EF 17-55 /2.8 IS

[henry_l]

<p>Cool cool. Thanks everyone. I'm liking Ben's idea of getting the low cost trigger, instead of the 580...I can forgo the TTL capabilities for now.<br>

Dan, the 50mm 1.8 was my first prime since it was the most affordable prime, and I use it well within it's limitations. It's a keeper.<br>

As for the Tamron, it's AF can't possibly be louder that the 50mm 1.8, that thing is a clunker. I don't have anything that is remotely quite, including my Sigma 18-200 w/ OS.<br>

OK, I guess I can say that I've narrowed it down further. I can forgo the 17-55 for now due to cost, and perhaps check out the Tamrons, but I can definitely get by with what I got so far. I just got that itch for an "upgrade" base on nicer lenses that I've handled so far such as the 70-200 2.8 IS, 24-105 f4 L. But I will definetely check out a cheap wireless trigger.<br>

Thanks all!</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>For the OP of this thread, if you want one high quality lens the purchase the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. You will not regret purchasing the lens. Forget all of the advice about primes, etc. The 17-55 will not disappoint you.<br>

This lens will work perfectly for moving children.You shouldn't have any problem shooting in low light situations, but please don't confuse that with no light situations.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Henry as to how loud the auto focus is, it never really bothered me and I never really noticed until I used a Canon L lens. Its just a little buzzy but what annoyed me is that it would often hunt in dim light. Its not really bad, just not as good so once I used an L I became spoiled. You mention using some Canon L lenses, the 17-55 is on par with the 24-105 in size and performance but not as good in the build quality. Its not poorly built just a little closer to the build of a consumer zoom like the 28-135.</p>

<p> </p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Everyone is wrong I am right, hehe. But seriously, do yourself a huge favor, Mr. Lee. And go on to your local camera shop and purchase the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS. You will love it and it will be like your second (if your little one is your first) baby. I know I love my baby too. You want to get the best, because the situation merits it. My boy is six months now, congrats on yours. And although I have the holy trinity of L primes, I find that my baby gets framed more often with my 17-55. Word of note, you may find that he may get serious when you hide behind your camera and that lens. Frame first, then get your face of camera talk to your baby and shoot. Have fun.</p>

<p> </p>

<br /> <a href="http://s112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/angelboc/?action=view&current=20090603-IMG_0246.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/angelboc/20090603-IMG_0246.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a> <br /> <br /> <br />

<p>My boy at 1 month. EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS, 430EX bounce flash</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>The EF-S 17-55 is so good that when I was ready to upgrade from my 40D, I bought a 7D instead of a 5DM2. Although there are many benefits of FF, the lack of a FF equivalent to the 17-55 was a compelling enough reason for me not to make the switch. I also have a nifty fifty and the Canon 30 mm/f2. Despite this, I keep coming back to the zoom. 50 mm is just too long on crop sensor body for every day use. I love the 30 mm, but the versatility of the zoom just can't be beat.</p>

[billy_sprague]

<p>>>Assuming you have an ASP-C camera its probably the best generally purpose lens you can get. With no flash however every bit helps so I would consider a fast prime as well but as zooms go the 17-55 is probably your best bet.<<<br>

<br /> I dunno, Tommy. I am considering it for sure. Am torn between that and the 15-85. Leaning toward the 15-85 at the moment. The extra reach is more important to me than the extra speed of the 17-55. YMMV.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>In fact, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is almost reason to buy a cropped sensor body in and of itself. There really isn't a lens with equivalent functionality for full frame bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I wholeheartedly agree. It's a superb lens.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>Billy I would hold off on the 15-85, that lens has to come down in price. If your primary need is outdoor or to use with flash the extra reach will be useful. However, IMO a variable aperture lens that is 5.6 at 85mm does not seem to be worth $800. </p>

[alan_green4]

to shoot quietly so as not to wake baby, try live view. in this mode the mirror is locked up and shutter noise is almost non-existent. you have to focus manually -- there is an auto focus option but to use it the mirror flips down causing a loud snap

[kevin_b.2]

<p>I am really happy with my Sigma 18-50 F2.8. It doesn't have IS but it is still a very good lens. Its very sharp wide open. Much cheaper than the canon.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/314-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-aspherical-if-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/314-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-aspherical-if-test-report--review</a></p>

<p>example from the lens are in my portfolio. the girl and the young boy.</p>

[stephen_morhall]

<p>I have this lens and use it all the time on my 40d love it to bits and the image quality is great. my only one complaint is that i get lens creap when pointing stright down to fix this i normaly just take the lens hood off which is enought to make the differance. like others in this forum i also have the nifty fiffty, but on my crop sensor it is just to long to use indoors and cannot remember the last time i used it. 17-55 2.8 it's great go for it</p>

[tony_fletcher]

<p><strong>The 17-55 f/2.8 is awesome.</strong> I repeat: awesome. I shoot my kids all the time with it from infants to-now-the oldest at 7. Low light, bright light, ice rinks, indoor, outdoor, soccer, portraits, parties, beautiful bokeh, super-sharp...it's truly the "walk around" lens for the cropped sensor. Pony up—you'll love it.</p>

[billy_sprague]

<blockquote>

<p>Billy I would hold off on the 15-85, that lens has to come down in price. If your primary need is outdoor or to use with flash the extra reach will be useful. However, IMO a variable aperture lens that is 5.6 at 85mm does not seem to be worth $800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. It is, to be kind, overpriced and that is partly my reason for hesitating. In the interest of accuracy though, Adorama and B&H have the lens for $722. All that said, when I was playing with the 17-55 the other day, it certainly didn't <strong>feel</strong> like a $1000 lens.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>"I was playing with the 17-55 the other day, it certainly didn't <strong>feel</strong> like a $1000 lens."</p>

<p>Billy I agree with you there too, I tested out the 17-55 and 24-105 and ended up with a 24-105. I know I strongly recommend the 17-55 and I still do but the build is closer to the cheaper consumer lenses and I knew I would be going full frame so I went with the L. However if you are using an ASP-C body I still think the 17-55 is your best option and sometimes I wish they made a more high end consumer zoom for full frame. The 24-70 is so heavy that I can't see using it so great build is not always such a great benefit, especially if your using it for travel. I lugged a 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 around the Galapagos islands in 98 degree heat and it was grueling.</p>

<p>As to the 15-85, I did notice the price change, it must be part of the rebates, still $720 is even a little high, I would look to pay around $600 for that lens. I think it would make a nice travel lens. It looks pretty compact</p>

[henry_l]

<p>Once again, I haven't ruled out the possibility of dropping the grand to get the 17-55. each and every one of you who praised it moves me closer and closer to getting it. Christmas may be a good time. Thank you all. Does anyone use it with a grip? I have the T1i with the grip and it hasn't come off the camera yet, and I believe it should balance well.</p>

[billy_sprague]

<p>But I am a <strong>cheap</strong> consumer, Tommy. :)</p>

<p>I sure would like to do something about upgrading before the holidays. My youngest grandson is 2-1/2 and I expect him to be extra precious at Christmas. </p>

<p>I will probably just stick with my nifty 50 and wait a bit to see if the price comes down on the 15-85. I wish it was a constant 2.8, not a huge lens and still cost $800. The sky is chartreuse in my world. :D</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Billy if they make that lens I would be the first in line but I would not hold my breath :-}. I have 3 L lenses and most of the time I am using a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. so I would probably use the 50 if I where you and hold off for now. But that 17-55 does produce very nice results even if it feels a bit cheap compared to the L's and now its not such an even field. When I got it the 24-105 was the same price now its about $250 difference. </p>

[henry_l]

<p>Is it a no-brainer if I can get the 17-55 with hood (used) for 780? Some guy locally is selling cuz he's got a 5D.</p>

[jeffrey_synn]

<p>That's pretty darn good. Bring your camera body and a flashlight and do the usual kick-the-tires thing--check for fungus, scratches on glass, smooth focus & zoom rings, undamaged filter ring, proper AF, IS & aperture blade operation. Some dust inside is acceptable (inevitable?) and the price is definitely right.<br>

<br />If you have never used a ring-USM AF lens before, using it will be a wake up call for how good AF can get. Contrast detect and conventional DC motors got nothing on this. (FYI, this 17-55mm "Mini-L/Near-L" is my first ring USM lens.)</p>

<p>I'd definitely agree to look at it at the very least. Good luck with the transaction.</p>

[david_gobeil]

<blockquote>Does anyone use it with a grip? I have the T1i with the grip and it hasn't come off the camera yet, and I believe it should balance well.</blockquote>

<p>I bought this lens last year after my Sigma 17-35mm bit the dust (after ten years of use). I was always fairly happy with results from the Sigma, but once I tried the Canon 17-55mm I was blown away! I use it on a XTI with grip and 40d with grip and it is VERY well balanced. I think I might already be preaching to the choir here, but you really can NOT go wrong with this lens.</p>

[mneace]

<p>Great lens. The IS makes this a better lens than the 24-70 2.8 L lens, in my opinion. Have had this lens for about 7 months and it is on the camera far more than the "nifty 50". </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>All that said, when I was playing with the 17-55 the other day, it certainly didn't <strong>feel</strong> like a $1000 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pictures do.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[billy_sprague]

<p>Okay Tommy, et al, you guys have nearly talked me into it. I have reserved the 17-55 from lensrentals.com for the holiday.</p>

[billy_sprague]

<p>Hell's bells. I fired off an email to lensrentals.com suggesting they carry the 15-85. They emailed me right back saying they put it in stock yesterday. I have BOTH lenses coming for the holidays. I am happier than a pig in pooh.</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<blockquote>

<p>I am happier than a pig in pooh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>delicious</p>