My Canon 17-55mm lens just arrived but...

[Stephen Mick]

I respect your comment and why it is useful for you regarding photography, but how does this relate to video? Basically why is it that this lens cost so much? Surely a 2.8 constant aperture can't be the reason, so is it image quality?

I would seriously like to know and apologize to the op if this will derail his thread.

The 17-55 f2.8 is basically an "L" quality lens, only with less-robust weather sealing than the other Canon "L" lenses. It is far, far sharper than anything else in its class, and my copy is tack-sharp at f2.8.

How does it relate to video? Well, I shot a 10-day trip to the Amazon River basin with three lenses: the 17-55 f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I don't recall ever missing a shot I wanted, and I had all the speed I needed. As a matter of fact I had two 7Ds, one lens on each ready to shoot at all times.

What lenses I choose is driven by the type of projects I shoot, and my needs are certainly different than many. But whether it's stills, video or both, my clients have expectations that my choices of gear is designed to exceed. Here's my current roster of glass:

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Canon 17-55 f2.8 EF-S
Canon 24-105 f4L EF
Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS EF
Canon 2x EF Extender

So, with five pieces of glass I can cover a pretty massive range of focal lengths between my 5DII and my 7D. Again, if I were to be shooting narrative films and shorts, this list would be very different. But this is what works for me, and it gives me the flexibility to take on any client job and know that I have glass to deliver both exceptional video and still content.

 

[Cieloent]

The 17-55 f2.8 is basically an "L" quality lens, only with less-robust weather sealing than the other Canon "L" lenses. It is far, far sharper than anything else in its class, and my copy is tack-sharp at f2.8.

How does it relate to video? Well, I shot a 10-day trip to the Amazon River basin with three lenses: the 17-55 f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I don't recall ever missing a shot I wanted, and I had all the speed I needed. As a matter of fact I had two 7Ds, one lens on each ready to shoot at all times.

What lenses I choose is driven by the type of projects I shoot, and my needs are certainly different than many. But whether it's stills, video or both, my clients have expectations that my choices of gear is designed to exceed. Here's my current roster of glass:

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Canon 17-55 f2.8 EF-S
Canon 24-105 f4L EF
Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS EF
Canon 2x EF Extender

So, with five pieces of glass I can cover a pretty massive range of focal lengths between my 5DII and my 7D. Again, if I were to be shooting narrative films and shorts, this list would be very different. But this is what works for me, and it gives me the flexibility to take on any client job and know that I have glass to deliver both exceptional video and still content.

Thank you, my final question is can you please show us some footage from this lens, I would really love to see some examples.

 

[Stephen Mick]

Here You Go…

Here You Go…

This is a mixture of 17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f2.8L IS footage from the Brazil project. Sorry I can't give you an exact breakdown of which shots are which, but I think you can figure most of them out. It's Vimeo, so take from this what you want, but in the edit suite, the footage looks as sharp as I could ever want.

And this is my 2,000th post, so enjoy!

 

[Erik Hecht]

Sounds the same to my ear. But what bothers me is the fact I bought this for video and I like to use the camera's mic sometimes.

If you're looking to get usable sound in camera, then a cheap and easy solution would be to get an external mic that mounts on the hot shoe. Your IS could grind away all day and an external mic won't hear it 99% of the time.

The Rode Stereo VideoMic (or one of many other DSLR specific mics) is great and if you're concerned about the price of extra gear, maybe consider returning the Canon zoom and picking up the Tamron?

Either way, using the camera's built in mic is just bad practice. It'll pick up a lot more excess noise than just the IS grinding.

 

[Jordan_S]

The 17-55 f2.8 is basically an "L" quality lens, only with less-robust weather sealing than the other Canon "L" lenses. It is far, far sharper than anything else in its class, and my copy is tack-sharp at f2.8[...]

The Tamron non-VC 17-50 f/2.8 is comparable in sharpness to the Canon. In fact, many folks were looking forward to the VC version because they thought that would bring it to the Canon's level in every respect except lack of USM. Unfortunately, what separates Tamron's two 17-50 f/2.8 lenses is not just VC—the VC version suffers from objectionable corner softness, in addition to other shortcomings. In any case, the two major differences between the Tamron non-VC and the Canon are IS and USM. Oh—there's a third difference: $650.

Nice work, by the way.

 

[Gene Sung]

I would just stick to the kit lens (18-55) for $100. For $1100 I could buy entire set of old primes which would be more useful. I seriously do not understand how or why would someone pay that kind of money for this lens ???????

From personal experience, for a documentary style video, run and gun type shooting, a great zoom is an absolute must.

Primes are nicer for Studio work, but for docu style work you need a zoom, or else you compromise a LOT of the composition and you will miss LOTS of shots due to constant changing of lenses.

With Doc work b-roll, the subject is often just there for a moment and the last thing they're going to do is wait for you to change lenses to the right focal length. You have to react fast.

As for the Tamron, I have it but am probably going to bite the bullet and get the Canon. The image quality is comparable, but the mechanics on the Canon is superior.

As for the Kit lens 18-55, that thing is almost a bad joke. It might be fine for your Grandma's birthday party, but for real work, it's terrible. The manual focus is barely useable. For good work, you need a real lens.

 

[andykwilkinson]

Very well put. Good advice there.

 

[Cieloent]

F

As for the Kit lens 18-55, that thing is almost a bad joke. It might be fine for your Grandma's birthday party, but for real work, it's terrible. The manual focus is barely useable. For good work, you need a real lens.

100% disagree you are 100% wrong. I have amazing footage shot with the Kit Lens so do man others.....

 

[Gene Sung]

Cieloent. My only suggestion to you is to go and try the Canon 17-55 f 2.8 against the Kit 18-55. It's not even remotely in the same league. Sure you can get good footage from anything, but the f2.8 version is 2 stops faster = much shallower DOF and FAR better low light, it does not flicker when you zoom because it's a constant aperture lens.

I messed around with the lens you are talking about at Best Buy, and the manual focus is absolutely terrible. It's meant to be a auto focus lens for Stills. Mechanically, the f2.8 version is so superior it's not even funny.

Just go to camera store and test out both lenses then report back. I'm sure you will have a very different perspective.

I know what you're saying about making good work on sub-par equipment. I shot my last project on 16mm film and it came out good even though the equipment was old and difficult to use. Ultimately, it's the person making the film, but the equipment does make it easier to get better results.

So before you tell other people that they are 100% wrong, you should have some context to compare. Like I said, just go to the camera store and compare the two lenses and give us a report.

I've tried both lenses in question and I gave my honest feedback, and therefore, you should try both lens as well as go shoot a run-and-gun doc., and then you can tell us if primes are as ideal as zooms for that kind of work.

 

[Cieloent]

Cieloent. My only suggestion to you is to go and try the Canon 17-55 f 2.8 against the Kit 18-55. It's not even remotely in the same league. Sure you can get good footage from anything, but the f2.8 version is 2 stops faster = much shallower DOF and FAR better low light, it does not flicker when you zoom because it's a constant aperture lens.

I messed around with the lens you are talking about at Best Buy, and the manual focus is absolutely terrible. It's meant to be a auto focus lens for Stills. Mechanically, the f2.8 version is so superior it's not even funny.

Just go to camera store and test out both lenses then report back. I'm sure you will have a very different perspective.

I know what you're saying about making good work on sub-par equipment. I shot my last project on 16mm film and it came out good even though the equipment was old and difficult to use. Ultimately, it's the person making the film, but the equipment does make it easier to get better results.

So before you tell other people that they are 100% wrong, you should have some context to compare. Like I said, just go to the camera store and compare the two lenses and give us a report.

I've tried both lenses in question and I gave my honest feedback, and therefore, you should try both lens as well as go shoot a run-and-gun doc., and then you can tell us if primes are as ideal as zooms for that kind of work.

You said the kit lens is a bad joke, a terrible lens, only good for grandmas wedding. TO which I will tell you again you are 100% wrong. Never in my post did I say the kit lens was better then the lens in this thread.

All I mentioned was I have great footage and so do many others shot with the kit lens. I never zoom during a shot so I would never have that problem. I use light so I do not have that problem either. Sure I would love a better lens than the kit but for you to go out and say it is not professional just goes back to the same topic that I have here with so many people.


If I can show you something I did with the kit lens and a flashlight would you say I am a genius? I mean I have been told that before, it truly truly bothers me that people think that you cannot achieve something because of what they perceive to be correct.


I'm gone from this thread, but lets just say I just came from a shoot "paid" where I used nothing but a kit lens.........


peace

 

[...]

The kit lens is massively underrated. It is a great performer when used correctly, ie. No zooming during recording, used outside in daylight or in studio setting, external monitoring for focus as the focus barrel is touchy. Its strengths are a near silent IS system, extreme lightweight, and very good image quality.

However, upgrading to the 17-55 is great if you have the money to spend because it also is an absolutely amazing stills lens. The constant aperture of 2.8 is the lens' biggest selling point and it is the only zoom lens in Canon's lineup with IS that's actually affordable. Chroma aberration and corner sharpness are exemplary compared against the kits lens, but the kit lens is no slouch either. I think if you have the money, the f2.8 alone is worth upgrading. It is the difference between using 1600 ISO vs 400 ISO at the telephoto range. The drawbacks to the 17-55 are its noisy IS and heavy weight.

I bought the 17-55 based on the need for a great video and stills lens and this fit the bill perfectly. I use the kit lens when I need portability and it makes a great walk around lens for vacations and consumer uses. I switch to the 17-55 for pro work just because of the slightly better optics and constant f2.8 which cannot be underestimated how useful it is to have it. It allows you to focus on getting your shot rather than fighting against your equipment. That right there is worth the $1000 premium.

 

[paquitonavas]

I love the 17-55 IS for filmmaking and together with the 70-200 f2.8 this is my choice kit of zoom lens.

I also have the 24-70 f2.8 L but I got worse shots than with the 17-55 (think that 24-70 L has no image stabilizer) and IMO the 17-55 is sharper than 24-70L when working on APC sensors (Canon 7D).

My kit consists in 9 lenses, mostly L series primes and a couple of wonderful Zeiss Distagon primes. The 17-55mm is my all purpose lens and my choice if I've to take just one single lens.

Answering to the main question: the sound is totally normal, and you made a great choice with this lens. Unmissable for the Canon 7D!