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

Recently I bought a Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 to improve the low light capabilities. But unfortunately it didn't work with DPAF on my 80D. A second copy had the same problems, so I gave it back with a heavy heart. It is such a nice, fast and optically great lens. Why can't they solve these annoying AF problems in their lenses...?

The only lens, that comes near to Sigma's 18-35 is Canon's EF-S 17-55 2.8. Introduced in 2006 I think it is due for an update. Or would you still buy it for new???

What would you like to have in an updated EF-S 17-55?

• Faster?
• 4-stop IS?
• STM or nano USM?
• Better sealing against dust?

Personally, I don't think Canon if offer something as fast as Sigma on their ASP-C lineup. But a mk II with improved IS and STM would be nice, wouldn't it?

Pepege wrote:

Recently I bought a Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 to improve the low light capabilities. But unfortunately it didn't work with DPAF on my 80D. A second copy had the same problems, so I gave it back with a heavy heart. It is such a nice, fast and optically great lens. Why can't they solve these annoying AF problems in their lenses...?

Because they have to reverse engineer it...

The only lens, that comes near to Sigma's 18-35 is Canon's EF-S 17-55 2.8. Introduced in 2006 I think it is due for an update. Or would you still buy it for new???

It's not cheese, doesn't have an expiration date; the 17-55 is one great lens, but of course big, heavy and expensive. Pity about the Sigma though.

What would you like to have in an updated EF-S 17-55?

• Faster?
• 4-stop IS?
• STM or nano USM?
• Better sealing against dust?

Personally, I don't think Canon if offer something as fast as Sigma on their ASP-C lineup. But a mk II with improved IS and STM would be nice, wouldn't it?

I went with a bunch of primes myself: 24mm stm, 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4... But the 40mm pancake is almost a no brainer; and UWA is covered by the 10-22, so no need for something at 17mm.

Although my main camera is a 5D4 i use my 80D quite a lot. I would love a lens like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but after having 3 poor copies of this lens i would avoid it until its updated.I had a lovely copy when it first came out, so i can appreciate what a good lens it can be, but have failed to replace it with another good copy.

Pepege wrote:

Recently I bought a Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 to improve the low light capabilities. But unfortunately it didn't work with DPAF on my 80D. A second copy had the same problems, so I gave it back with a heavy heart. It is such a nice, fast and optically great lens. Why can't they solve these annoying AF problems in their lenses...?

The only lens, that comes near to Sigma's 18-35 is Canon's EF-S 17-55 2.8. Introduced in 2006 I think it is due for an update. Or would you still buy it for new???

What would you like to have in an updated EF-S 17-55?

• Faster?
• 4-stop IS?
• STM or nano USM?
• Better sealing against dust?

Personally, I don't think Canon if offer something as fast as Sigma on their ASP-C lineup. But a mk II with improved IS and STM would be nice, wouldn't it?

I’ve been through the same thought process with the APS-C bodies. The only two fast “normalish” zooms I considered were the Sigma 18-35 and the EF-S 17-55. I never could pull the trigger on the EF-S 17-55 for some reason (but did own the slower EF-S15-85 for a while and loved that lens).

I tried the Sigma 18-35 Art a couple of years ago for my 7DII, but just could not get consistent AF results (OVF) no matter how many adjustments I made with the Sigma Dock. Returned it. BTW, It worked perfectly in Live View on my 7DII (first Generation DPAF) and the results were stunning. I tried the 18-35 again recently for my M6 and discovered what you discovered. Certain Sigma lenses do no work with the 2nd generation DPAF bodies...like the 80D. The 18-35 had “severe” backfocus on my M6, making it unusable. Returned it...again.

BTW, I’ve got 3 Sigma Art lenses (35, 50 and 85). The 50 and 85 focus perfectly on my M6 and 5D IV (in Live View).....both 2nd gen DPAF bodies. The 35 Art does not AF correctly (Severe back focus....unusable) on both my M6 and 5D IV in (Live View), but works perfectly in Live View on my 6D....and on the 7DII...which has first Gen DPAF.

Very odd behaviour of certain Sigma lenses and Canon’s newer DPAF bodies.  Canon seems to have modified their “secret sauce” in the new DPAF and Sigma can’t seem to correct for it via firmware updates on certain Sigma Art lenses....for some reason (hardware limitations?).   I always knew that AF via the OVF with these Sigma lenses could be problematic, but never suspected I’d see problems in Live View.

At least you have the nice 35 2.0 IS for wide aperture....low light.

dave_bass5 wrote:

Although my main camera is a 5D4 i use my 80D quite a lot. I would love a lens like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but after having 3 poor copies of this lens i would avoid it until its updated.I had a lovely copy when it first came out, so i can appreciate what a good lens it can be, but have failed to replace it with another good copy.

I think your going to be waiting forever for an update to the 17-55, theyve updated  the 18-55 kit lens more frequently.  I'm considering the 17-55 myself, nothing I've found is a clear replacement.  And from the images I've seen it still renders great pictures on an 80D sensor.

The only other equal option I believe is the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 but it's not really any better and you could end up with the autofocus issues you had in the 18-35.

Is love to see a new 17-55 keeping the USM focusing motor with better IS but I'm not holding my breath.

dave_bass5 wrote:

Although my main camera is a 5D4 i use my 80D quite a lot. I would love a lens like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but after having 3 poor copies of this lens i would avoid it until its updated.I had a lovely copy when it first came out, so i can appreciate what a good lens it can be, but have failed to replace it with another good copy.

My Copy if.the 17-55 was poor also, soft wide open an iq was no better than my 18-135 stm. I money and IQ ahead with a few cheap primes.

photosen wrote:

It's not cheese, doesn't have an expiration date; the 17-55 is one great lens, but of course big, heavy and expensive. Pity about the Sigma though.

The lens was released in 2006 when Canon APSC sensors were only 8MP.

FooHead wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

Although my main camera is a 5D4 i use my 80D quite a lot. I would love a lens like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but after having 3 poor copies of this lens i would avoid it until its updated.I had a lovely copy when it first came out, so i can appreciate what a good lens it can be, but have failed to replace it with another good copy.

My Copy if.the 17-55 was poor also, soft wide open an iq was no better than my 18-135 stm. I money and IQ ahead with a few cheap primes.

I had high hopes for the 17-55 when i got my 80D, as my fist was great on my 30D/40D, but i ended up getting a 18-135 STM, and then the Nano verison and couldn’t be happier with them

I too ended up getting a couple of STM primes and these are better than anything i saw from the 17-55 when i had it last year.

Just to be clear, the IQ was good on this lens but AF was very erratic. Most of the time it would be slightly off. MFA didn’t help as AF wasn’t constant, and the lens worked really well on my 650D and mates 7Dmki. Before getting the 80D i tired to get this lens when i had my 60D, and two copies were soft on one side.

dave_bass5 wrote:

FooHead wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

Although my main camera is a 5D4 i use my 80D quite a lot. I would love a lens like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but after having 3 poor copies of this lens i would avoid it until its updated.I had a lovely copy when it first came out, so i can appreciate what a good lens it can be, but have failed to replace it with another good copy.

My Copy if.the 17-55 was poor also, soft wide open an iq was no better than my 18-135 stm. I money and IQ ahead with a few cheap primes.

I had high hopes for the 17-55 when i got my 80D, as my fist was great on my 30D/40D, but i ended up getting a 18-135 STM, and then the Nano verison and couldn’t be happier with them

I too ended up getting a couple of STM primes and these are better than anything i saw from the 17-55 when i had it last year.

Just to be clear, the IQ was good on this lens but AF was very erratic. Most of the time it would be slightly off. MFA didn’t help as AF wasn’t constant, and the lens worked really well on my 650D and mates 7Dmki. Before getting the 80D i tired to get this lens when i had my 60D, and two copies were soft on one side.

Thanks for all your comments so far!

It seems this lens is really due for an update.

Maybe I will try to get hold on a Sigma 18-35 that works on my body (if I have time).

Or I'll go on adding primes. I already have:

• EF-S 24mm f/2.8 => Well, it's small & light but I don't use it that often
• EF 35mm f/2 IS USM => I love it, it's my most used lens
• EF 50mm f/1.8 II => Rarely use it, it is way to soft wide open
• EF-S 60mm Macro => Rarely use it, although it is high regarded by many

Is there any wide or ultra-wide angle lens out there that you would recommend? Something in the 14-18mm range for APS-C?

Hmmm, i had the same experience with the Sigma 18-35 on my 80D. AF using the VF was quite erratic. Using LV it was spot on.

Its a nice lens, and very sharp when it nails focus. I have borrowed this lens twice as i really wanted to get one, but i had a lot of miss focused shots. Not off by much, and not always, but comparing them to shots taken with Live view they could be quite soft.

1Dx4me wrote:

there are better options out there!

What are they cause I've never seen a viable suggestion.

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.

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 wrote:

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.

+1

My copy seemed to work better on my 1100D.

Pepege wrote:

Recently I bought a Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 to improve the low light capabilities. But unfortunately it didn't work with DPAF on my 80D. A second copy had the same problems, so I gave it back with a heavy heart. It is such a nice, fast and optically great lens. Why can't they solve these annoying AF problems in their lenses...?

The only lens, that comes near to Sigma's 18-35 is Canon's EF-S 17-55 2.8. Introduced in 2006 I think it is due for an update. Or would you still buy it for new???

What would you like to have in an updated EF-S 17-55?

• Faster?
• 4-stop IS?
• STM or nano USM?
• Better sealing against dust?

Personally, I don't think Canon if offer something as fast as Sigma on their ASP-C lineup. But a mk II with improved IS and STM would be nice, wouldn't it?

Not sure if you'll ever see an update to this lens. But it is a good lens, and they can be had cheap.

This lens came out at a time where the market for people buying this lens couldn't "go full frame" ... Most people originally in a market for a lens like this probably went full frame by now.

The CHEAPEST thing from Canon at the time was still the 5d Classic, which went for 3500 dollars.

bent christian wrote:

photosen wrote:

Pepege wrote:

The only lens, that comes near to Sigma's 18-35 is Canon's EF-S 17-55 2.8. Introduced in 2006 I think it is due for an update. Or would you still buy it for new???

It's not cheese, doesn't have an expiration date; the 17-55 is one great lens, but of course big, heavy and expensive. Pity about the Sigma though.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is wholly inadequate for shooting video, due to its very loud IS. It's a woefully outdated lens to be selling 2018.

No way I would buy one.

The loud IS was one of the big reasons i sold my ‘good’ first copy and got the 15-85 USM. Although i dont do a lot of video the 15-85 was a lot quieter. Also nice and small/lighter. The only  issue i had with mine was the lens creep. It got on my nerves but i lived with it until i got a 5D3 and stopped using my 60D.