EF-S 17-55 Priced Too High?

Started Mar 18, 2012 | Discussions thread
Robert Krawitz Contributing Member • Posts: 550
Re: The price is fine

Wyville wrote:

hbx2004 wrote:
Hi,

Wyville wrote:

I have had this lens for two and a half years and can say it is the best possible standard zoom for an APS-C body. It is fully worth the money, mainly due to its optical performance.

.. Anyone who needs L-like build quality will simply buy an L lens. I'm looking at trading in my 17-55 for the 17-40L for just that reason...

I really can't understand above reasoning. I mean, 17-55 is better in any respect, except 17-40 is "built better". Speaking for me, not having IS and being only f/4, it is 17-40 not "worth the money" (especially for APS-C camera).

Bogdan

While the 17-55 is a great standard zoom, easily the best for an APS-C body, I'm not interested in a standard zoom. The 17-40L is an ultra wide angle lens on a full frame body, but actually works well as a landscape lens on an APS-C body. For that purpose I prefer a lens that has environmental seals, while I don't need a large aperture or IS.

Isn't that what it always comes down to? What your needs are and how well the particular lens meets them? If you don't need a standard zoom, the 17-55 is obviously of no use.

I bought my 17-55 used for $800, and thus far I'm nothing short of thrilled with it. I've used it primarily to shoot basketball, and I've pushed maybe 4000 frames through it on a 7D. The best way to describe it is that I barely notice the lens there. I get about 90% sharp shots, which I don't think is too bad when you're on the baseline near the rim and everyone's moving around all at once (the AF will sometimes pick the wrong target, but not that often and the lens focuses fast enough to recover when the camera changes its mind). This is wide open, and there's no CA and the corners are fine. Would I have been perfectly satisfied with the Sigma? Possibly, but I got a good enough price on the Canon to make it worth my while (IMO). I do have a Sigma 8-16 and 70-200 (OS), which I'm also happy with, but I do have to admit that the 17-55 just plain feels nice to work with.

The question of FF vs. crop is another one altogether. The 5D II is simply not in the same league as the 7D for shooting action, and it's more expensive, and requires longer (and more expensive, and heavier) lenses for the same tele resolution. I know that ISO 6400 on that would be a lot better than on the 7D, but I'm not being paid for it and don't want to spend more money for a body less suited to my needs. The 5D III, of course, presumably fixes the action issues, but the resolution issue is still there and it's even more money.

Quite honestly, I think the whole build quality issue is overrated for most photographers. If you're going whitewater rafting with it, it's a different story, but most of us probably don't. I've done plenty of landscape shooting with non-sealed lenses, but maybe I'm not pushing things as hard as you.. The missing lens hood is really silly; I can easily buy a Pearstone equivalent (and will soon enough); that one is a gratuitous slap by Canon.

 Robert Krawitz's gear list:Robert Krawitz's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX1 IS Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow