Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
Lee Baby Simms Contributing Member • Posts: 930
i agree

I shot with rented/borrowed 17-40s for weddings before getting the 17-55. Everything you say is true. For weddings, I don't find the light falloff to be an issue at all (forgot it did it until I read you post). My biggest issue is the flair from inside lights (spot lights, dancing lights, etc) which I encounter often.

I remember when the first "camera counter" shots of the 17-55 appeared. They were taken at a Canon show in Russia I think. They were not pictures of any note, and these forums here were full of nay sayers [remember the pages of "I'm not impressed" threads]. I remember seeing the back some a persons hand in one of the shots and remarking ... "that's one of the sharpest bits in a photo I've ever seen" My results from the 17-55 are like that. In almost every photo, there's a part of it that just looks off the chart on sharpness. It's still surprising because it looks sharper than the scene I remember shooting. Wow - I'm using USM far less often as a result.

 Lee Baby Simms's gear list:Lee Baby Simms's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow