Canon EF-S 17-55 first choice, which is second choice?

[kate_oneill]

<p>OK, I think I came up with a great plan. Tell me what you think:<br>

1. Buy the Canon 15-85, this will be great for outside stuff with the kids, parties, sports, BBQ's, etc. Also a wonderful travel lens.<br>

2. Buy the Canon 35 f/2, this will help with my indoor shots of the kids when the 50 1.8 is too tight. Plus, I love primes!<br>

3. Buy a used Speedlite flash for when I need the extra light, maybe if I want to bring the 15-85 in a lower light situation.<br>

I could probably swing this for the same cost as the Canon 17-55. I'm starting to think this is the way to go. The next plan down the road is to update to the 50d maybe at the end of the year.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Ooooh. I should have thought of that!</p>

<p>Good idea. I have the 35mm f/2, and it is a sweetie on either an APS-C as a long normal or as a modest wide angle on a 35mm-sensor camera.</p>

<p>As I said, a few people have been sour about the old 17-85mm, but almost everyone who has one uses it with great glee--the 15-85 is supposed to be even better.</p>

[kate_oneill]

<p>How about these 2 options:<br>

<br /> <strong>Option 1</strong>(the one I just mentioned a couple posts ago):<br />Canon 15-85 IS - for outdoor kids shots, sports and travel<br />Canon 35 f/2 - for indoor shots in lower light<br />Used Speedlite flash<br>

<br /> <strong>Option 2</strong><br />Tamron 17-50 2.8 (probably non-VC) - for indoor shots in lower light and for outside shots of kids<br />Canon 85 1.8 - outdoor shots of kids, sports<br />Used Speedlite flash<br>

<br /> Basically, this decision becomes a comparison between the Canon 15-85 IS and the Tamron 17-50. The Tamron has some pretty dedicated followers from what I've seen. The Canon is relatively new but seems to get decent reviews. Can you tell I over think things too much? The truth is, this will be my last lens upgrade for a while so I want to make the right move, add to that I over analyze the littlest things in life and you get posts like these. :)</p>

[matthew_burnett]

<p>I purchased the Tamron 17-50mm VC and haven't been that satisfied with the lens. I wish I would've just waited and used the kit lens until I could have afforded the Canon 17-55mm.<br>

Sigma has now released a 17-50mm with OS and HSM. It's not shipping yet, but you can purchase it for $669. I may look further into that once some reviews are out on it.</p>

[Brad_]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I've done tons of street pix and street portraits with that lens for my urban photoblog.

 

Smaller, lighter weight, and cheaper than the Canon IS. It's a superb lens. Use the money saved for a flash like you

mentioned...

[rohin2k]

<p>Kate,<br /> Hehe...I went through something similar, so I can see what you mean :) However, think of it this way...what is the most important feature that you have to have in your main lens? For me it was good range, Image stabilization and sharpness...which I got from Canon 15-85. My first choice would NOT be a NON-IS lens as my main kit. A fast lens might not require IS if you're only needing subject isolation all the time...however, when you need to Stop it down for more DOF, IS is quintessential! (Else you'll end up using tripod mostly)<br /> Choice is ultimately yours, but I personally don't like changing lenses too often especially when I'm out traveling or so. Indoor pictures and portraits don't bother me as I can change the lens at my will. However, outdoors you won't like to change the lens as much. So, get the lens you think you'll be using the most.<br /> Hope this helps.<br /> Cheers!<br /> -Rohin</p>

[avijitsett]

<p>I have Canon 17-55mm/f2.8 which is an excellent lens, specially for low light. I will always recommend this lens. Otherwise 15-85 is also a very good choice and covers a very nice range compared to 17-55, the only downside is that it is a bit slow and has variable aperture.</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I have the Sigma 18-50/ 2.8 macro, and have great success with it. I cannot speak to some of the other lenses, as I have not used them.</p>

[amlan]

<p>Kate,</p>

<p>I own the Tamron lens for last 3 years. Before buying it I had the same dilemma like you and finally could not justify paying a grand for the Canon. I have been extremely satisfied with the Tamron. Just for curiosity I rented the Canon once and compared it with the Tamron. The only difference I found was slightly faster AF with the Canon. I did not find any difference in IQ. However, the IS on Canon was a certain plus (but now you can get it on the Tamron as well). Both these are great lenses. The Tamron also put my once beloved 50/1.8 to rest ... if you talk to the owners of either the Canon or the Tamron many will vouch for their prime-like IQ (even wide open).</p>

