New lens - Canon 17-55 IS USM f2.8

Trick

Trick

Trick

Soldato
Joined
7 Oct 2003
Posts
3,910
Location
York
Bought one of these little beauties at the weekend, second hand, absolutely mint condition. To say it's sharp is an understatement! It came with a Lehmanns certificate to guarantee the focus is spot on.

The effect of IS with f2.8 is remarkable - handheld in low light indoors throughout the range due to the constant aperture is a joy. It's noticably a lot better than my Sigma 17-70 which itself is a fine lens.

All I can say is I'm very much looking forward to getting out this week to take some shots. I've decided to use a Hoya UV filter with it all the time to save the front element and protect again the ingress of dust (apparently a bit of an issue with this lens). The tiny degradation in quality (if any) is a compromise I'm willing to take with such an amazing piece of kit.

3359616749_1d80e8a3bc_b.jpg
 
On the subject of filters, I bought a Hoya UV 77mm filter for £40. Would I have been better spending an extra £15 and getting the SHMC PRO-1 filter? Is there likely to be any noticeable difference between the two in real world use?
 
Trick said:
On the subject of filters, I bought a Hoya UV 77mm filter for £40. Would I have been better spending an extra £15 and getting the SHMC PRO-1 filter? Is there likely to be any noticeable difference between the two in real world use?
Click to expand...

Both of them will degrade your image quality, so take your pick I guess (or just use a lens hood like a sensible person).
 
Interesting. I bought the filter after reading quite a few test on the 'net which did some pretty exhaustive tests to see if a filter made a discernible difference - the general summary was that it didn't, although many people on the various forums still swear that it does.

I can see both sides of the argument and I'm certainly a bit skeptical about putting a 40 quid bit of glass in front of canon's own optics, but on the other hand I don't want my 17-55 swimming in dust in 6 months times like this chaps
 
Don't bother with the filter.

Get a hood.

I've been using mine in a not totally protective way and its fine.

I'd rather not have the related issues with having a filter than without IMO.

But yes its a stonking lens!
 
I love my 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor, it's a very useful range on an APS-C sensor. I use a Hoya Pro1 MC protector (i.e. it's not a UV filter)...frankly the lens is so sharp that even if the filter is making a small difference to sharpness it's not noticable and sharpness is never a problem.
 
I may well be. A mate has first refusal on it and I'm waiting for him to get back to me. If not it'll be advertised on here and on talkphotography.
 
Nice lens, probably top of my list should I decide to replace one of my current lenses (now I've experienced constant f/2.8 and IS on seperate lenses I can only begin to imagine just how good both together must be! How much did you pay for it?
 
Concorde Rules said:
Don't bother with the filter.

Get a hood.

I've been using mine in a not totally protective way and its fine.

I'd rather not have the related issues with having a filter than without IMO.
Click to expand...

I've never noticed any loss in image quality with filters, personaly i'd rather break a £20 filter than the lenses its self if i dropped it
 
spotter300 said:
I've never noticed any loss in image quality with filters, personaly i'd rather break a £20 filter than the lenses its self if i dropped it
Click to expand...

What type of fall is there where a filter would be capable of protecting the lens? It's a totally silly view. Yes, you often drop a lens and smash the filter but not the lens: but if you'd dropped it without the filter, it wouldn't have smashed the lens either. It's not like a filter absorbs any shock. People just look at their smashed filter and assume that's what would have happened to their front element, which is invariably untrue.

The only time a filter is of protective value is if you're in either: an extremely dusty environment; or an environment where stones etc. are being flicked at your front element (e.g. photographing a rally). It's absolutely pointless to keep one on your lens at all times, and demonstrably reduces image quality.

Here's a comparison someone else did:

uvfilterkitlens.jpg
 
PinkFloyd said:
I thought the idea behind a UV filter was to reduce glare! lol. Nice comparison :)
Click to expand...

When used with film that is true to a certain extent. more it reduces atmospheric haze.

Glare, is usually reduced with a polariser, stopping specular reflections.
 
robmiller said:
What type of fall is there where a filter would be capable of protecting the lens? It's a totally silly view. Yes, you often drop a lens and smash the filter but not the lens: but if you'd dropped it without the filter, it wouldn't have smashed the lens either. It's not like a filter absorbs any shock. People just look at their smashed filter and assume that's what would have happened to their front element, which is invariably untrue.

The only time a filter is of protective value is if you're in either: an extremely dusty environment; or an environment where stones etc. are being flicked at your front element (e.g. photographing a rally). It's absolutely pointless to keep one on your lens at all times, and demonstrably reduces image quality.

Here's a comparison someone else did:

uvfilterkitlens.jpg
Click to expand...

Which UV filter was that though I wonder?

Even within Hoya's range, you can get bog standard up to top of the line?

I think filters on lenses are another area steeped in photographic myth, legend, mis-information, plain un-truths and complete bu&%$£it... :D

It's not hard to make an optically perfect flat piece of glass for £50 to go in front of even the finest lenses, so I'm in the camp that good UV/Protector ones don't adversely effect image quality. I honestly can't say I've noticed any difference between images, and believe me that I was very concerned about such things when I first started bolting filters on the front!

No, they won't protect a lens if it's dropped, not much would, but they do protect from finger prints (I'd rather constantly clean the filter rather than the lens), dust (I'd rather the filter was scratched by clumsy cleaning than the lens), scratches when I stick the lens back in the bag mid-shoot without putting the lens cap on because 'I'll be putting it back on in a minute' (a lot of us do this, even though it's wrong, but it takes time mid shoot and I'd rather the filter was scratched than the lens, not that either have yet been scratched in years this way)... Are you getting my picture yet?! :D

Each to their own though, and what works for me, might not work for you.
 
Last edited:
I have a Canon 17-55mm and have a filter on it to keep the dust out, great lens but has a bit of a reputation as a dust collector.

I believe the construction of the lens allows dust to get in the front end more than most, I've read that keeping a uv filter on may help.

Apparently not a huge deal to open it and clean it but I would rather prevent than cure.
 
Excellent post robmiller!

Tooks said:
No, they won't protect a lens if it's dropped, not much would, but they do protect from finger prints (I'd rather constantly clean the filter rather than the lens), dust (I'd rather the filter was scratched by clumsy cleaning than the lens), scratches when I stick the lens back in the bag mid-shoot without putting the lens cap on because 'I'll be putting it back on in a minute' (a lot of us do this, even though it's wrong, but it takes time mid shoot and I'd rather the filter was scratched than the lens, not that either have yet been scratched in years this way)... Are you getting my picture yet?! :D
Click to expand...

Finger prints? Why are you touching the glass in the first place? :confused:

I often wonder what the people who use filters do when they buy big telephotos where the element is so big you don't get a lens cap let along a filter big enough to cover it! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom