17-55 IS

[SAWYER]

I am thinking of making this my next lens, is it really that much better than the 18-55 IS?

 

[GoSharks]

If you have a need for f/2.8, yes. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[996GT2]

The 17-55 IS is the best normal zoom you can buy for an APS-C sensor camera. f/2.8 and IS make it unbeatable in low light if you have to have a zoom.

That said, it's up to you whether the price tag of $800+ used or $1000+ new is worth it. Image quality wise, it will be sharper than the 18-55 IS, but you may not notice a whole lot of difference unless you're viewing 100% on your monitor or printing very large.

The caveats with the 17-55 are the rather mediocre build quality (considering the price), incompatibility with full frame should you ever upgrade your body, and a widely identified dust problem. Many people on POTN refer to this as the "dust pump" since dust easily gets inside the lens.


If you need the f/2.8 on a tighter budget, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX Macro and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II are both good alternatives. Neither are as sharp as the 17-55 (naturally, given the price gap), but unless you really need supreme sharpness throughout the image at f/2.8 then you probably won't find this a big issue.

 

[SAWYER]

I'm pretty happy with my 18-55 IS but people on a photo forum I go to talk the 17-55 up big time. They posted some comparison pics and i couldn't believe the difference, but no actually sample pics that were not zoomed.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I'm pretty happy with my 18-55 IS but people on a photo forum I go to talk the 17-55 up big time. They posted some comparison pics and i couldn't believe the difference, but no actually sample pics that were not zoomed.

Are you talking about POTN?

Personally I'm more than happy with my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Is it as sharp as a 17-55 or 16-35L? No. But it's more than good enough for my needs.

Remember, whenever you get the urge to upgrade, keep in mind that 80% of a good picture comes from the photographer's talent, and maybe 20% comes from the equipment. It's best to work on the first 80% before you get into improving the last 20%.

 

[Maximus96]

don't forget the IS motor has been known to die after about 1 year of heavy professional use. it'll probably last longer for us amateurs but for the cost of admission that is not acceptable IMO. also the inferior build quality (compared to other lens in the price range) and the dust problem is enough to sway me towards the 24-70L which is slightly more expensive used, around $850-950 usually.

i also have a sigma 18-50 2.8 macro. the build is significantly better then the 18-55IS lens that came with my XSI. Image quality at F8-11 is probably the same as the kit. i didn't buy it for using 2.8 with low light as i have a 580ex ii, instead i wanted the 2.8 for blurring out the background.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: GoSharks
If you have a need for f/2.8, yes. Otherwise, not so much.

+1

F/2.8 gives you a faster shutter speed for stopping action and/or for helping shoot indoors where there is not as much light. Plus you get the ability to control your DOF better.

Another plus (for me anyway), is you can set your aperture to whatever you want (well F2.8 and above) and no matter what focal length your at, the aperture stays the same. One less thing to worry about when shooting.

Originally posted by: Maximus96
also the inferior build quality (compared to other lens in the price range) and the dust problem is enough to sway me towards the 24-70L which is slightly more expensive used, around $850-950 usually.

I second the 24-70L. I know a lot of users hate the focal length on crop sensors, but I'm not much into wide angle.

 

[SAWYER]

A prime would do better indoors and be cheaper right? The main reason i would want the 17-55 IS is better low light performance. If I could get a nice prime for much cheaper I would do that.

 

[Kelvrick]

Money well spent if you get a 580ex instead. Heck, you can get a tamron 17-50 2.8 and the 580ex and still have money to spend on a tripod.

 

[SAWYER]

I don't like flash

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
A prime would do better indoors and be cheaper right? The main reason i would want the 17-55 IS is better low light performance. If I could get a nice prime for much cheaper I would do that.

28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, and 50mm f/1.4 USM are the ways to go in primes

 

[foghorn67]

My only caveat after two seasons with that lens is a busted IS motor. They replaced it with a two day turn around. The first season, for over twenty weddings, it was on 100% of the time. Since then, I only use it for the detail shots. I don't have the dust problem. And the build quality is excellent. Yes it's plastic, but it's well done. No zoom creep.
Looking at the alternatives, most APS-C minded, fast walkaround lenses are noisy. Too distracting.
If you don't care about motor noise, get the Tammy 17-50 2.8. Dead sharp on center. If it isn't as sharp as my Canon, it's close enough. (Used to have that Tamron myself.)

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
isn't as sharp as my Canon, it's close enough. (Used to have that Tamron myself.)

The only problems I've notice with Tamrons (owned a 17-50 and currently 28-75) is that they hunt alot in low light. A problem the 17-55IS does not have.

OP, if you are taking shots of still objects indoors the IS will help tremendously. I have seen some pretty sharp longer exposure shots from the 17-55IS.

 

[ghostman]

Early on, I bought the kit lens as a temporary solution. Now that I'm looking to replace it, I'm likely to go with the Tamron 17-50mm. I have the Tamron 28-75mm and it's an amazing lens. It does hunt in low contrast areas, especially in low light, but I can't justify the Canon 17-55IS.

And I'm a huge fan of flash. Bounced, off-camera or thru an umbrella and you get very pleasing light.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: foghorn67
isn't as sharp as my Canon, it's close enough. (Used to have that Tamron myself.)

The only problems I've notice with Tamrons (owned a 17-50 and currently 28-75) is that they hunt alot in low light. A problem the 17-55IS does not have.

OP, if you are taking shots of still objects indoors the IS will help tremendously. I have seen some pretty sharp longer exposure shots from the 17-55IS.

I would totally agree with your assessment of the Tamron 17-50. Its a great lens for the price, but it takes its time in low light.

 

[SaoFeng]

it's a fantastic lens.

 

[bludragon]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I don't like flash

The point of an external flash is that you can bounce it and/or use a diffusor so that is does not look like you used flash. If you're looking for better indoor shots an external flash will make a bigger impact than a larger aperture. Check out some samples of flash done properly and you may change your mind about not liking flash.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: bludragon

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I don't like flash

The point of an external flash is that you can bounce it and/or use a diffusor so that is does not look like you used flash. If you're looking for better indoor shots an external flash will make a bigger impact than a larger aperture. Check out some samples of flash done properly and you may change your mind about not liking flash.

I agree. Fast lenses just add to the great benifit a properly used flash can get.

Some great reading here.

Read this.

And this

 

[idiotekniQues]

i just got this lens a month ago. this thing is RAZOR SHARP. all the detailed reviews online verify this thing is as sharp and BETTER at some things than several L lenses in the same range areas. top it off with a fast 2.8 plus IS? no-brainer.

it should kill the 18-55IS.

i send family shots that i take with this lens of say the family dog, etc.. - snapshots - and their first comment is what did you shoot this with? it is so sharp and perfect.

http://athos.smugmug.com/photos/558344598_3Cf7v-L.jpg

http://athos.smugmug.com/photos/558345770_6rMkd-L.jpg