Canon 17-55 2.8 - Opinions

Hodders

Hodders

Hodders

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,290
Location
Riding my bike
I'm getting really tired of seeing the difference in image quality between my Canon 17-85 F4.0-5.6 IS and my 70-200 F4L. The 70-200 just feels so much nicer to take photographs with.

I'm thinking of replacing the 17-85 with either the EFS 17-55 f2.8 or the 24-70 f2.8 L.

The differences seems to be:

*) The 17-55 range will probably suit the 40D better (with the 1.6x it becomes a 27-88 full frame equivalent so an ideal walkabout lens, the 24-70 becomes a 40-112).

*) The image quality of the 17-55 is very good, some even say L standard, but the build quality is not so hot.

*) The 17-55 has IS, the 24-70 doesn't.

*) One costs about £825 (inc lens hood), the other about £950 so not that much in it.

Does anybody have the 17-55 - how do you rate it ?
 
And how does it handle compared to the 24-70 ?

Lets say a basic kit lens is a 1 and the 70-200L is a 10 are we talking a 3 or a 7 ?

I don't doubt the optical performance of the 17-55, more the handling....
 
never handled a 17-55, but they don't call the 24-70L The Brick for no reason.

It weights 1kg, give or take a few grams.
 
Hodders said:
And how does it handle compared to the 24-70 ?

Lets say a basic kit lens is a 1 and the 70-200L is a 10 are we talking a 3 or a 7 ?

I don't doubt the optical performance of the 17-55, more the handling....
Click to expand...

its a nice soldidly built lens and id give it a 7.5 to 8.5.. (i only hired it once quite a while ago)

but go to a shop and handle one for yourself to be sure

the 24-70 is as solid as they come. (i bought this, but i have FF camera)

but they are different focal ranges and you should choose based upon the focal range that is right for you .
 
Last edited:
As above, if you're thinking of going full frame at some point, get the 24-70.

I got a 24-70 to go on my 40D as I wanted to be covered ready for getting a full frame camera. It's an awesome lens - and even more so on the 5D.

Can't comment on the 17-55, as I've never used one.
 
If you stick to a crop then the 17-55 is the only lens that makes sense.

If you will absolutely definitely upgrade in the net 6months-12moths then a 24-70 works ok on a cropped body but will get thrustrating swapping over lenses to a wider lens all the time.
 
It's my primary lens, built quality is no different to any other Canon USM EF-S lens but it's pretty heavy and feels tough anyway.

Image quality is superb at 2.8 at all zooms, you'd expect so though since it uses L glass elements.

I had the 70-200 2.8L IS and F4 IS and optical quality is better than the 2.8 IS and on par with the F4 at F4 - so very sharp, very crisp.

I want a similar class lens but up to around 70mm but there doesn't seem to be anything that fills my requirement, the 24-70 has no IS and is not wide enough and I don't intend to go full frame any time soon.

I'll probably end up getting another 40D body and mating it with a 70-200, I can't be changing lenses mid shoot, easier to work with 2 bodies :p
 
Last edited:
You should also consider how many pictures you take within the 17-24mm focal length range.
 
Tomsk said:
You should also consider how many pictures you take within the 17-24mm focal length range.
Click to expand...

Genius - great idea:

Below is a histogram of all my images over the last 2 months or so.

(This was obtained by running the unix command:

find . -name '*.xmp' | xargs grep -h 'exif:FocalLength' | cut -d '>' -f2 | cut -d '/' -f1 | sort -n | uniq -c > results.txt
On the xmp files produced by lightrooms export metadata function. The resulting file can go into excel for analyses.

No hotlinking.

The results show that I have taken 191 shots in the 17-55 range and 192 in the 24-70. From a total of about 650.

Buying the 15-55 would leave a hole between 55-70 (in terms of the focal lengths covered by the lenses I have). This would mean that there are 28 images that I would not have been able to take (although cropping from 55mm would solve that).

In terms of do I need IS. I have taken 40 shots at 1/50 or less. Above that the 24-70 would probably be OK. Plus of course the f2.8 would buy me a couple of stops meaning that a lot of the 1/25 would come up to 1/100.
 
Things like that though cannot be put into a graph and mapped out so easily.

one shoot may demand stricter usage of one range while the next job another focal range - unless of course you only shoot in one photographic genre (landscaping for example).
 
mrk said:
Things like that though cannot be put into a graph and mapped out so easily.

one shoot may demand stricter usage of one range while the next job another focal range - unless of course you only shoot in one photographic genre (landscaping for example).
Click to expand...

You are right, but I am a bit of a nerd and love graphs like that !
 
There is an office joke about making every issue mapped onto a graph so it makes sense :p

If only I could find the source!
 
Hodders said:
Could well be - email sent to your hotmail address.
Click to expand...

Replied :)

Love the graph! I'm gonna have a go now lol!

... How do you export the metadata though?

... Nevermind, I found a plugin

Here's my graph:

graph.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom