Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 8,958
Re: vignetting

I'm an event photographer. Most of my event photography involves flash, whether as fill flash or the main light. I have a tendency to fire off two or three shots in low-speed continuous mode. For that type of photography IS is useless. Other times, without flash, my shutter speed is high enough that I don't need IS. For the times that I find myself with low shutter speed I use my tripod. Given a choice, I'll buy a Canon lens without IS than with IS, as I did with my 70-200/2.8 L.

ed rader wrote:

brianric wrote:

Color and sharpness. It's not IS lenses per se, just Canon lenses
for my Canon camera only. If you look in my profile, I have the
70-200/2.8 L non IS. If I owned a Nikon I'd be saying Nikon lenses
for my Nikon camera only. Burnt once by Tamron. Never again will I
purchase off brand lenses for my camera.

what don't you like about IS? i like the feature but i wonder if
IS is the reason that the 24-105 had harsh bokeh?

also, if the 17-55 were FF and i were using it for FF i'd rather
have the option of not having to pay for IS in such a short zoom.

ed rader

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Sony a6400 Sony a9 II +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
AAJ
jgb
jgb
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow