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

Euell wrote:

Ronomy wrote:

Euell wrote:

Ronomy 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.

I borrowed a Canon 17-55 f2.8 from a friend before I bought the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. The Sigma is noticably sharper than the Canon lens and I have not needed IS yet. Its crazy sharp at F1.8. Indoors and low light I shoot in live view because of the focus issues although it seems to focus better through the viewfinder when I offset the focus point from dead center.

The Canon is still a nice lens...a little soft at F2.8 when shooting close range though. But not too soIn the end I had to buy the Sigma over the Canon and glad I did. And I don't miss the IS with that fast lens.

You forgot to mention that with 3 f-stops of IS, the 17-55 is capable of shots in far lower light than the 18-35. There is also a fallacy often assumed concerning fast lenses. Wide open there is almost no DOF, particularly for up-close shots. Narrow DOF can be good or bad depending on application, but DOF can be more easily controlled if a lens has IS, because it gives you greater latitude to select F-stops. There is no question that the sharpness of the 18-35 is revolutionary, and, no doubt, Sigma could not have made it so sharp if they had used an optical formula incorporating IS, but darn IS sure is handy.

IS doesn't do me any good when there is movement. My point is I have taken pictures indoors at family events with only a couple 60 watt bulbs in a room maybe less and hand held I still get great pictures with the Sigma 18-35 ART lens. It is not a long zoom lens and its super fast so you can keep the shutter speed high enough. Thus I don't need the IS with this lens. It takes way sharper images at f1.8 than the 17-55 at f2.8.

Now with my 10-18 STM lens it is a slow lens and I need the IS and I also love that lens too.

Well, you're right about the unusual sharpness of that lens and the subject movement issue, but as I say, IS makes the 17-55 the faster of the two for capturing static subjects and, of course, the 17-55 is more versatile.

BTW, the OP says he bought the 17-55.

Well I never said it was a bad lens!    I did like it...just wanted a bit sharper.  The canon is faster focusing I think in low light.