Would you still buy the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
dave_bass5
dave_bass5 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,879
Re: Would you still buy the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM?

MikeJ9116 wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

. It is not meant for video but it is tack sharp and is an "L" lens in all but build quality, IMO.

More 17-40L rather than 24-70 f/2.8 mkii L though.

On APS-C I would say it is somewhat better than the 17-40L. Especially considering it has IS. Not upper tier "L" level but mid range regarding IQ.

Yeah, i wasn't trying to directly compare it to the 17-40, just pointing out that not all L lenses are equal.

I personally found it no sharper than the 18-135 STM i got instated. I took the same few shots with both and other than right on the edges i could see no real difference at 100% in LR. It was there, but no one would ever notice it. I tried them on my 80D and 650D. Actually the 17-55 worked much better on my 650D, as did the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Maybe the 80D is a bit fussy when it comes to lenses.

To me the 18-135 has a much better focal length, its lighter and smaller, IS works much better, especially for video and seems to work better with the more modern crop bodies. The USM Nano version has all the above, plus a much better AF system.

 dave_bass5's gear list:dave_bass5's gear list
Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM Canon PowerShot S110 Canon EOS Rebel T4i +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
irm
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow