Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

Shay Stephens · February 21, 2006

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022113canonefs1755f28g.asp

I have been refusing to buy EF-S lenses, however, this lens is seriously challenging that policy. F/2.8 throughout and IS is huge for me. This may just be the lens that get's me to buy.

I am currently using the 16-35mm f/2.8 and keep hoping for a little more reach beyond the 35mm.

Andy · February 21, 2006

Shay Stephens wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022113canonefs1755f28g.asp

I have been refusing to buy EF-S lenses, however, this lens is seriously challenging that policy. F/2.8 throughout and IS is huge for me. This may just be the lens that get's me to buy.

I am currently using the 16-35mm f/2.8 and keep hoping for a little more reach beyond the 35mm.

It's a nice focal range, that f/2.8 through and through. I believe Canon will have a winner here. This based on track record with the superb 10-22.

W.W. Webster · February 21, 2006

If there was any doubt regarding Canon's long term commitment to its 1.6X crop factor user base, that must now be completely dispelled!

Mongrel · February 21, 2006

Definately caught my attention...
with this one. Just wish it was a smidgeon longer....

Question is how will it hold up next to the 24-105L for image quality? Sure you lose a stop but you gain the reach.

A 10-22, 17-55, and 70-300 IS would make a nice travel package for a crop cam no doubt.

I wait a wee bit and see how it stacks up. Give me time to pay off my dentist

Mike Lane · February 21, 2006

Yeah, I've been looking and looking for a lens that's wide and fast and not $20000 like the L glass. The 17-40 was looking pretty good but now I think I may have to sell my 17-85 and go with the 17-55. It shouldn't be too big of a problem since I've got the bigma, but I will miss having that little bit extra on the long end. But I will like the extra 2/3rds to 2 stops than I have now.

Andy, when you get tired of yours (which will be arriving any time now I bet), I'll take it off your hands

gluwater · February 21, 2006

Why IS on such a short lens. Do you really think it will give that much help for the money? I think I would like this lens better if it was non-IS and a bit cheaper.

Andy · February 21, 2006

gluwater wrote:

Why IS on such a short lens. Do you really think it will give that much help for the money? I think I would like this lens better if it was non-IS and a bit cheaper.

LOWlight, d00d. f/2.8, 18mm, indoors, dark church, you can go slow! No jitters. No camera shake. Still get the goods.

Mike Lane · February 21, 2006

gluwater wrote:

Why IS on such a short lens. Do you really think it will give that much help for the money? I think I would like this lens better if it was non-IS and a bit cheaper.

I like the IS on my current 17-85. I don't always want to resort to stopping down the aperture or using a flash. The IS really does work (obviously not for stopping action I know) and it helps even for wide lenses.

mercphoto · February 21, 2006

W.W. Webster wrote:

If there was any doubt regarding Canon's long term commitment to its 1.6X crop factor user base, that must now be completely dispelled!

I concur.

Blurmore · February 21, 2006

Everyone is giving their take on this lens so here is mine.

I own a EF-S 17-85 IS and while I use it and have no specific complaints about it when I compare bang4buck to my like priced 70-200 f4 L there is no real comparison. There is NO, and I repeat NO way, no matter how good it tests, I will shell out 1100 dollars for another lens without the red ring. Why? Because if Canon isn't prepared to bestow the 12th letter on the thing, why should I be expected to pay like it has? So it is 'designed for digital' big frickin whoop, the 28-70 f2.8 L was designed solely for film and it still beats the pants off of the EF-S lens on a digital body. I don't really see the advantage in IS in this lens unless like the 17-85 you have to stop down 1.5 stops to get any sharpness out of it. In all honesty the IS on the 17-85 is all that makes the thing useable, because I can handhold speeds at f8 for sharpness that w/o IS I could not. Bottom line I feel screwed by Canon by EF-S in general, and if they aren't prepared to stand behind a 1100 dollar piece of glass with their professional reputation on the line neither am I.

Andy · February 21, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

Everyone is giving their take on this lens so here is mine.

*That* was very well said, Blurmore!

PhotoHound · February 21, 2006

I don't think so...
At least to me, the new Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, 1:2.3 macro (http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/17_70_28_45.htm ) is still looking better than this. Personnally, IS on this focal range is rarely going to be needed

(especially with the max apeture) and only compounds the cost of this non-L monster with its L-level price tag...

It will be interesting to see the reviews though!

Scott

Mike Lane · February 21, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

Everyone is giving their take on this lens so here is mine.

So what would be your non-L lens of choice that would give you an equivalent of around 24-80 or 120 on a 20D? Any brand will do.

EDIT: oooh, the Sigma 17-70 macro... That does sound interesting photohound. Whoa and only $369 on Amazon.

Blurmore · February 21, 2006

Mike Lane wrote:

So what would be your non-L lens of choice that would give you an equivalent of around 24-80 or 120 on a 20D? Any brand will do.

EDIT: oooh, the Sigma 17-70 macro... That does sound interesting photohound. Whoa and only $369 on Amazon.

For me there isn't one. I cut my teeth in shooting weddings with 2 prime lenses a 80mm planar and a 150mm Sonnar on a 500C Hasselblad. 90% of what I shoot at weddings now is with a 28 f2.8 and an 85 f1.8 the other 10% is split between the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 f4 L...WHY? 2 reasons I "think" in primes. That crappy 90 dollar 28mm f2.8 is sharper at f3.5 than the 17-85 IS is at 28mm, and f5.6. I won't replace the 17-85 with a non L zoom of any manufacture. If I do replace it it will be with a 24(or 28)-70 f2.8 L and an ultra-wide prime, and even then this combo would only replace the 28 f2.8, I'd still shoot portraits with the 85 prime. The sharpness is my biggest gripe with the 17-85 but the contrast, flare resistance, and saturation characteristics are all lacking when compared to even non-L Canon primes. I'm not one of those people that think zooms should be as sharp as primes, but modern zooms priced over 500 bucks should at least rival them in contrast and saturation.

Mongrel · February 21, 2006

PhotoHound wrote:

Personnally, IS on this focal range is rarely going to be needed Scott

Personally, IS on this focal range will OFTEN be needed (for me anyway...). Depending on what you shoot, IS may or may not be worth it. For me having a 'tripod' on the lens *is* worth it-in spades.

I have been in way too many situations where if I could get one or two stops more out of my exposure I would have got the shot as it were. Especially shooting architecture and stuff when out and about at night. In these circumstances even ISO1600 AND f/1.4 won't even always get me what I need. Try walking around a busy city street with a tripod on your back, it's a drag-trust me. Not to mention, inside churches, museums, and a number of other places where using a tripod is not allowed or just too impractical.

For my desired style of shooting IS makes perfect sense on *any* focal length lens, so for me a lens like this just fits me.

As always-ymmv

Red Bull · February 22, 2006

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.

Bob Bell · February 22, 2006

Red Bull wrote:

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.

I have a hacked 18-55 that someone gave me that works on all canon bodies, looks pretty simple to remove that plastic bump that makes it EF-S and makes you use that white square alignment mark.

Shay Stephens · February 22, 2006

Well after pondering the imponderables, I have come to my senses. If I did buy the lens, I would still have to use the 16-35mm on the 5D. My goal is to have interchangeable gear. So for now, that means sticking with EF lenses.

Hey, I can hope there will be an EF update to the 16-35....hmmm...dreams.

Bob Bell · February 22, 2006

Shay Stephens wrote:

Well after pondering the imponderables, I have come to my senses. If I did buy the lens, I would still have to use the 16-35mm on the 5D. My goal is to have interchangeable gear. So for now, that means sticking with EF lenses.

Hey, I can hope there will be an EF update to the 16-35....hmmm...dreams.

Shay I'm with you on the all EF lineup, well except for that 18-55.

Why do you want an update to the 16-35?

