Largely a waste of money

J A C S wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

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.

Define "need". Are you always shooting landscapes on a tropical beach? F/2.8 on crop is slow enough for general purposes, and even that is considered a luxury?

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.

It will if you know what to do with it. Ever taken an interior shot?

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.

The 25-105 is a bit softer on crop, has a weird range and it is slower. It is actually more expensive than the 17-55 but can be found as a "white box" version sometimes at a lower price.

Right in Australia the 17-55mm is only $50 cheaper than a 24-70L f4 (both standard retail prices, not special deals, not white box deals) - I know which one I would choose

The 24-70L f4 is also quite frequently offered on sale (because it is a popular lens), unlike the 17-55, so generally prices for the 24-70 would be lower than 17-55mm.

The 24-70 f4 might be 1 stop slower but it has a much more modern IS system that offers at least 1 stop better IS, and it is well known for having excellent IQ, and great L quality. It is also smaller and lighter. It is one of the few Canon lenses (like the 100-400L ii) that seldom has a bad word written about it in these forums, which says something for it.

The 24-70/4 IS has a well documentedsoftness near 50mm which gets even worse on a crop body. Few modern lenses, forget about L ones are so soft. This, plus the weird range and the slow aperture is enough to discard it. You are right about the IS though.

The Canon 24-105L ii (also standard retail price) is about $400 (Australian) more than 17-55.

To me, this is indicative of just how over-priced the 17-55mm is.

It is a very good indication what bargain it is.

An even better bargain at $549.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html