anyone with one of these beasts? I tried a search to get some opinions but couldn't find any...I figure someone here has got one of these and might have an opinion to share on its quality...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ef-s 17-55 Is 2.8?
- Thread starter bluewire
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Head on over to Fred Miranda where you'll find plenty of info - it's a very highly thought-of lens
I had it on my 30D. It's a fantastic lens, sharp as any L glass I've had.
The downside is that it's EF-S. If you're spending that kind of money on a lens...maybe (just maybe!) you should look at a 5D too. If you do decide to move to full frame, all those EF-S lenses are useless!
The downside is that it's EF-S. If you're spending that kind of money on a lens...maybe (just maybe!) you should look at a 5D too. If you do decide to move to full frame, all those EF-S lenses are useless!
anyone with one of these beasts? I tried a search to get some opinions but couldn't find any...I figure someone here has got one of these and might have an opinion to share on its quality...
Another good place to look is dpreview.com. Check out the Pro Forum as well as the Canon forums.
I have one and it lives on my 30D.
Sharper than all my old ef primes in the same range.
IS is excellent on this lens.
Would buy it again in a second ....
Sharper than all my old ef primes in the same range.
IS is excellent on this lens.
Would buy it again in a second ....
It definitely is a beast, but it's probably one of the best non-prime lens that Canon has ever made. Now that I remember more about it, all of the elements are the same as L glass; Canon doesn't label it as such because it is an EF-S lens (stupid marketing...)
anyone with one of these beasts? I tried a search to get some opinions but couldn't find any...I figure someone here has got one of these and might have an opinion to share on its quality...
It's called L killer for a reason. The only Canon zooms that end up with traditional 24-70mm equivalent field of view range on a DSLR are the 18-55, 17-40, and 17-55. This is the fastest, the only one with IS, but also unfortunately the most expensive.
If you have the money and aren't interested in FF, go for the 17-55.
It's by far my favorite lens. It lives on my 30D all the time. http://www.fredmiranda.com is where I did my research before buying it.
I hear that it's IQ of the 17-55 IS is similar to the much cheaper Tamron 17-50mm which goes for around $450 or half the price of the 17-55 IS.
If IS really means that much to you I'd go for the Canon, but otherwise the Tamron is fine, I have one and it's IQ is superb but I'm finding out that IS really would be more of a benefit for the shooting I do (inside and low light) so I'll upgrade in the near future.
Even if you plan on full frame in the future, the 17-55 will hold it's value so don't be too worried if you purchase it now and want to purchase a FF camera and lens later, someone will buy the 17-55 if it is well kept in the future, these days it goes used for around $850-900 compared to the retail price of 949.
If IS really means that much to you I'd go for the Canon, but otherwise the Tamron is fine, I have one and it's IQ is superb but I'm finding out that IS really would be more of a benefit for the shooting I do (inside and low light) so I'll upgrade in the near future.
Even if you plan on full frame in the future, the 17-55 will hold it's value so don't be too worried if you purchase it now and want to purchase a FF camera and lens later, someone will buy the 17-55 if it is well kept in the future, these days it goes used for around $850-900 compared to the retail price of 949.