I am looking for another lens to go with my Canon 7D. I currently use the 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS for shooting sports. I am looking at the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 or the 24-70mm 2.8L. Any suggestions?
I am looking for another lens to go with my Canon 7D. I currently use the 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS for shooting sports. I am looking at the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 or the 24-70mm 2.8L. Any suggestions?
The EF-S 17-55mm is the better choice for the 7D imo because it is as sharp, same f2.8 and has a good IS which the 24-70 lacks.
ciao!
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
I have narrowed my choices between the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC or the Canon EFS 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Is the Canon worth the extra money?
In a word, "Yes" I believe that it is worth the extra money. The IS is the real deal (it works extremely well and is remarkably handy) and the edge/corner performance is better for landscapes and such. Faster AF too.
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is very much "L" optic quality and delivers consistently high quality results.
Like Ziggy said... the Canon 17-55 keeps surprising me with the captures I get with it. As a picture is worth a thousand words, here's one of my latest shot with this lens:
ciao!
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
I think it is worth extra, because as ziggy said the corner sharpness is better. The nice USM is a big bonus (depends on the shooter, I guess). The Tammy is surprisingly good for the money (characteristic of Tamron), but if you want faster AF, better IQ, and better build quality, then go for the Canon.
I'm a big fan of the Tam 17-50, but would agree that Canon's USM AF is faster and quieter, especially in tricky lighting conditions. I don't know that I've ever seen somebody mention that they DIDN'T like the Canon 17-55is, so if the $ are there, it's a great choice
Like Ziggy said... the Canon 17-55 keeps surprising me with the captures I get with it. As a picture is worth a thousand words, here's one of my latest shot with this lens:
I am looking for another lens to go with my Canon 7D. I currently use the 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS for shooting sports. I am looking at the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 or the 24-70mm 2.8L. Any suggestions?
I basically love my EF-S 17-55 2.8, except that the build quality is not up to the 70-200 IS 2.8 (which I also have). The IS has gotten flakey lately, sometimes vibrating steadily (preventing any photos), forcing me to switch off the IS. If you search around, you'll find that a *lot* of people have this problem after a few years. Seems you need to send it into Canon and pay $90 or so to get it fixed.
Otherwise, the IQ is great. I think you'll find the 17-24 range more valuable than the 55-70 (comparing with the 24-70). The 17-55 is really the equivalent of the 24-70 for ASP-C size sensors. And with rumors of an upgrade to the 24-70 (maybe adding IS) you'd probably want to hold off on the 24-70.
Comments
The EF-S 17-55mm is the better choice for the 7D imo because it is as sharp, same f2.8 and has a good IS which the 24-70 lacks.
ciao!
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
In a word, "Yes" I believe that it is worth the extra money. The IS is the real deal (it works extremely well and is remarkably handy) and the edge/corner performance is better for landscapes and such. Faster AF too.
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is very much "L" optic quality and delivers consistently high quality results.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
ciao!
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Great photo!
I basically love my EF-S 17-55 2.8, except that the build quality is not up to the 70-200 IS 2.8 (which I also have). The IS has gotten flakey lately, sometimes vibrating steadily (preventing any photos), forcing me to switch off the IS. If you search around, you'll find that a *lot* of people have this problem after a few years. Seems you need to send it into Canon and pay $90 or so to get it fixed.
Otherwise, the IQ is great. I think you'll find the 17-24 range more valuable than the 55-70 (comparing with the 24-70). The 17-55 is really the equivalent of the 24-70 for ASP-C size sensors. And with rumors of an upgrade to the 24-70 (maybe adding IS) you'd probably want to hold off on the 24-70.