Should I get the 17-55mm IS USM lens?

sharpness / resolution is abu's thing.

Euell wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Euell wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Euell wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Euell wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

I wouldn't. That Canon lens is an aging lens, good five years ago when the options were fewer and sensors less dense. If you can live with the risk of focus inconsistency associated with Sigma and the absence of IS, I'd steer you to the Sigma 18-35/f1.8. Sharper at f/1.8 than the Canon lens at f/2.8. Mine suffers from focus inconsistency on 6x0D bodies, but I keep it because the optics are so exceptional. I'd then round off the top end with the new, $125 50/1.8 STM lens.

Alternatively, you can consider the 18-55STM kit lens, backed up by two fast primes, the 50 STM and the 35IS.

The 17-55 is certainly not a dated lens and is quite sharp enough for the 7d2, and certainly the 60d. The lack of IS on an all-purpose zoom, such as the Sigma, is a nonstarter. Moreover, while I am still considering the very sharp Sigma 18-35, the posts here indicate focus issues that can be a pain in the neck to address. No such problems with the 17-55. The 18-35 seems like a specialty lens to me, rather than a general purpose standard zoom.

Fine, go ahead and buy it. I'd hate to see what it looks like on those new 24MP APSC sensors. Say what you want about the Sigma. One thing is clear: optically it shreds the Canon. I, myself, mount it on the M, and poof! all focus issues vanish. Ciao.

Well, of course, I already own a 17-55 and have for years. By the way, asiide from the size and weight disparity, ithe 17-55 performs quite well on the Sony A6000 (with adapter), which is a 24 megapixel sensor. As far as Canon APSC bodies are concerned, the recently introduced top-of-the-line 7d mark ii is only 20 megapixels. So I don't see Canon jumping to a 24 megapixel APSC sensor anytime soon, not that such a move would in any way obsolete the 17-55. It is a good all-around standard zoom.

Really? You don't see 24MP APS-C sensors on Canon cameras any time soon?
--
>> I love the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens! <<

Possibly with an 80d at some future date, but Canon is slow to change models. In any case, the 17-55 will be up to the task. It may well be replaced, but is sharp enough for large prints. Don't know why you would want to discourage the OP from acquiring and at a good price. The 17-55 is certainly not a dud when it comes to sharpness, even if not the current top dog. BTW, 18-35 is really not adequate in terms of focal lengths for a general purpose zoom.

Hate to break it to you, but 24MP APSC sensors are already in the homes of Canon camera owners. Check the M forum. Plenty of people there with the M3, and the 750D/760D, announced four months ago, are already out. Objective fact.

My reasons for recommending against the Canon lens is that the Sigma offers superior IQ and speed. Again, objective fact.

Finally, "18-35 is really not adequate in terms of focal lengths for a general purpose zoom" is a subjective statement based on your own needs and likes.

Not that it matters, and just a bit of info, the Canon lens sells here for $675. I am more willing to countenance it at that price, seeing it is a good value at that price. I'll also say this. Given its range and weight, it makes, for me, a good anchor to a travel kit.

The 18-35 range is not wide enough for most and you previously suggested picking up a 50mm to make up for that. The 18-35 lens lacks IS, which is enough reason for many to put a bong on it, and, as you have noted, there are focus issues. The 18-35 is not a lens for beginners by any stretch. It is, of course, outstandingly sharp, but that is not enough in light of the other deficits. I am thinking of picking one up for fun when extreme sharpness would be helpful, but not as a general purpose zoom. Yes, I suppose that is my opinion, but that is what we all provide here, isn't it?

We can provide opinion and we can provide facts. We can avoid passing the former for the latter.

True, but let me pass along opinion from the Photozone.de review of the 18-35 concerning its best use. "That sounds pretty awesome, doesn't it ? Technically it is ... yet ... during our field sessions it didn't feel right. It just isn't your typical standard zoom lens - the 2x zoom ratio is too limiting for that. However, it is an excellent replacement for prime lenses in its range. Most prime lenses in this range aren't any better nor faster than this astounding Sigma and when thinking in this scope, it is actually a pretty cool." I certainly agree with that assessment, but, as I have suggested, the 18-35 is not a typical standard zoom, whereas the 17-55 is. Your prior suggestion that the 17-55 is insufficiently sharp for a 24mm sensor was based on nothing and my experience using the lens with the 24mm Sony debunks that. It is,of course, possible that Canon will replace the 17-55, but there doesn't seem to be any pressing need for that.

In short, what I am suggesting is that your advice to the OP was, if not bad advice, at least not good advice.