Shay Stephens · February 22, 2006

I like the wide end, and I am fairly satisfied with it, but I would like it to go to 50. That may hose the image quality, so if I had to choose, I would stick with the 16-35. I would like IS on it. If they came out with a 16-35 with IS I would probably pick it up.

I switch between the 70-200 IS and the 16-35 and utilize the IS feature 100%, except when I use the 16-35.

I guess it is more a case of the wants rather than the needs

Bob Bell wrote:

Shay I'm with you on the all EF lineup, well except for that 18-55.

Why do you want an update to the 16-35?

Red Bull · February 22, 2006

Bob Bell wrote:

I have a hacked 18-55 that someone gave me that works on all canon bodies, looks pretty simple to remove that plastic bump that makes it EF-S and makes you use that white square alignment mark.

EF-S 18-55 - $80 (somewhere around there)

EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS - $1100

I would not want to screw around with a thousand dollar lens. If you screwed up you would be out that much money.

mynakedsoda · February 22, 2006

Wait, wait, wait.

Shay Stephens wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022113canonefs1755f28g.asp

I have been refusing to buy EF-S lenses, however, this lens is seriously challenging that policy. F/2.8 throughout and IS is huge for me. This may just be the lens that get's me to buy.

I am currently using the 16-35mm f/2.8 and keep hoping for a little more reach beyond the 35mm.

The title of my reply is my advice on this lens. It will be tested to death by independant reviewers. Only after that could I see buying this lens.

1. It's got more elements than the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX and IS while the Nikon does not yet still weighs less. I'm still trying to figure that out. If it isn't the optical quality then it certainly must be the build. I personally don't mind shelling out a few grand here and there for what I want/need but expect a certain build quality.
2. People have been paying outrageous sums like this for the Nikon for awhile because it was optimized for low light. It's Nikons sharpnest wide or normal range zoom wide open with contrast and saturation that matches the price. I'm wondering if this new Canon will be a lens that will have to be stopped down to preform. Now IS can offset that disadvantage slightly but...
3. If this is a lens that has to be stopped down then it does bring up the old IS vs. speed issue. A lens that costs more because it is constant apeture but doesn't perform wide open hardly makes sense (yet many exist). If this is the case then it makes more sense for wedding shooters (among others) to get a better lens from the Canon lineup that actually performs at 2.8 unless your weddings lack any and all movement. For those that need IS in this range because of the "portable tripod" theory fine. It does make me wonder if people are shooting architecture in near pitch black darness and still can't see how they'd be better off with a tripod.
4. Finally if it actually can perform at 2.8 and they haven't cut major corners (IE poor build = huge sample variation) then it's not like you still won't be able to get it. I never feel sorry for people that "have" to be early adopters and get bit for it.

Cameron · February 22, 2006

Red Bull wrote:

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.

We'll have to wait and see what the build quality will be, but one thing is for sure, the EF-S size helps them make things smaller. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS weighs 300 grams less than the 24-70L (~2/3 lb). Playing devil's advocate and assuming optical quality WILL be comparable to an L lens, you're getting the same range and aperture with a more compact system.
Now, if you're only planning on upgrading to FF later on, the cost is likely not worth it. However, it appears we may finally see some of the benefits of a cropped system in size/weight, perhaps without sacrificing much quality. The reviews will be interesting to read.

NHBubba · February 22, 2006

Is there any reason to believe the price for this lens will stay that high indefinitely? It seems that all the EF-S lenses have been introduced fairly high in price and then come down significantly. The EF-S 17-85 IS for example.. didn't that start at like $800? B&H will sell me one today for just a touch over $500! A nearly 40% drop in price after what, a year? Not bad in the long run.

Would this lens be far more attractive at ~60% of the price, around the ~$700?

mercphoto · February 22, 2006

Red Bull wrote:

It looks like it will be a good lens.....but $1100? No thanks. I'll take a 24-70L over this lens if I'm going to spend that much money. the 24-70 probably has better build quality and is probably sharper, and it will work on my film Canon.

