Jump to content

Why can't Canon make a 17-55 like Nikon


Recommended Posts

Just to prevent any assumptions that I'm trolling here...I'm a Canon shooter. I

recently had the opportunity to handle and examine the Nikon 17-55mm DX lens

and what an excellent piece of glass it is!

 

Quite honestly there is no comparison between Canon's 17-55 ef-s and Nikon's DX

in terms of build quality. The Canon seems like a cheap kit lens in comparison.

The Nikon has minimal barrel extension which is protected inside the lens hood as

the hood itself connects to the main barrel as opposed the the extending barrel of

the Canon where the hood sits.

 

Nikon's zoom ring and focus ring were solid and smooth, whereas the Canon's

zoom ring was very stiff and jerky to say the least.

 

Granted, the Canon has IS and is around $200 cheaper, but who really needs IS at

this focal length?

 

I truly wish Canon would make an "L" quality lens at this focal length that

competes with Nikon's version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't tried the Nikkor glass - or this particular lens - but Canon has the venerable

17-40mm f/4L, which is pretty close in focal length and the 16-35mm f/2.8L which is

faster and more expensive but obviously not as long. Both are built well though. I'm

sure Canon's probably got a few lenses Nikon wouldn't mind emulating.

 

I own a FF camera so I don't have any EF-S glass but I'd always heard people say

good things about this lens' image quality. Like this guy: http://www.the-digital-

picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx Who

says:

 

"I'm not sure why Canon did not go all the way and make the Canon EF-S 17-55mm

f/2.8 IS USM Lens an L-Series lens. An upgraded (metal) lens barrel seems to be

the missing component - and the red ring... This lens certainly has the image quality

to be an "L"."

 

The lack of a metal barrel seems like a business decision that was made in order to

bring it in at a lower price point because, well... it is an EF-S lens. If they charged

what Nikon does for its 17-55mm DX ($1,149; Canon's lens with rebate: $960) that

$200 difference might buy that metal lens barrel.

 

I understand build-quality is important but most people looking at the results don't.

The image quality of the Canon lens is supposedly excellent. So if you need wide

and fast with excellent build, go 16-35mm f/2.8L and keep a 50mm prime on the

side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...but who really needs IS at this focal length?"

 

I do. I could have purchased a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for $500 less, and already had the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, but I was more than willing to pay the extra for the IS. I use it all the time. I shot an outdoor wedding today, and didn't need it, but that was the first time in a long time.

 

Why is that people keep dissing IS for normal zooms? And why is that people keep buying normal zooms without IS? That's what I can't figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Nikon's 17-55mm for a couple of years. I have never used Canon's equivalent.

 

While I got great shots with it, I found there was too much distortion at the edges for my liking below 20mm. When I took group shots, people at the outer left and right edges had wide faces and bodies.

 

While excellent for event photography, I found, it not as good as one would expect for landscape photography (at infinity). I have read others making the same comment.

 

I also never liked the position of the zoom ring - far to close the the camera's body for my liking, especially when using a bracket. I replaced it with and now use Nikon's 24-70mm. I like it over the 17-55mm but my favorite lens is Canon's 24-70mm for my 5D.

 

The grass is always greener on the other side!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Granted, the Canon has IS and is around $200 cheaper, but who really needs IS at this focal length?<<

 

So, cheaper and with IS - and what about IQ? Many people here use IS at all focal lengths. If you don't there's the 16-35 f/2.8 II which is a bit more expensive than the Nikon but, it's a super lens.

 

>>The grass is always greener on the other side!<<

 

Or, in this case...THE GLASS... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>"Why can't Canon make a 17-55 like Nikon"<<<

 

I guess they do not think there is a real market for it or just not room in thier current lineup.

 

>>>"but who really needs IS at this focal length? "<<<

 

Me...I had two choices for low light reception type shooting to complement my 70-200 f2.8L IS. I could get the 24-70 f2.8L on my 5D or the 17-55 f2.8 IS on my 40D.

 

I went with the 17-55 f2.8/40D combo even with the "legendary" IQ of the 24-70 f2.8. I am very happy with the lens and I think it is a very good general purpose "walk around lens". Wish it was longer but what are ya going to do....guess I could get a lens stretcher. :o)

 

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot both Nikon (mainly) and Canon (because of some lens options that Nikon no longer has for DSLRs), and build quality is similar between pro lenses. Both companies make crappy lenses, like the Nikon 18-55mm, which is embarrassingly bad. But the 17-55mm is a particularly outstanding lens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> "Granted, the Canon has IS and is around $200 cheaper, but who really needs IS at this focal length?"

 

IS is always a nice thing to have.

 

>> "I truly wish Canon would make an "L" quality lens at this focal length that competes with Nikon's version."

 

It seems that Canon may have some sort of internal policy disallowing the labelling of any EF-S lenses as L series. In contrast to that, Nikon has more than one DX glass w/ that "gold ring". It's a difference in terms of marketing strategy.

 

>> "but Canon has the venerable 17-40mm f/4L"

 

I think Nikon lacks a direct counterpart to that lens, or any other f/4 L lens. The closest thing they have/had is the 18-35 3.5-4.5 w/ a consumer-built, variable aparture, and no motor.

 

>> "why can't nikon make a 70-200 f4 similar to canon's - well built"

 

That what I been thinking about. Not only Canon has more choices, including cheaper choices among the 70-200s, but they also lack Nikon's FF corner problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Canon DOES make a lens in this category.

 

The 17-55 has fine optical quality.

 

The new materials these lenses are made from are not just "plastic" and the use of metal may be a mark of quality, or it may just be a sign that the maker is still using old-fashioned technology. You may think the Nikon is better built just because of how it looks, but real durability is more complicated. I personally think that the Canon is overpriced, but the Nikon is even more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I truly wish Canon would make an "L" quality lens at this focal length that competes with Nikon's version."

 

They do, it's the 17-55 2.8 IS. Just because it isn't identical in every way doesn't mean it's any less of a lens. I agree with JDM. There's more than just plastic here and it may just be a higher tech way of building product. Example, plastic (carbon fiber) bicycle frames are considered much more high high tech than the older chromoly or aluminum technology.

 

Canon will not call this lens "L" because their marketing people have decided all "L" product must be full frame. That's it. Technically, and IQ wise it is an "L" lens. Certainly price wise =)

 

As for your comment about the rings, you clearly had a defective copy of the 17-55 in your hands. Mine are smooth as butter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if the OP is using a XXXD or XXD series body, there is a 17/55 lens that is as good as Nikon's. In fact it edges out the Nikon in both CA control, and barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

Take a peek at photozone for inbiased results; in terms of IQ, the Canon is the winner.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<i>As for your comment about the rings, you clearly had a defective copy of the 17-55 in your hands. Mine are smooth as butter.</i>

</p>

<p>

I'm not so sure that Glenn's lens is defective. I've known two copies of the Canon 17-55 that initially had stiff zoom rings, particularly in the middle of the zoom range. Stiff zooming is also mentioned in the comments at the end of <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs_17-55/">Photo.Net's review of lens</a>. If it is a defect, it's a very common one. My copy <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ILCg">became much easier to zoom</a> after I had used it for a few weeks.

</p>

<p>

The 17-55 is the lens I use the most often and the image quality is very good. I also find IS to be very useful.

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar w/Nikon products but I have heard good things about the 17-55 ef-s Canon lens. I just bought the Canon 17-40L and it is an excellent lens although it doesn't have IS but it really doesnn't matter too much. Since I bought this lens I have noticed seeing quite a lot of photo's in magazines like Nature's Best or Outdoor Photographer that were shot with the 17-40L lens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...