Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS review and samples

Go to last post
That's what you say for now, but given your drawers full of lenses and flashes, I predict it is only a short matter of time before you go full frame and the 17-55 IS would also be retired to the drawer!
Homl said:
Like everyone I started with the 18-55 kit lens with a 300D. Then
when looking for more. Better zooms Canon 28-135IS and Sigma
18-125. Than came a bunch of primes, Canon 50f1.8, Sigma 20f1.8,
Canon 35f2, Tamron SP90 Macro, Canon 200f2.8 and Sigma 15f2.8FE.
All very decent lenses by the way. I also have a couple of lowly
consumer Canon 28-80 and 75-300 from my film days. In the end, a
couple drawers full of lenses. Try to use all that in an outing.
LOL.

Don't ask how many flashes I have. LOL.

If I am to start a fresh system today. I would definitely get a 30D
for its features, performance and price. Most of the lenses would
be the newer Canon lenses. The list would be Sigma 15f2.8FE,
17-55f2.8IS, 60f2.8 Macro and the 70-300IS non-DO.
With the 17-55f2.8IS pair with the 30D, I don't have any compelling
reasons to go to FF DSLRs either. More money saved. LOL.
Amin Sabet said:
Makes perfect sense to me. As a Tamron 17-50 user, I would have
bought the Canon instead for the same reasons had I had the money!

--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
 
I just could not understand why so many people want to go full frame.

Is it because they need to:
1. Make bigger prints?
2. Their clients demand better image quality?
3. Too many large capacity CF cards in the drawer?
4. Their empty 1TB hard drive stack needs to be filled?

The mega pixel race is over for me. I was never once, even today, feel that 6 MP images from my 300D was lacking in quality for my needs. The 300D only lack user adjustments, features and speed. I now have all that in the 30D; nothing more is needed.

The reason I may have a desire for FF before was the lack of lens choices for 1.6X DSLRs. That is not the case now with all the high quality 1.6X lenses that Canon and other lens manufacturers are cranking out.

These Japanese companies are not idiots to dedicate so much resources on products that isn't going to hang around for awhile.

Heck, 6 years ago, my first digicam, a Nikon 990 had a 1/2" sensor, today they are still about 1/2".

No FF for me in the near future. I guess I'll have to go and enjoy, for the moment, the best normal zoom that Canon, or dare I say any manufacturer, can offer.
Amin Sabet said:
Homl said:
Like everyone I started with the 18-55 kit lens with a 300D. Then
when looking for more. Better zooms Canon 28-135IS and Sigma
18-125. Than came a bunch of primes, Canon 50f1.8, Sigma 20f1.8,
Canon 35f2, Tamron SP90 Macro, Canon 200f2.8 and Sigma 15f2.8FE.
All very decent lenses by the way. I also have a couple of lowly
consumer Canon 28-80 and 75-300 from my film days. In the end, a
couple drawers full of lenses. Try to use all that in an outing.
LOL.

Don't ask how many flashes I have. LOL.

If I am to start a fresh system today. I would definitely get a 30D
for its features, performance and price. Most of the lenses would
be the newer Canon lenses. The list would be Sigma 15f2.8FE,
17-55f2.8IS, 60f2.8 Macro and the 70-300IS non-DO.
With the 17-55f2.8IS pair with the 30D, I don't have any compelling
reasons to go to FF DSLRs either. More money saved. LOL.
Amin Sabet said:
Makes perfect sense to me. As a Tamron 17-50 user, I would have
bought the Canon instead for the same reasons had I had the money!

--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
 
rwalls3 said:
Amin Sabet said:
The Tamron has no color cast. It renders color as neutrally as my
Canon 50/1.4 or 70-200/4L from what I can tell.
Click to expand...
Sorry. My tamron 17-50 definitely had a color cast. Slightly warm
compared to canon. Not as bad as some of my sigmas though. Some
people have argued that tamron is neutral and canon is "cold." But
honestly I prefer the canon, and I always had to adjust the white
balance down in PP using my tamron.

