#1  
Old 02-01-2010, 03:33 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
Canon 17-55 F 2.8 Lens,anyone using one?

I need to buy a short focal range lens,I recently bought two canon L

series lens,one for long range,another for mid range work, I now need something that takes good pics in the shorter range,was going to get

Canon 24-70,but from what i heard there are many un-happy owners of that lens,also i have a crop camera,so 24 is really over 40,i do want

something in wider range,I poked arround on POTN etc,the 17-55 F2,8

takes loverly photos,the glass is supposedly L quality,the build a bit offish.the price is rather dear! a bit shocked that its $1350 for a plastic lens,also dust issues in front of lens,one needs to buy some sort of filter
straight away.

So if anyone using please let me know how you find it.

thank you
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2010, 04:42 PM
rat156's Avatar
rat156
Registered User

rat156 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,653
Hi Chris,

Have you thought about a dedicated wide angle lens?

I see from your signature you already have the 17-55mm range covered by another lens. Perhaps an 8 or 10mm fisheye lens would be better. I have never used one, so I don't know what they'll be like, but they are probably either cheaper or better than a zoom lens.

I think Bert is the wide angle Guru around here though, I'd copy what he's got.

Cheers
Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2010, 05:16 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
I do love a good 8mm F/2.8 Fisheye... What I will definitely recommend is the Canon 10-22... If you're looking for a wide angle lens, this is what you want... Its as wide as it gets for a crop sensor DSLR without too much barrel distortion that is present in fisheye lenses.. (this distortion can be cleared up in photoshop easily enough...)

The 10-22 could be exactly what you are looking for. I find the image quality from the 10-22 to be great for wide work, and its relatively cheap!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2010, 08:28 PM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Annan, Australia
Posts: 6,569
You haven't stated what you plan to photograph with this 'short focal range' lens...or how wide you want to go?

You could spend about $400 less and pick up the 17-40mm f/4 L...

Wider still and there's the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-01-2010, 08:31 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
17-40 F/4L is a great lens..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2010, 01:21 AM
Waxing_Gibbous's Avatar
Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)
Grumpy Old Man-Child

Waxing_Gibbous is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Gippsland
Posts: 1,768
IMO a fisheye will set you back a big wad of money and has limited use.
Second the 10-22 EF-S. Though I had flare problems with mine.
I've "test driven" the 17-55 2.8, and while it's great glass, it really is VERY plasticky. It doesn't inspire confidence at all and is quite over-priced IMO.
The 17-40 has loads of fans and but I've never tried one
One to think about that's not on your list is the 14mm 2.8L. This is a very good lens indeed for a 1.6 body. Its wonderfully sharp and the slight but noticable,light fall-off and barrel distortion are much less evident on these bodies than a FF SLR.
However the best of the bunch is the Sigma 15-30 3.5 - 5.6, which can easily hold its own with any WA zoom, and, OH LOOK - I have one for sale right here!
Half the fun of ownership is the hunt!
Enjoy.
Peter

Last edited by Waxing_Gibbous; 03-01-2010 at 01:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2010, 08:19 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,837
Chris, I have owned the 24-70, currently own the 17-55 and the 10-22, and have taken thousands of photos with each of them. These are my experiences, but keep in mind that everyone has different shooting styles and will have different preferences on focal lengths. I have only ever owned a crop camera, 350D, 30D, and 40D. This advice would be different if you planned on getting a full frame in the near future.

The 24-70 is a wonderful lens, but I found it just was not wide enough on a crop camera. I had the 10-22 at the same time and was constantly changing lenses, particularly when travelling.

Ended up selling the 24-70 and getting the 17-55. Couldn't have been more happy. It is a wonderful lens too, and the focal length range is much, much better suited to crop cameras as a standard walk-around zoom lens. It will become the lens you have attached to your camera all the time, and you only take it off for special shots like ultrawides with 10-22 for example, or your bird shots 400mm.

Do not worry about the gap in focal length range between 55mm and 70mm. You will not even notice it. I didn't even have a 70-200 and made do with 100-400, so the gap was 55-100.

Do not worry about the comments on build quality. It does not feel plastic at all. It's actually quite a heavy and big lens - lot of glass. There is a little bit of dust in mine, but not much and it does not affect shots in any way. It's not like dust on your sensor where you get dust spots in your shots.

The 10-22 is also a wonderful lens, but is a very different beast to the 17-55. I would not recommend it as a standard walk-around lens. Too wide. Use it more for landscapes, waterscapes, star trails, or special effects like shooting up close and getting funky almost fish-eye type distortions.

I see a recommendation for the 17-40 too. It is also a great lens. I haven't owned one, but my brother has it and I have used it quite a bit. It's only f/4, compared to the 17-55's f/2.8, and it doesn't have image stabilisation like the 17-55. I would say the 17-40 (and the 16-35L) would be better on a full frame camera for taking landscapes and would be the "equivalent" of 10-22 on a crop camera.

So, in summary, I'd get the 17-55. It's definitely a cut or two above the 17-85 you currently have.

Next lens I'd recommend after you get that is the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20 for those ultra-wides. These will complement, rather than replace, the 17-55.

Just my, very long, 2 cents worth.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2010, 09:34 AM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Annan, Australia
Posts: 6,569
I use the 17-40 on my cropped 40D for almost all my landscape shots.

It's fantastic....

And to be honest, the extra aperture of the 17-55 (f2.8 Vs f4) won't become an issue when you're shooting outside where there's enough light, if landscape photography is what you intend with this new lens.

Chris, it really comes down to how 'wide' you want to go?

I'm sure the 17-55 is a good lens. Even if it lacks the build quality of an L lens and is priced considerably higher than the 17-40L.

Last edited by matt; 03-01-2010 at 09:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2010, 10:02 AM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re short focal range lens

Thank you everyone who supplied info,a big thanks to BIMBO chaps,and in particular Troy,who really hit the nail on the head re info needed.

I went through my files,of the pics i want to do the range mostly used was 20mm to 40 mm, the F 2.8 is desirable as will be used in lower light
areas,also want to be a bit wider at times too.

The current 17 to 85,well after using those two L s and not having used it for ages,used it the other day-and well........

I thought of the 24-70,but Troy found what i thought,I feel after reading your post Troy-really usefull info,as you have phyiscally used many of lens mentioned,I was a bit concerned about build quality.

The other alternative is 16-35 L,the 10-22 sounds interesting for those
landscape shots etc,how much are they?are they a plastic lens.

thanks again everyone,Chris
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2010, 10:07 AM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Annan, Australia
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotspur View Post
I went through my files,of the pics i want to do the range mostly used was 20mm to 40 mm
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-01-2010, 01:48 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re lens purchase

thanks Matt,but ithe primary use for the lens required is'nt

landscape pictures,I will have to look at getting this 17-55 one.

As Troy mentions he has used and taken many photos with a few in

the range,including the "brick",which is still a little long at short end.

I am just bulking at the price of this thing ,that 70-200 i just got, was'nt

much more than the 17-55 in price
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-01-2010, 01:54 PM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Annan, Australia
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotspur View Post
thanks Matt,but ithe primary use for the lens required is'nt

landscape pictures,I will have to look at getting this 17-55 one.

As Troy mentions he has used and taken many photos with a few in

the range,including the "brick",which is still a little long at short end.

I am just bulking at the price of this thing ,that 70-200 i just got, was'nt

much more than the 17-55 in price
FYI....I also own and use a 'brick' (see my signature)....

Anyway....good luck. Hope you're happy with the choice, whatever you intend to use the lens for, which you still haven't disclosed.

That makes it tough to give lens recommendations.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-01-2010, 02:01 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,837
Hey Chris - I just noticed you're in SE QLD. I'm in Brisbane. You can try mine out some time if you like.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-01-2010, 03:55 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re short range lens

The priamary use of lens is people/events/groups/portraits.followd by general use

land scapes etc.

I can see two chioces 17-55 or 16-35 L,Yes-will take you up on your offer to try your lens Troy.thanks

I was thinking of holding a 'BIMBOs picnic' on our country property

-a camp oven meal,nature photography.and if anyone wants to stay overnight for star viewing,thats fine

As a suggestion how does April new moon weekend suit people?

it would be open to all icers,not just BIMBOs

Last edited by hotspur; 04-01-2010 at 03:59 PM. Reason: extra info
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-01-2010, 04:42 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,837
Sounds like a great idea. April new moon is getting a bit close to the expected birth of my baby, so not sure if I should venture too far from home. Wouldn't like to commit this far ahead. Where's the property?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-01-2010, 05:11 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re short range lens

Our property is two hours N.W of brissy,up near Blackbutt,not that far from Linville (astrofest venue).

Date was a suggestion only,i have been thinking about putting idea to the forum for a while,I know there is a few keen nature/star photographers in Brissy/Ippy area-Dennis,Alex,David,Matt etc,so if you chaps

want to car pool/whatever suits,there is sleeping space aval in observatory,it quite comfy in there.

RE lens,Matt suugested 17-40,i forgot to say in last post,that alot of the use for this lens is inside use,and where lighting may not be bright,so that is the reason for leaning toward a F 2.8 feature,

I am not in hurry to purchase new lens,so happy to wait till we get a chance to meet up somewhere to have a closer look at your lens Troy.
Also tides gone out a bit-after purchase of the two recent L's.

regards Chris
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 05:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement