Looking to buy Canon 17-55 2.8 IS + Which UV Filter?

Guitarman0 · 12 Jul 2012 at 21:59

I am looking to purchase the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS in the next few weeks. It will, to date, be the largest amount of money I have ever spent on one item so I thought I would just ask here first. Other than the issue with dust under the front element, has anyone any feedback from their experience with this lens (either positive or negative)?

Also I intend on putting a UV filter on it. I have been looking at a Hoya Pro1 UV filter, what do you guys think of this one? Do you have any other recommendations?

Thanks!

Mattewes · 12 Jul 2012 at 22:35

Hey, first post on these forums - been reading them for ages (and getting jealous at the skill on show in the gallery thread!) but I thought I'd give my 2 cents as I got this lens just a few weeks ago - not had chance to use it as much as I had wanted because of the weather, but it is fantastic lens - very sharp even open wide at f/2.8. If you are replacing the kit lens like I did then you will love it.

As for filters I got the Hoya pro1 UV filter too and its definitely worth it - like you say the lens isn't cheap and I'd rather replace a filter than the lens! Haven't seen any noticeable drop in image quality. I also got a Hoya Pro1 C-PL filter that arrived today - I'll report back when I have had chance to test that.

glitch · 12 Jul 2012 at 22:42

Guitarman0 said:
Also I intend on putting a UV filter on it. I have been looking at a Hoya Pro1 UV filter, what do you guys think of this one? Do you have any other recommendations?

Spend the money you've set aside for a filter on a lens hood - if you can afford it, go for the Canon EW-83J. If not, go for the Marumi equivalent.

Other than that, they are fantastic little lenses. Very easy to self-clean and get rid of the dust underneath the front element, providing you have a steady hand and a good amount of nerve in you.

Guitarman0 · 12 Jul 2012 at 23:11

glitch said:
Spend the money you've set aside for a filter on a lens hood - if you can afford it, go for the Canon EW-83J. If not, go for the Marumi equivalent.

Other than that, they are fantastic little lenses. Very easy to self-clean and get rid of the dust underneath the front element, providing you have a steady hand and a good amount of nerve in you.

Sorry, I forgot to mention I will be getting the lens hood anyway.

Thanks for the input though guys! Any more opinions would be appreciated

neil_g · 13 Jul 2012 at 10:08

hood > uv filter

Vertigo · 13 Jul 2012 at 18:45

Used to have one - it's a stunning lens and you won't regret it.

As for filters, as always you'll get a fair few people saying you don't need one and they degrade quality etc etc but, for this particular lens, I'd strongly recommend one if only to mitigate the ingress of dust, which can be a bit of an issue with this model. Hoya Pro1 or HD filters would be my choice, either UV ones or just the straight protectors.

hk3948 · 14 Jul 2012 at 01:08

So, at the risk of hijacking the thread, thought I would ask a question in here rather than starting a new thread.

I have recently purchased a f4 24-105mm l series. Lens is gorgeous, incredible build quality. Now I have just got into photography, and bought the lens based on reviews/advice. However, I personally am not blown away. Finding that colour rendition isn't great and indoor, to me it doesn't perform that well. One of the major appeals for me was the focal range, but I do find sometimes I miss that slightly wider angle

What are people's opinions on replacing this with the above mentioned 17-55 usm f2.8? Anyone have any experience of difference in optical quality between the 2? How much of a difference is the aperture size likely to make.
Like I said, I have only just picked this up as a hobby and trying to learn quickly!

Vertigo · 14 Jul 2012 at 09:32

The 24-105 is a good lens but, personally, I'd say the 17-55 is better, at least in terms of overall quality, being a stop faster and being significantly wider.

The downsides are you'd lose the longer end and the build quality. The build quality of the 17-55 is perfectly decent, but it's nowhere near the quality of a proper 'L' lens like the 24-105. You'd also lose weather sealing if that's important to you?

hk3948 · 14 Jul 2012 at 10:31

Vertigo1 said:
The 24-105 is a good lens but, personally, I'd say the 17-55 is better, at least in terms of overall quality, being a stop faster and being significantly wider.

The downsides are you'd lose the longer end and the build quality. The build quality of the 17-55 is perfectly decent, but it's nowhere near the quality of a proper 'L' lens like the 24-105. You'd also lose weather sealing if that's important to you?

Thats a bit of a surprise. Presumably the optics in my 24-105 are the same if not better. At the same aperture, do you still think the 17-55 would have better images. I just cant decide what to do. I can't foresee whether i'd miss the extra zoom or not on the 105

Ksanti · 14 Jul 2012 at 10:51

The 17-55 images are sharper on a crop than the 24-105 because it's an EF-S lens, but a full frame 24-105 image will have more detail than a crop 17-55 image.

Colour rendition is down to you; cameras seek to capture as much information as possible, not give you a stunning photograph every time - too much of that is subjective. If your white balance is off when shooting jpeg that's either your fault or the fault of the body; the lens will have very little to do with that.

If its indoor performance is lacking, the 17-55 will be better, but only marginally. 1-stop means in the same light you can double the shutter speed, so if you're finding you're getting say 1 second exposures at f/4, you'll only be getting 1/2 second exposures at f/2.8 so it won't make that much of a difference.

What you might notice is the shallower depth of field that f/2.8 offers which you'd probably like.

Still, if you want an indoor lens just pick up a Sigma 30 1.4 to go with the 24-105L? 8 times faster shutter speeds and in any light lower than that, tbbh the photos weren't really gonna be much cop anyway.

hk3948 · 14 Jul 2012 at 11:10

Ive only got another week or so until i can no longer exchange the lens. Im using on a crop body. Just trying to future proof a little as well i guess. I guess with the 24-105mm i can always get a low end prime further down the line.

Its just the image quality issue thats bugging me. On a crop body, am i better off with the 17-55mm?

Vertigo · 14 Jul 2012 at 13:15

hk3948 said:
Thats a bit of a surprise. Presumably the optics in my 24-105 are the same if not better. At the same aperture, do you still think the 17-55 would have better images. I just cant decide what to do. I can't foresee whether i'd miss the extra zoom or not on the 105

There's nothing 'wrong' with the 24-105, just that few people appreciate just how good the 17-55 is. I only switched mine out because I wanted weather sealing and better build quality really.

Ksanti · 14 Jul 2012 at 13:19

The 17-55 is optically a better lens on a crop but the 24-105 is not a bad lens at all, and keeps you futureproofed if you ever want to go to a full frame camera, which the 17-55 isn't compatible with. And the 50mm difference in range is nothing to be scoffed at at the long end. Yes it doesn't go as wide, and that could be problem but whenever you're that wide you're doing landscapes, and if you really want to do them you have plenty of options; stopped down even the 18-55 kit lenses are more than sharp enough for most landscape stuff.

The image quality is great from the 24-105, if you're finding it's not good enough then frankly you're doing something wrong, even on a crop. All of the images were taken with a 7D (crop) and 24-105L.

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=a&m=pool&w=1563781@N22&s=int

Vertigo · 14 Jul 2012 at 13:34

In reality, whilst I still think the 17-55 is ultimately better quality-wise, you'd be pushed to tell the difference most of the time.

So the choice of 17-55 to 24-105 boils down to the difference in range, that the former is one stop faster whilst the latter is built better and is weather sealed.

The 24mm limit could be a deal-breaker on a crop as it's really not very wide at all. I switched from the 17-55 to the 24-70 but wouldn't have done had I not had the 10-22 to cover the wide end when required.

glitch · 14 Jul 2012 at 14:07

Vertigo1 said:
As for filters, as always you'll get a fair few people saying you don't need one and they degrade quality etc etc but, for this particular lens, I'd strongly recommend one if only to mitigate the ingress of dust, which can be a bit of an issue with this model. Hoya Pro1 or HD filters would be my choice, either UV ones or just the straight protectors.

Actually, the addition of a filter makes little to no difference whatsoever with that particular problem.

The dust seems to get inside no matter what you do, and presumably through a lack of weather sealing on the extending section of the barrel.

FreeStream · 14 Jul 2012 at 23:21

Vertigo1 said:
Used to have one - it's a stunning lens and you won't regret it.

As for filters, as always you'll get a fair few people saying you don't need one and they degrade quality etc etc but, for this particular lens, I'd strongly recommend one if only to mitigate the ingress of dust, which can be a bit of an issue with this model. Hoya Pro1 or HD filters would be my choice, either UV ones or just the straight protectors.

A filter would make naff all difference and besides, after 4+ years of owning my 17-55, the IQ hasn't degraded as far as I can tell.

Dust gets into the 17-55 due to the gaps between the bits that extend and contract.

Don't waste your money, get a hood instead.

UV filters are a waste of time and money.

Ksanti · 15 Jul 2012 at 10:23

Concorde Rules said:
UV filters are a waste of time and money.

Not at all. Cleaning a filter is often much easier and less stressful than cleaning the front element of a £500+ lens, and if you're working in a dirty environment it's much better to keep it protected. On top of that when it comes to resale value, having had a UV filter on its whole life tends to help the resale value as the element is much cleaner, with no risks of scratches etc.

Obviously they won't stop a pebble flying at the lens from breaking it, but for the absolutely negligible drop in IQ, I'd definitely say they're worth it on more expensive lenses, particularly if you're at risk of people's grubby fingers getting on the front element. For example I'd never go out without something on the front of my 85 1.4, usually with a hood as well.

^^Gord^^ · 15 Jul 2012 at 13:08

Can't say I've found cleaning any of my lenses front element hard or stressfull regardless of cost. Nor have I had any damage to the glass (the front element of most lenses are much tougher than you would think, I've seen an ice hockey puck bounce off a Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS).

I don't see the value of UV filters expect if you are shooting it extreme conditions. Go with a hood everytime.

FreeStream · 16 Jul 2012 at 18:59

Ksanti said:
Not at all. Cleaning a filter is often much easier and less stressful than cleaning the front element of a £500+ lens, and if you're working in a dirty environment it's much better to keep it protected. On top of that when it comes to resale value, having had a UV filter on its whole life tends to help the resale value as the element is much cleaner, with no risks of scratches etc.

Obviously they won't stop a pebble flying at the lens from breaking it, but for the absolutely negligible drop in IQ, I'd definitely say they're worth it on more expensive lenses, particularly if you're at risk of people's grubby fingers getting on the front element. For example I'd never go out without something on the front of my 85 1.4, usually with a hood as well.

I own a range of £500+ lenses and I have never put filters on them. Even when I get four figure lenses I still wouldn't put filters on them.

I've had problems with finger prints on photos ONCE in 6+ years of photography, but even then it is simply because I didn't notice the smudge until PP, a filter would have done nothing.

All three lenses are all A-ok thanks to using lens hoods which have taken their fair brunt of bashing about.

Waste of time.

Buy ND/Graduated filters or something that would actually be useful with the money.

Ksanti · 16 Jul 2012 at 19:11

Concorde Rules said:
Rubbish.

I own a range of £500+ lenses and I have never put filters on them.

I've had problems with finger prints on photos ONCE in 6+ years of photography, but even then it is simply because I didn't notice the smudge until PP, a filter would have done nothing.

All three lenses are all A-ok thanks to using lens hoods which have taken their fair brunt of bashing about.

Waste of time.

Buy ND/Graduated filters or something that would actually be useful with the money.

Well done. Have a cookie. Not everyone is shooting in situations where there's no risk of anything getting on the front element.

The one lens that I don't use a filter on is my Tamron 90mm as that's insanely recessed, because a) I don't trust my friends with my camera but don't want to be really tight and *ahem* about not letting people touch my gear b) much better safe than sorry particularly when shooting events in London c) if you get a little stone on the front element it can be very tricky to get it off without gouging out a nasty line in the front element.

While I understand plenty might not need filters, they're not expensive and save the effort of cleaning the whole time. They have no real effect on IQ when you buy decent ones so I see no reason not to have them unless you have an absolutely massive range of lenses or loads where they're impractically big i.e. super telephotos. I'm clumsy, occasionally I'll stick a finger on the front element thinking I'm taking the lens cap off, it happens. Better I prod a filter than the front element.