Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
Elan Remford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: vignetting

I too found some of the comparison standards to be well, non-existent. Sure, at a wide aperture and wide angle, a lens is going to exhibit light fall-off. The standard of comparison seems to be the 17-40 at f/4, which doesn't take much of an imagination to realize that the comparison is not apples to apples. I'd hate to see what a prime evaluation wide-open would yield at f/1.4 in this review.

The 17-55 is a home run, plain and simple. It's priced based on what it delivers, which is a fast stabilized standard zoom, the one one lens the entire EF lineup both lacks and needs most. Many of those who are complaining about the pricing are the very same who are marching right-out to buy one, and hating the fact that they love it. Sounds like these are the marketing guys that I want working for me, those that know how to price an item for its value.

I also found it interesting that it was compared (and unfavorably so) to the 17-40, and L lens, with its metal barrel and other design and build features inherent and specific to the "luxury" line of lenses, something the 17-55 never claims to be. How does the 17-55 compare to the buld of the 10-22, 17-85, 18-55, or 60 Macro? Now THAT one I might buy into.

Otherwise, everything that reaffirms this as being one terrific lens is spot-on. I own a 30D so I can shoot with it even over my 16-35, 24-70, and 24-105 when I need stabilized wide aperture zppm capability for available light event work and portraiture. At the moment, there's no lens finer for the task, regardless of the color of it's barrel stripe, initial, or if it includes a hood and case or not.

GraphikEdition wrote:

1) Light falloff (vignetting) is a HUGE problem, not just in the
corners but even along the edges. It's definitely very noticeable
in the images, especially those with a bright blue sky. Honestly,
this is the worst I've ever seen of all of the lenses I've ever

I guess you mean at f2.8? This is normal for any fast lens and is
no where near as bad as a fast lens on a full frame camera. On full
frame cameras you get black corners from a lot of lenses, not just
fall off.

A sigma 30mm looks worse, more than a stop fall off, than the 17-55
and the 60mm macro at f2.8 has some fall off.

I guess your advice might be not to shoot landscapes at f2.8 and
then it wont be noticable.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow