Largely a waste of money

fishy wishy wrote:

The tone of it seems to be that the 17-55 f2.8 IS has no better IQ than the <$100 kit lens, but just so happens to be up to two stops faster. Um, that's a lot.

Does a larger aperture capability equal better IQ ? Obviously if you REALLY need f2.8, then the 17-55mm is the ONLY EF-S zoom lens with it. I think that there are, however, many people who seem to believe that having a faster lens is essential, and will automatically improve their photography - I am not convinced that this is case.

I said that I didn't think that the IQ was appreciably better than the kit lens (obviously not at f2.8 - for the nit pickers), and definitely not enough to justify almost L lens prices.

Several years ago when I was looking at this lens, it was selling in Australia for over $1000, and I bought a brand new grey market 24-105L for $820 (at that time L lenses had an international warranty, so buying grey really wasn't an issue for L lenses - not the case any more unfortunately). So, I certainly didn't see the 17-55mm as a value proposition.

And yes, I am aware that the 24-105L doesn't have f2.8, nor does it have 17mm, but it does go to 105mm, and it is a FF lens (which I have subsequently used on my 6D ii), and it is an L lens, and I did save over 20% of the cost of the 17-55mm, so it was a far better option for me. But hey, everyone has different needs.

Colin