BTW, I just sold the tamron to buy the canon 17-55. Primarily because
1) Zoom ring on tamron spins wrong direction
2) faster AF with canon along with Full time manual focus
3) IS
4) I loved the focal length so much, used it so much, I felt it
justified the more expensive lens.
Click to expand...
Ryan,

When I got my 28-75 Di about 2 years ago, same with the 17-35 Di, I did notice a color cast. Yellowish, warm. In time, after about 7 months or so, it seems to have disappeared. When I was scouting for the 24-105L, I did a side by side shot, and the cast was gone! I do not see it anymore.

Maybe use it often enough, maybe in good light, that cast will soon fade away. At least, that is my experience with my 2 tamrons.

--
--------------------
  • Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'
 
No need to be sorry that your Tamron had a color cast =^> . Certainly you had very good reasons to upgrade. I'm happy to say that continued use of my copy besides my Canon lenses does noto reveal any color cast whatsoever.
rwalls3 said:
Amin Sabet said:
The Tamron has no color cast. It renders color as neutrally as my
Canon 50/1.4 or 70-200/4L from what I can tell.
Click to expand...
Sorry. My tamron 17-50 definitely had a color cast. Slightly warm
compared to canon. Not as bad as some of my sigmas though. Some
people have argued that tamron is neutral and canon is "cold." But
honestly I prefer the canon, and I always had to adjust the white
balance down in PP using my tamron.

BTW, I just sold the tamron to buy the canon 17-55. Primarily because
1) Zoom ring on tamron spins wrong direction
2) faster AF with canon along with Full time manual focus
3) IS
4) I loved the focal length so much, used it so much, I felt it
justified the more expensive lens.

--
---------------
Ryan W.
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
 
Full frame sensors have the same advantages over "crop" sensors that "crop" DSLR sensors have over conventional digicam sensors, only the difference is greater between the latter. It is not a matter simply of megapixels. I will not have one until they become cheaper, but I will eventuallly go for one. Based on your description of your buying pattern, I suspect you will have one before I do ;^> .
Homl said:
Is it because they need to:
1. Make bigger prints?
2. Their clients demand better image quality?
3. Too many large capacity CF cards in the drawer?
4. Their empty 1TB hard drive stack needs to be filled?

The mega pixel race is over for me. I was never once, even today,
feel that 6 MP images from my 300D was lacking in quality for my
needs. The 300D only lack user adjustments, features and speed. I
now have all that in the 30D; nothing more is needed.

The reason I may have a desire for FF before was the lack of lens
choices for 1.6X DSLRs. That is not the case now with all the high
quality 1.6X lenses that Canon and other lens manufacturers are
cranking out.
These Japanese companies are not idiots to dedicate so much
resources on products that isn't going to hang around for awhile.
Heck, 6 years ago, my first digicam, a Nikon 990 had a 1/2" sensor,
today they are still about 1/2".

No FF for me in the near future. I guess I'll have to go and enjoy,
for the moment, the best normal zoom that Canon, or dare I say any
manufacturer, can offer.
Amin Sabet said:
Homl said:
Like everyone I started with the 18-55 kit lens with a 300D. Then
when looking for more. Better zooms Canon 28-135IS and Sigma
18-125. Than came a bunch of primes, Canon 50f1.8, Sigma 20f1.8,
Canon 35f2, Tamron SP90 Macro, Canon 200f2.8 and Sigma 15f2.8FE.
All very decent lenses by the way. I also have a couple of lowly
consumer Canon 28-80 and 75-300 from my film days. In the end, a
couple drawers full of lenses. Try to use all that in an outing.
LOL.

Don't ask how many flashes I have. LOL.

If I am to start a fresh system today. I would definitely get a 30D
for its features, performance and price. Most of the lenses would
be the newer Canon lenses. The list would be Sigma 15f2.8FE,
17-55f2.8IS, 60f2.8 Macro and the 70-300IS non-DO.
With the 17-55f2.8IS pair with the 30D, I don't have any compelling
reasons to go to FF DSLRs either. More money saved. LOL.
Amin Sabet said:
Makes perfect sense to me. As a Tamron 17-50 user, I would have
bought the Canon instead for the same reasons had I had the money!

--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
 
caterpillar said:
When I got my 28-75 Di about 2 years ago, same with the 17-35 Di, I
did notice a color cast. Yellowish, warm. In time, after about 7
months or so, it seems to have disappeared. When I was scouting for
the 24-105L, I did a side by side shot, and the cast was gone! I
do not see it anymore.

Maybe use it often enough, maybe in good light, that cast will soon
fade away. At least, that is my experience with my 2 tamrons.

--
--------------------
  • Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'
Click to expand...
A couple months ago I would have said you were crazy, but I also have the tamron 28-75 and it had a yellow cast to it when comparing it to my canon 85 1.8. I always had to correct in post processing. But lately I haven't been correcting anymore. The yellow cast seems to have gone away after about a year. I'm glad im not the only one who has noticed this.
 
Selling Sigma 18-50/2.8 and bought 17-55/2.8 IS to replace. Agree with most posting the AF is much better and of course IS helps. Overall very happy with it. Next is to replace 70-200/4 with 70-200/2.8 IS perhaps christmas?
 
hmm, i would stay with crop sensors... i need the 1.6 crop especially for my wildlife zooms..... so my 300mm is a 480 mm on the field....that would be the reason for me not to move to FF
Amin Sabet said:
Homl said:
Is it because they need to:
1. Make bigger prints?
2. Their clients demand better image quality?
3. Too many large capacity CF cards in the drawer?
4. Their empty 1TB hard drive stack needs to be filled?

The mega pixel race is over for me. I was never once, even today,
feel that 6 MP images from my 300D was lacking in quality for my
needs. The 300D only lack user adjustments, features and speed. I
now have all that in the 30D; nothing more is needed.

The reason I may have a desire for FF before was the lack of lens
choices for 1.6X DSLRs. That is not the case now with all the high
quality 1.6X lenses that Canon and other lens manufacturers are
cranking out.
These Japanese companies are not idiots to dedicate so much
resources on products that isn't going to hang around for awhile.
Heck, 6 years ago, my first digicam, a Nikon 990 had a 1/2" sensor,
today they are still about 1/2".

No FF for me in the near future. I guess I'll have to go and enjoy,
for the moment, the best normal zoom that Canon, or dare I say any
manufacturer, can offer.
Amin Sabet said:
Homl said:
Like everyone I started with the 18-55 kit lens with a 300D. Then
when looking for more. Better zooms Canon 28-135IS and Sigma
18-125. Than came a bunch of primes, Canon 50f1.8, Sigma 20f1.8,
Canon 35f2, Tamron SP90 Macro, Canon 200f2.8 and Sigma 15f2.8FE.
All very decent lenses by the way. I also have a couple of lowly
consumer Canon 28-80 and 75-300 from my film days. In the end, a
couple drawers full of lenses. Try to use all that in an outing.
LOL.

Don't ask how many flashes I have. LOL.

If I am to start a fresh system today. I would definitely get a 30D
for its features, performance and price. Most of the lenses would
be the newer Canon lenses. The list would be Sigma 15f2.8FE,
17-55f2.8IS, 60f2.8 Macro and the 70-300IS non-DO.
With the 17-55f2.8IS pair with the 30D, I don't have any compelling
reasons to go to FF DSLRs either. More money saved. LOL.
Amin Sabet said:
Makes perfect sense to me. As a Tamron 17-50 user, I would have
bought the Canon instead for the same reasons had I had the money!

--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
--
[email protected]
 
I travelled to Venice (Italy) last week, and taked some shots hand holded in very low light at 800 or 1600 iso, in the churches or museums, the results are very good, quite perfect for me, it meets exactly my requirements, for the 20D and its crop factor, of course, impossible to get the ultimate quality of a full frame.

pictures of painting masterpieces have a superb natural rendering coloration, quite no correction to do in the RAW process, except a very little (and prudent...) curves, sharpening, and noise reduction.

I taked there many interiors pictures impossible to capt with a non-IS and non 2.8 lens. It's also the perfect range for this particular use.

I taked also some outside, from the Vaporetto on the "canale grande", if you know, the boat moves really in the waves, but most of the pictures appears very sharp, with these great natural venitian colors.

I will post some this evening on my Pbase to illustrate what I said.

I'm very happy of the result.

Just an observation, I get some dust inside the lens, fixed on the front inside glass, not visible on the pictures, but i think ther is a little problem of sealing, because I never work in dusty conditions... So if other users have got same, we have to be careful about that...

--
http://pbase.com/isogood
http://isogood.blogphotography.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top