Chuck Westfall at Canon says this lens will equal L-series in image quality. What it is lacking is weather sealing, and possibly build quality. But your comparison is not as black and white as it would appear. Consider this:

1) No weather sealing, because no 1.6 body is weather sealed either. Has to factor in to the lower cost.

2) You mention the 24-70/2.8, but this EF-S lens overlaps with both the 16-35 and 24-70. It can very nearly replace two L-lenses with one purchase!

3) The image stabilizer is worth something to a lot of shooters. And that costs money in the lens.

4) The EF-S lens is smaller and lighter than either the 16-35 or 24-70. That is worth something as well.

I think this lens is a good buy for those who want to stay with the 1.6 crop factor bodies. Canon is coming out with some serious lenses for the EF-S mount, why is this a bad thing? I think people need to get over the fact it doesn't have a little red ring around it. I would buy it if I wasn't wanting to get a 1.3 crop factor camera next.

Daniel, don't fear the crop factor.

Buy a used 20D and a 10-22 and enjoy your landscapes.

Cameron · February 22, 2006

mercphoto wrote:

...
4) The EF-S lens is smaller and lighter than either the 16-35 or 24-70. That is worth something as well.

I think this lens is a good buy for those who want to stay with the 1.6 crop factor bodies. Canon is coming out with some serious lenses for the EF-S mount, why is this a bad thing? I think people need to get over the fact it doesn't have a little red ring around it. I would buy it if I wasn't wanting to get a 1.3 crop factor camera next.

I agree - while I may find myself using a FF camera at some point, I think the crop factor bodies DO have some merits that often get brushed aside. That 17-55 lens is 300 grams lighter than the 24-70L - people not wanting to tote a heavy load may find the crop-factor bodies appealing.

arroyoshark · February 22, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

For me there isn't one. I cut my teeth in shooting weddings with 2 prime lenses a 80mm planar and a 150mm Sonnar on a 500C Hasselblad. 90% of what I shoot at weddings now is with a 28 f2.8 and an 85 f1.8 the other 10% is split between the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 f4 L...WHY? 2 reasons I "think" in primes....

Twenty (or so) years ago, I was getting a lot of jobs to shoot weddings. I used two 35mm cameras, one with a 35mm f2 and the other with an 85mm f1.8. It was a very useful combo.

mercphoto · February 22, 2006

Blurmore wrote:

I own a EF-S 17-85 IS and while I use it and have no specific complaints about it when I compare bang4buck to my like priced 70-200 f4 L there is no real comparison. There is NO, and I repeat NO way, no matter how good it tests, I will shell out 1100 dollars for another lens without the red ring.

Don't know if this comparison has been brought up or not, but the Nikon equivalent 17-55/2.8 DX lens is more expensive than this new Canon lens, and it does not have image stabilization (VR in Nikon-speak).

So I think Canon actually has a good lens here, all things considered.

mynakedsoda · February 23, 2006

mercphoto wrote:

Don't know if this comparison has been brought up or not, but the Nikon equivalent 17-55/2.8 DX lens is more expensive than this new Canon lens, and it does not have image stabilization (VR in Nikon-speak).

So I think Canon actually has a good lens here, all things considered.

Once again only if the reviews and usesr experiences bear out a tack sharp, high contrast lens even wide open. The usefullness of IS dimishes when you have to stop down constantly for acceptable sharpness (if that's the case.)

TristanP · February 23, 2006

mynakedsoda wrote:

The usefullness of IS dimishes when you have to stop down constantly for acceptable sharpness (if that's the case.)

Wouldn't IS be more useful in this case, since stopping down means longer exposures?

mynakedsoda · February 23, 2006

TristanP wrote:

Wouldn't IS be more useful in this case, since stopping down means longer exposures?

I'd rather have a lens that is tack sharp wide open and not have to stop down. The added benefit is I can utilize a higher shutter speed when needed because of motion within the scene.

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

Comments