Canon 17-55mm

[Canadian Si]

Just wondering if anybody is using or has used this lens ? Thinking this might be my next lens !

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

[BerserkerCatSplat]

It's a nice lens by most accounts, but at $1,000 it's a little pricey for pretty much anyone who isn't a professional.

What do you shoot that would need that lens?

[Canadian Si]

I am doing my g/f's brothers wedding this summer. I want to get something with a better f stop. This lens is supposed to be good in low light. All I have so far is the lens that came with the camera & I have a Sigma 70-300. I am usin a Rebel XTi. This is my 1st dslr & fairly new into the digital photo scene. This was one of the lenses recommended to me by one of the salesmen at the Camera Store !

[BerserkerCatSplat]

OK, when you say "doing" the wedding, what do you mean, exactly? Are they paying you to shoot it?

Now, I'm not trying to be rude, but here's how I see it:

If they're not paying you to shoot the wedding, but they're hiring a professional wedding photographer, don't bother buying that $1,400 lens. The pro will have the pro equipment for a reason - he's getting paid to do his job.

If they're paying you to shoot the wedding, and they're paying you enough money to justify buying a $1,400 lens, they should be hiring a professional wedding photographer instead. Not to insult your skills, but there's professionals out there with the experience and the right gear for a reason. There's even some wedding photographers right here on Beyond.

If they're not paying you to shoot the wedding, and they're not hiring a professional photographer either... I wouldn't know what to say.


On the the other hand, if you've got $1,400 to blow on a nice lens anyway, go right ahead and don't let me stop you.

[AccentAE86]

Berserker pretty much hit it on the nose.

It doesn't have a red ring around it, but it IS a lens that was designed for professionals. If you are not a professional or a SERIOUS amateur, then there are plenty of other lenses that do a fantastic job, like the EF-S 17-85 IS USM. But I wouldn't blow $1400 on it just for one wedding.

Also, it's quite bulky and heavy and will make the uber-light XTi extremely front heavy. The smaller 17-85 balances quite nicely with an XT/XTi:




But if you are set on getting it, then I'll give you my experiences with this lens.

First off, it's RIDICULOUSLY sharp. It approaches the sharpness of good primes. It's noticably sharper than my 70-200 F/2.8L IS. The centre is sharp, the edges are sharp, the corners are sharp. And it is RAZOR sharp even wide open at F/2.8.

It's colour saturation and contrast is a touch below the 70-200, but it is still fantastic and yields beautiful pictures.

The image stabilizer is just fantastic. I have easily taken sharp 0.5 sec handheld shots at 17mm, and 1/4 at 55mm. I'm sure I can go lower but I haven't really tried.

The bokeh is nice and smooth, especially at 2.8. It's not AS big of a concern on a short lens as this though. But if you are taking a shot at 55mm at it's min focus distance, you don't have to worry about ugly bokeh like the Canon 50mm F/1.8 lens.

Another advantage of this lens is that it is a constant F/2.8, which will activate a special, extra-precise centre focus point on your XTi. It makes quite a diff when shooting low light.

The not so great:

The flare resistance isn't great. It isn't AS BAD as internet junkies play it out to be, but it isn't stellar either. Flare can be a GOOD thing and can add a neat effect to your images if you use it properly. But yeah, you might get an odd flare creep into your bright outdoor shots now and then.

There is considerable light falloff at F/2.8. By F/5.6 it is totally gone but below that you may notice it. I don't give a crap because for wedding pictures, I usually ADD a vignette effect to images anyways, so really to me, it's a GOOD thing.

A couple people I know have had problems with the stabilizer motor dying. Mine went berserk right as a wedding ceremony started. Weddings are notorious for making equipment fail! argh. Canon will fix it under warranty though. They fixed mine and are fixing one of my colleague's lenses too. It doesn't seem to be too widespread though, we may have gotten dud copies.


Here are a couple sample photos from this lens:

Great for night shooting, and shooting cars:


...and great for shooting people:




Notice the considerable light falloff around the edges creating a vignette effect...


The sun is JUST outside the frame around 10 o'clock, so it shows the flare tendency isn't THAT bad or as uncontrollable as people say:


Conclusion:
What a friggin amazing, awesome lens. It's SO versatile. I couldn't live without mine!

[lint]

^^^ very nice shots. The vignetting is quite noticible, but can be applied quite artistically.

Do you know what the size comparison is between this lens and the 24-105?

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by lint
^^^ very nice shots. The vignetting is quite noticible, but can be applied quite artistically.

Do you know what the size comparison is between this lens and the 24-105?

thanks man..

It is almost the exact same size and weight as the 24-105 F/4L IS.