Anyone Used Canon 17-55 2.8 IS Yet?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joe, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    Has anyone in here used the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS yet?

    What's it like?
     
    Joe, Jun 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe

    Nicolai Guest

    > Has anyone in here used the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS yet?

    Yes.

    > What's it like?


    Its good, but too expensive without being an L
     
    Nicolai, Jun 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe

    Joe Guest

    I don't care if it's an 'L' or not as my body isn't waterproof anyway.

    I am more interested in the image quality, chromatic aberrations,
    vignetting, sharpness, contrast, etc.


    "Nicolai" <> wrote in message
    news:449aef74$0$2090$...
    >> Has anyone in here used the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS yet?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> What's it like?

    >
    > Its good, but too expensive without being an L
    >
     
    Joe, Jun 23, 2006
    #3
  4. Joe

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:08:22 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >I don't care if it's an 'L' or not as my body isn't waterproof anyway.


    OK, my AC broke, so maybe my brain is shot, but...
    What does being waterproof have to do with a Canon "L" lens?
    >
    >I am more interested in the image quality, chromatic aberrations,
    >vignetting, sharpness, contrast, etc.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Joe

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:08:22 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I don't care if it's an 'L' or not as my body isn't waterproof anyway.

    >
    >
    > OK, my AC broke, so maybe my brain is shot, but...
    > What does being waterproof have to do with a Canon "L" lens?
    >
    >>I am more interested in the image quality, chromatic aberrations,
    >>vignetting, sharpness, contrast, etc.


    At least some of the L lenses have seals where they interface with
    the camera .. and soe of the higher level bodies are (at least)
    weather resistant.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Joe

    King Sardon Guest

    On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:08:22 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >I don't care if it's an 'L' or not as my body isn't waterproof anyway.
    >
    >I am more interested in the image quality, chromatic aberrations,
    >vignetting, sharpness, contrast, etc.


    See http://tinyurl.com/lo93d.

    Pros: Fast f 2.8 lens, excellent zoom range for the Rebel and its
    cousins. Superb sharpness pretty well across the zoom range, from
    center to edge. Chromatic aberration well controlled everywhere.

    Cons: Barrel distortion at 17mm (what did you expect?)... vignetting,
    especially at f 2.8... no hood, but you can buy one of those... quite
    a bit of zoom overlap with the 10-22mm, which you would also want one
    day for this format.

    So, looks a lot like an L lens, but build quality is not up to L
    standards. Some think that is a ploy to keep the pros away from it,
    keeping them in the pricier full frame fold.

    I've compared it to the 24-105mm f4 IS, which is an alternative for
    the 1.6 crop cameras, and would also work later, on a full frame
    model. That's an advantage if you think you would move up one day.

    But I think the small frame is here to stay, and it is more than
    adequate now, and will only get better as the years go by. And it is
    smaller, lower cost, and lighter. And has greater DOF, which is an
    advantage in many cases. So I'm committed to the small frame.

    Anyway, the 24-105mm has an awkward zoom range for the small frame
    (the wide end would be considered a normal angle of view on many
    cameras). It has too much chromatic aberration and too much distortion
    at 24mm, which is an important focal length on the small frames.
    Sharpness is not so great at the long end. The max aperture is a whole
    stop slower than the 17-55. The 24-105 comes with a hood, but the hood
    is too wide angle for a small frame camera.

    KS
     
    King Sardon, Jun 26, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joseph Miller

    Unreadable file on Canon S 400.I used a I used a

    Joseph Miller, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    474
    Rolf Egil Sølvik
    Jan 13, 2004
  2. Clive

    Canon A80 - Anyone using one yet

    Clive, Sep 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    339
    Bill Cherepy
    Sep 26, 2003
  3. Mike Koperskinospam
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    373
    Mike Koperskinospam
    Jul 10, 2004
  4. Harry

    Anyone Used A Sigma 10-20 Lense yet?

    Harry, Oct 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    494
    Dirty Harry
    Nov 2, 2005
  5. Squiggle

    Anyone used XP SP3 yet?

    Squiggle, Jan 15, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    791
    Bruce Sinclair
    Jan 22, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page