above.
 
@alfa
thanks for the review.
i just bought a 70-200 f4 L USM (box opened today so not tested yet), and was planning to buy the 17-55 f2.8, this video has consolidated my choice :
Click to expand...

Cool man! I forgot to mention and updated it above in the review that the 70-200 was the f2.8 version. I tried also the f4 version. It is awesome too! Definitely not usable though without a tripod... unless you want that an extreme jello shot! (not the drinking type!)

Once you throw the f4 version on a tripod though the image (minus the missing f2.8 stop) is pretty much exactly the same. I would believe the camera operator would have to be very gentle pulling focus on the lens at the far end of it at 200mm since all movements are amplified.
 
draven4 said:
@alfa

Cool man! I forgot to mention and updated it above in the review that the 70-200 was the f2.8 version. I tried also the f4 version. It is awesome too! Definitely not usable though without a tripod... unless you want that an extreme jello shot! (not the drinking type!)

Once you throw the f4 version on a tripod though the image (minus the missing f2.8 stop) is pretty much exactly the same. I would believe the camera operator would have to be very gentle pulling focus on the lens at the far end of it at 200mm since all movements are amplified.
Click to expand...

yes i think too it's an very cool lens, i usualy use a tripod the most as i can, so it should not be to much a problem (and with some practice...). i do a lot of photographie too.
i will see if a really need to upgrade to the is version after some times.
also, my next 17-55 will be my principal lens for everyday.

i have usually used before only nikon primes lenses on the canon body, old ai and ais.
for video in manual, no problem they do the job very well, but for photography it's a pain without autofocus if i don't have the time to prepare my settings, or/and when there is a lots of movements, actions (sport, kids, live events, etc...).
and i want to cover the maximum focal range for my personal and professional use without changing the lenses all the time.
 
I started with the exact 2 lenses you mentioned. I have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and the Sigma 30mm 1.4

IS was a must for me for run and gun. It really makes a difference. I actually tried the Tamron 17-50 VC first, but found the Canon to be a much better build, quieter motor (Tamron was noisy), and MUCH smoother focus ring which is key.

I even tried the Canon 50mm 1.8 but found the focus ring to feel cheap. It slides/skips around like cheap plastic on plastic. I hear the 50mm 1.4 is a much better build, but way more expensive.

When I need low light, I whip out the Sigma 30 1.4. I would love to get the Canon 24mm 1.4 L, but I don't have the money for that at the moment.

I would like a lens on the longer side, what does everyone think of the Canon 85mm 1.8? How is the build quality?

Thanks
 
I own the Canon 85mm 1.8. Optically it is a really good lens, the lack of IS is a major problem though at that focal length. I almost never use the lens and actually was thinking of putting it up for sale. (was actually thinking of doing that this weekend)

Don't get me wrong it is not an unusable lens but I'm just not using it enough so the money can be put to better use and.... someday in the near future I am going to pony up the dough and get the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, then eventually down the line will get the holy grail of a lens the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L constant aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top