Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM Camera Lens

[jeffde]

Does anyone have a Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM Lens

This lens would mostly be used as a backup for my assistant in weddings - either on a 50D or one of my 7D's

I have a 24-105 F4 - 70-200 2.8 10-20 Sigma and a 50mm - but prefer the assistant (2nd shooter) to shoot wider than i do.

Any feedback would be appreciated by those who have one...

[Clubmanmc]

Jeff,

its a 17-55 but will only fit a crop body, its got great optics, and is said to be a 24-70 F2.8 for a crop body, and really should have a red ring on it... but they dont as its EF-S

it would be as wide as your 24-105 on a Full frame body...

if you want your assistant to shoot wide, give them the 10-20

you cant be using the 24-105 and the 70-200 and the 10-20 alll at once...

no i dont have one, but i have played with one...

M

[KeeFy]

17-55 = 28- 88 on a crop. Not as wide as a 24mm.

17-55 has great optics and combined with IS is a great lens. I'd recommend the 10-22mm as well instead of the 17-55 if you want your 2nd photog to shoot wide. Only issue will be low light. The 11-16 f2.8 is a stunner for wide angles and low light as well. May want to consider that.

[William W]

Don’t have it, but I used it extensively.
If I (we) had an ONLY APS-C W&P kits, then that lens would have been purchased as the main working zoom.
I cannot speak more highly of the lens for W&P use on APS-C cameras.

It is unclear to me with what camera formats YOU are shooting: because if YOU are buying this new lens and if you are shooting with 135 or APS-H format cameras, then buying an EF-S lens is most likely a poor business and strategic decision.

WW

[Clubmanmc]

17-55 = 28- 88 on a crop. Not as wide as a 24mm.

its actually closer to 27mm buuuuuut

its ABOUT the same as a 24-105 at the wide end...

M

[KeeFy]

its actually closer to 27mm buuuuuut

its ABOUT the same as a 24-105 at the wide end...

M

I remembered it as 1.62 which is my bad as if you do the math it results in about 27.5 and i rounded it up. The closer value is actually 1.61 for crop value which results to 27.4 rounded down to 27mm. 1.6 crop is what canon would like you to believe as they do make the 2nd smallest sensor for APS-C size.

But which ever the case. 24 vs 27mm is a big difference in FOV IMO.

[Clubmanmc]

I remembered it as 1.62 which is my bad as if you do the math it results in about 27.5 and i rounded it up. The closer value is actually 1.61 for crop value which results to 27.4 rounded down to 27mm. 1.6 crop is what canon would like you to believe as they do make the 2nd smallest sensor for APS-C size.

But which ever the case. 24 vs 27mm is a big difference in FOV IMO.

yep its about 2 steps... back... that is

M

[Wobbles]

I highly recommend the EF-S 17-55 IS as well. It was my most used (close second was 70-200 2.8L IS) lens when I was shooting APS-C (50D's). The optics and IS were L class (or better), build quality was OK. I now miss IS on the 24-70L...

Cheers
John

[William W]

Apropos “stepping back” the differences between the wider Focal Lengths of lenses is not about how much it is to step back, but whether or not there is the space so to do.
This consideration is very important, when shooting inside.

Whilst to get the similar FoV from a 28mm lens as that of a 24mm lens, it requires about a 3ft backwards step, if there is a wall and the Photographer is up against it and that step backwards is impossible: then the step back is irrelevant.
On the other hand, (for example), if one has a 24mm lens and there is enough space, one doesn’t have the absolute NEED to step forward and frame tightly as one can always crop to the FoV of the 28mm lens.

WW

[Clubmanmc]

My two steps back was a rather moot point... i was being VERY sarcastic, and i have done some more pixel peeping sums...

the 5D II has a 36x24mm sensor the 600D,60D,7D use a 22.3x14.9mm sensor, as they measure the increase on FOV over the diagonal, the difference in size (using pythagoras and some maths) is 1.61323 which WOULD NEVER be rounded up to 1.62

but the opening post was about the 17-55 F2.8 EFS which has amazing optics and is quite cheap and is ABOUT the same as a 24-70 (or almost close enough) 3mm length may or may not be the difference between "the shot" and another, the OP has a 10-20 and a few other lenses, so its a moot point saying they wont be able to get that shot... as he has some thing wider...

geeeeeeee i am glad i dont get caught up in this pixel peeping... (but i have..... arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh )

M

[William W]

The illustration of 24 vs 28, FoV and "stepping back" was a general comment only and not a direct response to any particular comment, but rather pertaining especially to Photographing People, inside. (note where the Horizontal FoV is more a consideration).

The point is not moot in this regard, as OP is discussing Weddings.

Also, the lens in question is to be used by the second shooter, who might or might not have access to other lenses, known or unknown.

And those were the two reasons, for the comment.


WW

[William W]

PS:

Also, we do not know if the OP has 135 format bodies as he has not answered m y original question, so the 24mm FL of his 24 to 105 lens, might be being used on an APS-C body anyway . . . if so, then there is no “comparison” to make.

