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

Hi,

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about this, this is my first post so bear with me. I currently have a canon 60D with a 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, and an 18-135mm IS kit lens. I'm looking at getting the 17-55mm lens to replace the 18-135mm as a walk around lens, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. I can get it new for about £395 (from a reputable seller), which I'm lead to believe is very cheap for this lens (this price does include a cashback offer from canon). It also comes with a two year warranty. Is this offer to good to miss?

I know that the 17-55mm has a wider aperture and better image quality (the best for an EF-S lens?). I also like the fact that it has full time manual focusing. Is the difference in image quality very noticeable?

I should also add that I like to take landscape shots as well as pictures of people.

I had thought about getting a 50mm prime and just sticking with the 18-135mm.

Does anyone else have any alternative lens combinations?

Thanks!

Joel

It was by far my favourite lens when I had xxD so definitely get it at that price.

The 17-55 is a great lens, and at this price, it's a steal. The IQ is superb. The only drawback is... it's really heavy. So much so, that I will leave it at home and take my pancakes if I am going to be walking around a lot. You may well find that you prefer to take your 18-135 because of the weight problem, and the 18-135 really is very good anyway.

But then, I am an old guy. Maybe the weight won't bother you nearly as much as it does me. Did I mention that it was heavy?

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.

When the 7D was my main lens, the 17-55 2.8 is was my walkaround lens.  It cost about $1000 then.  There is a Sigma lens that can beat it for specs, but QC & focusing problems would stop me fro making that purchase.  I think it is still a good lens & worth more than what you would be paying for it.  Bab

I was going to say beware of scams but Keh has it for a little more... It's a great lens, I wonder why its price has fallen so much...

The 17-55 is a great lens. It's not light, but well matches the weight of your 60D. I've used the lens initially on a 40d and then on a 7d. Results have been great. No complaints. Get it. You won't regret it.

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.

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.

You should try the 247-70/2.8 and 5DII. This does not even have IS. The only thing that annoyed me with the 17-55/2.8IS is the zoom creep when you carry it around in a sling.

joelmiller wrote:

Hi,

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about this, this is my first post so bear with me. I currently have a canon 60D with a 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, and an 18-135mm IS kit lens. I'm looking at getting the 17-55mm lens to replace the 18-135mm as a walk around lens, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. I can get it new for about £395 (from a reputable seller), which I'm lead to believe is very cheap for this lens (this price does include a cashback offer from canon). It also comes with a two year warranty. Is this offer to good to miss?

I know that the 17-55mm has a wider aperture and better image quality (the best for an EF-S lens?). I also like the fact that it has full time manual focusing. Is the difference in image quality very noticeable?

I should also add that I like to take landscape shots as well as pictures of people.

I had thought about getting a 50mm prime and just sticking with the 18-135mm.

Does anyone else have any alternative lens combinations?

Thanks!

Joel

I've said this a zillion times here - I should really just save it and copy/paste!

When I bought my 60D (quite excited really) and my business was starting to take off - my friend had one as well, along with a 17-55. I had no doubt that this was the combo I wanted (after I got my UWA for work). However, I also needed to buy a flash and some other equipment, and at the time the 17-55 was north of $1,000 US. At that time, Sigma had a significant discount on their 17-50, and I decided to try it. I pretty much figured I'd send it back. At first I was disappointed with the size and look, however that changed in a matter of hours when both of us noticed the IQ was not only as good, but possibly better.

Needless to say, it was a keeper. My friend sold his lens a few weeks later, and then moved to a 5D mkII.

The Sigma is compact, light and well built. For the cost there were a few concessions, but not much. Since then things have been great, and I've upgraded significantly. However, I've always known I preferred this lens to any of my L lenses on a crop sensor. I sold my 60D, and still kept this lens figuring it could work on my little 400D.

When I got my 70D for video work and my Tamron 150-600, I naturally wanted to run my Reikan FoCal software on all of my lenses on the 70D to see how they performed (not necessarily to see if I needed to micro adjust them). I wasn't particularly surprised to see that it came close to matching my 24-70/2.8 II on the long end, even besting it wide open!

The charts below show the sharpness at various apertures. 1900 is very sharp, my 100L macro is a bit above 2000. A consistent "smooth" line is preferable, that way you don't have to worry about staying away from certain apertures.

The 24-70 has a dropoff at F2.8, but quickly improves to crazy sharp at F4, then drops again.

The Sigma is better at F2.8 and F3.5, then has a very consistent performance all the way up. There is an old wives tale that the lens is soft wide open. Not seeing it!

Here's the EF 24-105/4L IS as an example. Note the schizophrenic performance, and the maximum sharpness is nowhere near the other two.

I highly recommend a fast walk around for a crop sensor. It's a must have. The 17-55 is one of the best medium zoom lenses that Canon makes. It's well built, sharp and has great IS. However, I feel 100% the Sigma is a match for it in every way, with the advantage of being smaller and lighter. But I would be happy with either lens - although I prefer the size of the Sigma.

The only thing I'm seeing here is that the savings aren't that substantial if indeed you can get a brand new EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS for £395. That's an excellent price any way you look at it. The Sigma is £309, so that's really not much of an advantage. Normally, the savings would buy you a tripod with a kit bag, or a flash.

So, it's entirely your decision. What I could say is that if the Sigma isn't a lot less, the Canon lens would then make the most sense in terms of resale! And that's important. Whatever you'd save with the Sigma would be lost if you decided to move FF and sell your equipment.

You will be delighted with either lens, and having a fast lens with a 60D is really a game changer. Both of these lenses are far and away more than just "noticeably" better than the 18-135. The problem of course is limited focal range, but you'll be able to shoot indoors without flash, and it will push your creative boundaries even further.

I would just make sure that there's not a "hook" with the 17-55. That it's warranted by Canon, and it's not a gray market item. You don't want to have any problems if you need to have the lens serviced, and there are a few things it's known for - such as being a dust sucker.

Jay Brookstone wrote:

Regarding one lens "shredding" another - is this a lens fight. Again?

Don't think so. But it is ends up being that, I hope you don't end up with your pants down. Again.

Jay Brookstone wrote:

Just kidding! The 17-55 EF-S f2.8 IS is a fine lens. How do you like your Tamron 150-600? I'm continually surprised at how well this (relatively) inexpensive superzoom performs and holds up in commercial use.

I love it. I don't know if I'd recommend it over the Sigma, as I prefer the advantages the USB dock has.

For instance, I have to send in the Tamron next week for the firmware upgrade to fix the issues the VC has with panning. I'd only have to plug the Sigma in and I'd be done!

Other than that - either I'm really lucky or Tamron hit it out of the park with this one. The AF is superb for a lens this size, fast and accurate.

I figure if Mike Jackson is using it to buy groceries, that's nothing short of astounding really.

A grand is basically play money for something like this, and I seriously didn't believe my own lying eyes when the photos were rolling in from users!

Of course, it's far from perfect and has a lot of, um, quirks.

This is the aperture performance on my 70D, and I can verify the software hadn't gone nuts. Shooting ISO charts pretty much backs this up. So really, 7.1 and 8 are where to be to squeeze the best out of the lens.

Jay Brookstone wrote:

Wear shorts, usually. Have you ever even used a 17-55? Just curious.

Yes. But the real enigma is whether you actually used that other lens.  Not being able to track a pitcher (on a 7D)?  Tailings?? It raises some serious questions...