Reading mode: Light Dark

Question about the 17-55mm f/2.4 lens?

Go to last post
S

Smiller4128

Leading Member
Messages
624
Reaction score
157
Location
Sacramento, CA, US
Hello, I currently have the 18-135mm lens that came in the kit for my T4i. I've been looking at the 17-55mm f/2.4 lens more and more and have talked to a few people who really really like it. I'm wondering if that lens would nullify my need for my 18-135mm if I also got a 50-200mm or 70-300mm lens in the future? And even then I'm not 100% sure I would get a big zoom lens. It's not too often when I have a need for that extreme amount of zoom. I'm just looking for a few opinions so any information would be helpful. Thanks!
 
Smiller4128 said:
Smiller4128 wrote:

Hello, I currently have the 18-135mm lens that came in the kit for my T4i. I've been looking at the 17-55mm f/2.4 lens more and more and have talked to a few people who really really like it. I'm wondering if that lens would nullify my need for my 18-135mm if I also got a 50-200mm or 70-300mm lens in the future? And even then I'm not 100% sure I would get a big zoom lens. It's not too often when I have a need for that extreme amount of zoom. I'm just looking for a few opinions so any information would be helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
If you have the Canon 18-135 STM, I would stick with it for at least a year.

Consider getting one prime lens first. The EF 30mm f/2, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro all would be good lenses to consider, depending on your budget and shooting style.
 
If you mean 17-55 2.8, I have it and it is simply a gem. Due to it's speed on all zoom range is excellent for low light shooting. Should it be a trade-off, it's up to you, whether you miss the additional zoom range. As TTMartin said too, it is wise to shoot around a year to precise your needs and specify your setup bottlenecks, according to your way of photography and then buy.

You didn't mention if you shoot video.
 
Last edited:
Canon 17-55 is a sweet lens, but coming from owning 18-135mm STM, you will likely find 55mm rather limiting. I would supplement it with either a 85mm f/1.8 or a 100mm f/2 prime.
 
TTMartin said:
TTMartin wrote:
TTMartin said:
Smiller4128 wrote:

Hello, I currently have the 18-135mm lens that came in the kit for my T4i. I've been looking at the 17-55mm f/2.4 lens more and more and have talked to a few people who really really like it. I'm wondering if that lens would nullify my need for my 18-135mm if I also got a 50-200mm or 70-300mm lens in the future? And even then I'm not 100% sure I would get a big zoom lens. It's not too often when I have a need for that extreme amount of zoom. I'm just looking for a few opinions so any information would be helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
If you have the Canon 18-135 STM, I would stick with it for at least a year.

Consider getting one prime lens first. The EF 30mm f/2, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro all would be good lenses to consider, depending on your budget and shooting style.
Click to expand...
You must be referring to the Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens. Canon's current lens line-up does not show a 30mm f/2 lens, but I wish that they did!
 
Hi everyone!

A reader since long, first time writing... :-)

I am in a similar situation, got a T4i with the 18-135 STM, and after one year bought the 17-55 f2.8. I currently use both: the 17-55 f2.8 in any situation where light is non optimal, the 18-135 as a walk lens in daylight. Fast lens vs. bigger reach...

I agree with 007Peter: once I got used to 135mm, I felt the 55mm somehow limiting: I ended up keeping both, and I am glad of that decision.

In any case, it all depends on your shooting subjects/style/preferences... unless you already know your needs, getting accustomed with the 18-135 might be a good (and cheap) decision.

Cheers

F.
 
I'd sell the 18-135 and if you're not into telephotos then perhaps the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200f/4 or 70-300 non-L would cover most of your needs and fill a vast focal range with excellent IQ, and it wouldn't break the bank. You wouldn't even notice the 55-70 gap.......

Before buying you might consider renting to acclimate yourself to it's performance......

--
Regards,
Hank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/638311471/photos/17792/night-launch
 
Last edited:
Y0GI said:
Y0GI wrote:
Y0GI said:
TTMartin wrote:
Y0GI said:
Smiller4128 wrote:

Hello, I currently have the 18-135mm lens that came in the kit for my T4i. I've been looking at the 17-55mm f/2.4 lens more and more and have talked to a few people who really really like it. I'm wondering if that lens would nullify my need for my 18-135mm if I also got a 50-200mm or 70-300mm lens in the future? And even then I'm not 100% sure I would get a big zoom lens. It's not too often when I have a need for that extreme amount of zoom. I'm just looking for a few opinions so any information would be helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
If you have the Canon 18-135 STM, I would stick with it for at least a year.

Consider getting one prime lens first. The EF 30mm f/2, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro all would be good lenses to consider, depending on your budget and shooting style.
Click to expand...
You must be referring to the Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens. Canon's current lens line-up does not show a 30mm f/2 lens, but I wish that they did!
Click to expand...
Yes, I was thank you for the catch and the correction.
 
Hi Smiller4128,

I purchased a refurbished T3i ($466 w/extra battery) & EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 lens ($806) from Canon's web site. I'm checking it indoors ( cloudy day here) today. What little Ive seen, its seems a very good lens for still lifes. Attaches are a set of jpeg photos ( original and original w/ slight Elements PP). I'm sure a raw PP photo would have more detail. Enjoy shooting with what ever camera & lens system you decide on. If you looks at these photos at "full size", you'll see alot more detail..

original
original

orignal w/ Elements PP
orignal w/ Elements PP
 
The 18-135 mm is a middle of the road lens. Image quality is limited both by the quality of the glass and by simple physics. The greater the zoom percentage, the harder it is to design a lens that does not distort the image in some way. The 18-135 mm lens does an adequate job, but you see very few professionals using super-zooms

In contrast the 17-55 mm and the 15-85 mm are L class lenses. The glass in both these lenses is the exact same glass as is used in the L lenses and the image quality is also the same. Since neither of these lenses is a super-zoom, there is little nor no distortion associated with the zoom function. These lenses are both an order of magnitude better than the 18-135 mm and are a clear upgrade.

What you gain is clearly superior image quality, what you lose is the convenience of a super zoom. So what is important to you? I bought the 17-55mm four years ago and never looked back. It is my “walking around lens” and 80% of the pictures I take are with this lens. I like the fact that I can open it up to f2.8 and most of all I like the image quality. When I need a telephoto lens, I put a telephoto lens on the camera. I have the 55-250mm, the 100-400 mm and the 500 mm prime. I consider changing lenses to be part of this game and I don't mind carrying extra lenses. I need the exericse (LOL). The convenience of a super-zoom is a non-issue for me – I want image quality.

Question 1: What do you want? If you like convenience, stick with the 18-135. If you like superior image quality AND a fast lens, go with the 17-55mm. If you want a bit longer reach than 55 mm and superior image quality, go with the 15-85mm.

Question 2: What is your budget? The 17-55mm will cost your around $1050 USD, the 15-85mm is $800 USD. In contrast the 18-135 mm sells for around $500 USD – less than half the cost of the 17-55mm.
 
Oilman said:
Oilman wrote:

The 18-135 mm is a middle of the road lens. Image quality is limited both by the quality of the glass and by simple physics. The greater the zoom percentage, the harder it is to design a lens that does not distort the image in some way. The 18-135 mm lens does an adequate job, but you see very few professionals using super-zooms

In contrast the 17-55 mm and the 15-85 mm are L class lenses. The glass in both these lenses is the exact same glass as is used in the L lenses and the image quality is also the same. Since neither of these lenses is a super-zoom, there is little nor no distortion associated with the zoom function. These lenses are both an order of magnitude better than the 18-135 mm and are a clear upgrade.

What you gain is clearly superior image quality, what you lose is the convenience of a super zoom. So what is important to you? I bought the 17-55mm four years ago and never looked back. It is my “walking around lens” and 80% of the pictures I take are with this lens. I like the fact that I can open it up to f2.8 and most of all I like the image quality. When I need a telephoto lens, I put a telephoto lens on the camera. I have the 55-250mm, the 100-400 mm and the 500 mm prime. I consider changing lenses to be part of this game and I don't mind carrying extra lenses. I need the exericse (LOL). The convenience of a super-zoom is a non-issue for me – I want image quality.

Question 1: What do you want? If you like convenience, stick with the 18-135. If you like superior image quality AND a fast lens, go with the 17-55mm. If you want a bit longer reach than 55 mm and superior image quality, go with the 15-85mm.

Question 2: What is your budget? The 17-55mm will cost your around $1050 USD, the 15-85mm is $800 USD. In contrast the 18-135 mm sells for around $500 USD – less than half the cost of the 17-55mm.

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small
http://www.flickr.com/geofiz
Click to expand...
First off, I want to thank you very much for your input. I'd prefer IQ and a fast lens over the convenience of a super zoom (55-200mm, 70-300mm, or even the 18-135mm I have now) I got the 18-135mm instead of the basic 18-55mm to play around with a few more sizes so I could see if I would like a 60mm, 85mm, 100mm lens later. I know you cant exactly compare all those lenses and the 18-135mm side-by-side but it taught me what I needed to know. My photography needs at the moment don't center around needing a really far reach. If anything, I either like being close (a prime lens) or getting the whole view (wide-angle lens) which is why I looked into those. I REALLY want to start getting into more portraits though and thats why I was looking for the recommendation for a portrait lens. I had also already looked into the 17-55mm and I'm REALLY wanting that. Ideally, cost isnt an issue as I'll just save up until I can afford it. However, I wasn't sure if the 17-55mm would make a better portrait lens then the 50mm itself. As far as the 18-55mm goes, I keep hearing people mention that lens. Is there any advantage to getting the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm?
 
Maximum aperture for the 17-55mm is F2.8 at all focal lengths. Maximum aperture for the15-85 mm ranges from F3.5 to F5.6 depending on focal length. Image quality for both lenses is essentially the same. Based on what you just stated, the 17-55mm is probably a better fit. Be aware that both are EFS lenses, Neither will work on a full-frame camera. If you believe that a FF camera is in your future you may want to look at other alternatives, although they will probably be significantly more expensive for equivalent image quality. The F2.8 24-70mm L lens is equivalent to the 17-55mm for FF cameras. It costs $2300.



Although I own the 50 mm F1.4, I use the 17-55mm for most portraits.I like to frame the portrait properly by adjusting the zoom as opposed to physically moving the camera nearer or farther from the subject. Below is an example of a portrait I took with the 17-55mm

5829257160_038ca270a8_b.jpg


Be aware that portraiture is far more about lighting than lenses. This one was taken with two AB800 studio lights. One was camera right and high, reflected with an umbrella and the other was camera center using a softbox.

If you are interested in portraiture I would recomend that you go to www.strobist.com to learn about off camera flash

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small
www.flickr.com

geofiz

Explore geofiz’s 1,456 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Smiller4128 said:
Smiller4128 wrote:
Smiller4128 said:
Oilman wrote:

The 18-135 mm is a middle of the road lens. Image quality is limited both by the quality of the glass and by simple physics. The greater the zoom percentage, the harder it is to design a lens that does not distort the image in some way. The 18-135 mm lens does an adequate job, but you see very few professionals using super-zooms

In contrast the 17-55 mm and the 15-85 mm are L class lenses. The glass in both these lenses is the exact same glass as is used in the L lenses and the image quality is also the same. Since neither of these lenses is a super-zoom, there is little nor no distortion associated with the zoom function. These lenses are both an order of magnitude better than the 18-135 mm and are a clear upgrade.

What you gain is clearly superior image quality, what you lose is the convenience of a super zoom. So what is important to you? I bought the 17-55mm four years ago and never looked back. It is my “walking around lens” and 80% of the pictures I take are with this lens. I like the fact that I can open it up to f2.8 and most of all I like the image quality. When I need a telephoto lens, I put a telephoto lens on the camera. I have the 55-250mm, the 100-400 mm and the 500 mm prime. I consider changing lenses to be part of this game and I don't mind carrying extra lenses. I need the exericse (LOL). The convenience of a super-zoom is a non-issue for me – I want image quality.

Question 1: What do you want? If you like convenience, stick with the 18-135. If you like superior image quality AND a fast lens, go with the 17-55mm. If you want a bit longer reach than 55 mm and superior image quality, go with the 15-85mm.

Question 2: What is your budget? The 17-55mm will cost your around $1050 USD, the 15-85mm is $800 USD. In contrast the 18-135 mm sells for around $500 USD – less than half the cost of the 17-55mm.

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small
http://www.flickr.com/geofiz
Click to expand...
First off, I want to thank you very much for your input. I'd prefer IQ and a fast lens over the convenience of a super zoom (55-200mm, 70-300mm, or even the 18-135mm I have now) I got the 18-135mm instead of the basic 18-55mm to play around with a few more sizes so I could see if I would like a 60mm, 85mm, 100mm lens later. I know you cant exactly compare all those lenses and the 18-135mm side-by-side but it taught me what I needed to know. My photography needs at the moment don't center around needing a really far reach. If anything, I either like being close (a prime lens) or getting the whole view (wide-angle lens) which is why I looked into those. I REALLY want to start getting into more portraits though and thats why I was looking for the recommendation for a portrait lens. I had also already looked into the 17-55mm and I'm REALLY wanting that. Ideally, cost isnt an issue as I'll just save up until I can afford it. However, I wasn't sure if the 17-55mm would make a better portrait lens then the 50mm itself. As far as the 18-55mm goes, I keep hearing people mention that lens. Is there any advantage to getting the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm?
Click to expand...
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is currently on sale at Canon Direct for $802 (refurbished) which is a really great price. The lens comes with a 14 day return policy and a 90 day Canon warranty.

I also use this lens for 80-90% of my shooting and I agree with Oilman's comments. This is an excellent lens!

--
Yogi
When you get down to the nuts and bolts of photography, the results depend on the 'nut' behind the camera!
See the 'Gear List' in my 'Profile' for my current equipment.
Check out WilbaW's beginner FAQs at - http://snipurl.com/RebelFAQ
 
Last edited:
If you like the occasional long shots on the go, you really should be wary of 'I will just swap lenses as needed' thinking. Hauling about extra lenses is a chore. Swapping lenses on the go is a royal pain. If you gotta have those f/2.8 zooms, you have no choice. But if you can make do without, consider a single-lens solution. 18-135 is a lens you already have, and it's a great walkabout range. Alternatives include the most excellent 15-85, if you favor the wide end, and a real nice but pricey 24-105 f/4L if you favor the long.
 
scorrpio said:
scorrpio wrote:

If you like the occasional long shots on the go, you really should be wary of 'I will just swap lenses as needed' thinking. Hauling about extra lenses is a chore. Swapping lenses on the go is a royal pain. If you gotta have those f/2.8 zooms, you have no choice. But if you can make do without, consider a single-lens solution. 18-135 is a lens you already have, and it's a great walkabout range. Alternatives include the most excellent 15-85, if you favor the wide end, and a real nice but pricey 24-105 f/4L if you favor the long.
Click to expand...
Well, swapping lenses Ian's carrying them around isn't too much of a concern for me as I tend to think ahead for my shooting needs and will equip my camera as necessary. However, I've been thinking about getting the 17-55mm more and more. I found someone on Craigslist selling one for $700 with the caps and a lens hood. But I'm thinking if I got that, and picked up a 70-300mm zoom in the future, would I have any need to really keep my 18-135mm? I could just sell it and regain some of my money right?
 
It has received horrible reviews, both from the professional reviewers and from the users. Get the 55-250mm instead. For the money it is one of the best lenses Canon makes.

Yogi, who also lives in Houston, was one of the people who helped me make the decision to purchase the 17-55mm. His advice was good then and it is good now. You will not go wrong with this lens
 
Oilman said:
Oilman wrote:

It has received horrible reviews, both from the professional reviewers and from the users. Get the 55-250mm instead. For the money it is one of the best lenses Canon makes.

Yogi, who also lives in Houston, was one of the people who helped me make the decision to purchase the 17-55mm. His advice was good then and it is good now. You will not go wrong with this lens

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small
http://www.flickr.com/geofiz
Click to expand...
Thank you for that recommendation to stay away from the 70-300mm and to go with the 55-250mm.

Also, I meant to ask about some problems I've heard people complaining about on the 17-55mm and how it's a dust collector and it's not very sharp. Is there any merit to these claims?
 
Check out my photos on flickr taken with this lens and make your own assessment

www.flickr.com/geofiz
 
The EF 70-300mm is an L lens and is very very good. Thank you for correcting me on this one
 
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