<p>Personally I like the combination of Tamron 17-50/2.8, 85/1.8 and 430EX - that combo should come at the price of the Canon.</p>

<p>The 15-85 garnered good reviews so far but personally I would rather have f/2.8 than IS. Under certain situations e.g. indoor/low light shooting with fast moving subjects (kids, pets) is way better with the former. But its just a personal choice.</p>

<p>BTW, for a $1100 lens Canon doesn't even include a hood, which Tamron gives for free!</p>

<p>Amlan</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Kate, if you can afford it, the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is in a class by itself (as I see it, anyway). It doesn't matter if you are a pro or not, as images you capture for your hobby, or as a Mom recording your family history are no less important than the shots I record for a client to pay my bills. The size of the lens may seem intimidating at first, but that feeling quickly fades, and it soon becomes "just right". I suggest that the lens hood is also purchased, and always used as well, which makes it an even more imposing vision, but again, it doesn't take long before it becomes a welcome friend in your hand.</p>

<p>Consider that the initial cost will be long forgotten within several months to a year, yet the lens will remain for a lifetime. Camera bodies may come and go over time, but the 17-55 will always be there, and you will never second guess yourself in the way of wondering if you could have made a better choice while you review your photos in the distant future.</p>

<p>I have owned mine for quite a few years now, and I have no regrets. It is heavily used for both work and pleasure, and I have never found any other lens in the range that can compete with it in a "no holds barred" fashion to this day. Don't get me wrong, as there are many fine third party lenses available at less cost today, and if budget is the prime consideration, they represent a valid choice. On the other hand, the 17-55 f/2.8, like most other high end Canon lenses has a fine track record for durability that third party lens manufacturers are still trying to duplicate. The cheaper price of third party lenses always represents a compromise in functionality. That can easily be justified by folks when they press the buy button, but it is still a compromise in the end. Most third party brands offer extreme warranty periods as well, but again, it is their overall track record that forces them to do so, even though their products are far better built today than in the past.</p>

<p>Sorry for the third party rant, but you mentioned right at the top of your post that you can afford the 17-55, and it matches the features you desire perfectly, except for it's imposing presence, which, as I mentioned before, quickly becomes an non issue in practice. In fact, it becomes a comfort. Think carefully before you buy. There will always be plenty of endorsements for third party lenses if you pose the question, but most are really purchased because of their price alone, and the real value of the choice is taken and offered as a matter of faith, rather than as a result of direct experience with the Canon offering.</p>

<p>It is a beautiful lens in all respects, and it is anvil tough to boot. Rant over.... Here are a few pics. The first shot needs explanation, as it won't make sense otherwise. The setup was at a TGIFridays pub in the dead of night. The view from the inside out was coal dark, as there were only random tower lights in the parking lot, and the external signs on the building. The interior was also too dark to make out much detail, and the only illumination was from the various neon lights, and colorful signs placed around the bar. Anyone who has ever been to a Fridays at night can picture the scene.</p>

<p>The shot of the woman sitting across the aisle from me was taken with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens mounted on a 40D body. The lens was zoomed to 55 mm, and the aperture was set wide open to f/2.8. The ISO speed for the shot was 3200. The shutter speed was 1/4 of a second, and the focus was provided by the camera AF. The shot was made HAND HELD. The Raw image was converted to jpg with DPP at the time. No Photoshop tweaking was involved. I left the WB as it was recorded as it fit the scene. The camera metering made the lighting look daytime bright, and I left that alone as well. It was just a fun shot, after all. You can clearly see that she was tapping her fist on the table, and crossed her right leg with her left leg during the exposure by the blur in those areas, but the IS performed perfectly at 1/4 second, wide open, and hand held at ISO 3200. That shot was made back in 2007, but it helps illustrate the amazing potential of the lens. It doesn't matter if you need to capture a typical scene, or if you see a shot that pushes the envelope, this lens will deliver. Birthday parties for your Kids? Family moments in natural light? It's a great lens. The second shot is just a typical NJ snow scene captured with the 17-55 zoomed short on a 50D a few months ago.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2175/2148550616_3b1ef098e6.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /><br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4351065561_69b1a20922.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

<p>By the way, it also makes a great wedding lens... Even if not for pay, your kids will have their moment in time....<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/4618049582_5a4720dddb.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>I would encourage you to purchase the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 for all of the IQ and IS reasons stated and restated but also for the resale value. You can easily get most of your investment back on this lens as long as it's cared for.<br>

Though not spoken about enough f/2.8 in dimmer light makes for easier AF and this lens will out perform the Tamron which has no IS (of course only costs half as much).<br>

IS is a more important feature than I originally gave credit for, prior to owning lenses with IS. It does have a positive effective on what you can do with the lens. It is also a great walk around lens for the cropped bodies and the size isn't a factor for me as I have smallish hands and have never had problems operating the lens.<br>

You won't go wrong with the Canon, it's got more going for it that just pride of ownership. </p>

<p> </p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Tokina AF16-50mm F/2.8 AT-X is worth considering too. I've got it to fill the gap between my Canon 24-105 and my Tokina 11-16 F/2.8. I felt Canon 17-55 F/2.8 was too expensive for that and got the Tokina instead, especially due to the positive experience I had with the 11-16.<br>

Hope it may help.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>When doing most nonprofit events, I do not hesitate using my Tamron 17-50 on my 7D or 50D. It is an excellent lens. I have numerous L lens and I don't always want to take them for the small quality increase.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I have the 17-55 and will echo the comments of those praising its qualities, and f2.8 can offer some excellent creative options for portraits or indoor (low light) shots. But if you want a walkaround lens then the range of the 15-85 combined with its quality makes it a very hard act to beat. As JDM commented, the 17-85 has a lot of admirers for the same reason.<br>

So it is focal range versus f2.8.</p>

 

[songtsen]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6045521">Kate O'Neill</a> wrote <br>

<em>"How about these 2 options: " </em><br />...<br />Another option to consider:<br />Tamron 17-50 f2.8; Tamron 28-75 f2.8; Speedlite.</p>

<p>This one has worked pretty well for me (with an XTi).</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>I purchased the 17-55 Canon lens in January 2007 from B & H. I complained about the $50 for the lens hood, but never about the grand for the lens. In fact, I just ordered the Canon 7D rather than go full frame, so I could continue to use this lens. I have five other lenses which account for 10 % of my lens use, and the other 90% is with the 17-55 lens. I , too, am an amateur. Listen to the voices who recommend this lens. You will not regret it. Rest my case. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> When doing most nonprofit events, I do not hesitate using my Tamron 17-50 on my 7D or 50D. It is an excellent

lens. I have numerous L lens and I don't always want to take them for the small quality increase.

 

Agree wholeheartedly... I have a 24-70 f/2.8 L that I use on a 5DII body. But I like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 much better on

a crop body I still shoot on the street with. In fact, I like it better than my other Canon lenses as well, except for the 85

f/1.8. I do a lot of impromptu street portraits of strangers and the Tamron is exceptional for that.

 

I compared the Tamron with the Canon 17-55 IS, and for what I do, the Tamron was better. Also includes a hood,

(though unlike the 24-70 f/2.8, I rarely use it because the lens is so inherently flare resistant), nice case, and a 6 year

warranty. Smaller in size, less weight, and much less money ($415 at B&H). Having a decent flash like a 430 or 580 is much more

important than any differences between the two lens choices.

[JDMvW]

<p>I am definitely not a Canon fanboy, and the Tamron and Sigma lenses I have serve me well. That being said, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment in choosing between any of the lenses that top out at circa 50mm and the 15-85mm. I'm not afraid to use high ISOs tho', so if you are, the attraction of a faster aperture might be a datum on the other side of the scale.<br>

A prominent existential counsellor once taught me that some decisions simply have to be made, accepted, and not worried about any more. Stop worrying and choose, and don't look back!</p>

 

[kate_oneill]

<p>Wow, thanks for all of the great input - I have a lot to think about.<br>

I think I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85. I am positive I will be purchasing the Canon 35 f/2 or Sigma 30 1.4 for indoors so the zoom will be used primarily outdoors. The only reason I am hesitant towards the Canon is that I love to have a shallower DOF sometimes for that background blur. I don't know how much of that I can achieve with the Canon.<br>

Does anyone have portrait pictures using the 15-85? Will 5.6 at 85 mm have a nice look to it or 50mm at 5.0? I don't have enough experience with zooms in this sense.</p>

 

[josh_lutton]

<p>Kate,<br /> I think you have to decide what is most important to you. Is a single walkabout lens with highest image quality? Is it low light capability? (For moving or for still subjects?) Image quality? Shallow DOF?<br /> I have both the 17-55mm and 85mm 1.8. I can't speak about the other lenses.<br /> I like the 17-55, but I get far, far more "holy cow" shots from the 85. That lens is small, light, works great in low light, and has incredible (shallow) DOF and bokeh. I'd consider finding a way to include that in the mix.<br /> You might consider the 18-55 IS, 85 1.8, and a flash. That would give you a decent set of focal lengths, small size, IS, flash, and at least one lens amost eveyone agrees is just killer.</p>

<p> </p>

[hstelljes]

<p>Kate,<br>

I've owned both the the tamron and the canon lenses in question. As much as I thought I liked the tamron when I finally had the money for the canon 17-55 I realized this is the best lens in this category hands down after a couple weeks of shooting. I'm certainly not a pro but as others have mentioned all photos are important to the person taking them, why not get the best if you can afford it. You won't regret it.</p>

[levon_monte]

<p>I recommend the Tamron 17-50 (non-stabilzed, it's much sharper than the new pricey VC version). I just bought mine this month from Abe's of Maine for $460, tamron has a $45 rebate on it, so I got it for about $415! This camera is super sharp and a steal for a f/2.8 lens. sure, it's not in the canon 17-55's class, but then again, it's not $1100! I've taken some amazing shots with the Tamron over the last few weeks. Here's a couple reviews <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx">HERE</a> and <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review">HERE</a> that I used to base my decision on. Here's some photos I've taken with my Tamron 17-50, all shot at f/2.8</p>

<p><a id="myphotolink" href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1126555&id=1464680167"><img id="myphoto" src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs511.ash1/30154_1441755651611_1464680167_1126533_6389347_n.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /> <a id="myphotolink" href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1126555&id=1464680167"><img id="myphoto" src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs531.snc3/30154_1441751771514_1464680167_1126519_4259263_n.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /> <a id="myphotolink" href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1126555&id=1464680167"><img id="myphoto" src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs551.snc3/30154_1441753771564_1464680167_1126525_2400027_n.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /> <a id="myphotolink" href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1126555&id=1464680167"><img id="myphoto" src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs511.ash1/30154_1441751851516_1464680167_1126520_486838_n.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

[kate_oneill]

<p>Thanks for all of your advice!</p>

<p>The decision has been made. After all the over-analyzing, I'm buying the Canon 17-55 2.8 with a 430EX II flash. Yeah, I broke the budget. I think my husband is so tired of hearing me talk about lenses that he told me to "just get what I want!" Don't have tell me twice! :) Little concerned about the size of it but I guess I'll get used to it.</p>

<p>Now my husband can analyze the stock market in peace. No more lens talk....for now.</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br>

Kate</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>High five! Your husband will love the lull in budget busting discussion, and when the inevitable chorus of "wow" moments reaches a fever pitch after the lens arrives, he will at least be able to look at images captured with the lens that will put a smile on his face...</p>

<p>You will love it. Don't resist the factory lens hood when you buy the lens (remember, he did give the green light). Get used to it, and always use it. It will become a comfortable part of your identity in short order, maximize IQ in all situations, and it WILL save your camera and lens from a date with gravity at least once in the future. Even with all the many knocks, gravity adventures, and scars my hood took for the team over nearly 5 years of commercial use, you have to admit that it still looks beautiful....:). The little battery is there to keep things in size perspective.</p>

<p>Considering the high level of praise offered by folks here who already own this lens, I can't wait to read your impressions over time.<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4622751913_e5b0b0658e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

[kate_oneill]

<p>Thanks Jim! I'm so excited.<br>

I did order the hood and a B+W MC filter. Can't wait to try it out!</p>