WW

[Clubmanmc]

the OP has a crop body, as even though he has not mentioned it... he has a 10-20 which will only fit a crop body... he may also have a full frame body as well... but he mentioned strictly that the assistant will use a crop body...

sorry to be a pain in the donkey, but the devil is in the details...

i still dont understand what all this fuss is about... as it has NOTHING to do with the OP first post, and others just beating their chests about 2- 4mm

M

[KeeFy]

yep its about 2 steps... back... that is

M

It's more than 2 steps back actually. Take a look at the dynamics of a photograph between the 24-27mm. The 27mm is a little more flattened. A good example is when u use an item to pivot the picture in landscape photography. Try it with 24 vs 27mm and you'll see a bit of a difference. And the obvious as what WW stated.




the 5D II has a 36x24mm sensor the 600D,60D,7D use a 22.3x14.9mm sensor, as they measure the increase on FOV over the diagonal, the difference in size (using pythagoras and some maths) is 1.61323 which WOULD NEVER be rounded up to 1.62

M

As i've said before, i remembred it wrongly. Not rounded it wrongly. Maybe better comprehension is needed? Also you don't need Pythagoras Theorem to come up with that value. Simple division is all you need. Why make things complicated when it's not? Anyway in order for things not to go south. I shall zippit for this thread. :)

[William W]

sorry to be a pain in the donkey, but the devil is in the details...

i still dont understand what all this fuss is about... as it has NOTHING to do with the OP first post, and others just beating their chests about 2- 4mm

You are not a pain in the donkey to me. And there was never any fuss, for me.

I have explained my comments and the reasons for them, above.

It is relevant for the OP, if for example he has a 135 format body and is comparing the 17 (on APS-C) and the 24 (on a 5D) - as the OP stated that he wants the second to shoot wider than he.

Also my comments are relevant, generally, as I mentioned.

WW

[William W]

It's more than 2 steps back actually. Take a look at the dynamics of a photograph between the 24-27mm. The 27mm is a little more flattened. A good example is when u use an item to pivot the picture in landscape photography. Try it with 24 vs 27mm and you'll see a bit of a difference.



Yes . . . agreed and important and relevant also . . . and also that's a whole different kettle of kippers.
I was just discussing, merely getting all the people into the frame; and not commenting about Perspective; Foreshortening; Barreling; Keystone Distortions and all that other stuff, which was implied as understood for W&P work.

Which is what the thread is about - lenses for Wedding Photography, no?

WW

[JM Tran]

well, here is my 2 cents -

1) I dont let my assistants use APSC cameras anymore, its full frame or its nothing - for better IQ, high iso performance and light gathering etc

2) compatibility of equipment in case something happens.

3) save time on needless debate:D

[jeffde]

Ok thanks guys - my original post mentioned i use 50D or 7D - both crop - so the whole ff v crop debate is kinda mute for me.

What i really wanted to know is what was the lens like - thanks for those posts that helped in that regard.

its on the wish list - i suppose i should have explained i- shoot 2 bodies - one with the 24-105 - 1 with the 70-200 and then in need i swap to the 10-20 for a few shots only - the assistant /2nd shooter (often my wife) is currently shooting with a borrowed 70-200 F4. (after i sold an older 400d and lens.

[Clubmanmc]

Ok thanks guys - my original post mentioned i use 50D or 7D - both crop - so the whole ff v crop debate is kinda mute for me.

What i really wanted to know is what was the lens like - thanks for those posts that helped in that regard.

its on the wish list - i suppose i should have explained i- shoot 2 bodies - one with the 24-105 - 1 with the 70-200 and then in need i swap to the 10-20 for a few shots only - the assistant /2nd shooter (often my wife) is currently shooting with a borrowed 70-200 F4. (after i sold an older 400d and lens.

Thats how i shoot a wedding, although i use a 5D II with a 16-35 and the 7D has the 70-200 mounted permanantly... both wide and long and fast and not so fast...

have the 24-70 as a backup, the other thing i do as a backup for group shots, is set up the shot so that i am shooting about 35mm and put the 16-35 on the 7 and the 24-70 on the 5 and then have the same width on both, and take the same shots on both cameras...

have yet to have to use the backup shots... but you never know!

M

[Roosta]

With clubman, the 16-35mm was on my 1D APS-H shooting a wedding last weekend and also the 24-70mm both f2.8, but I also use my 70-200mm f2.8 on my 50D with out any concerns.

At the time, the 17-55mm didn't seem like the right option, given I new one day I would get a larger size sensor body, 35mm or APS-H, for me, the FPS is a need not the FF. So it's a matter of need not want, but i'd not discount the 16-35mm II, you never know where you'll go body wise.

You can all do the math, I can see that.

[dulvariprestige]

I've had a 17-55 for around a year or so now, and love it, this lens replaced my 24-105 and I have to say that it's a little in front on IQ, plus 17mm seems more useful than 24mm, and the extra stop can come in handy, the only thing I miss about the 24-105 is the extra reach.

I've also hired a 24-70, and my 17-55 was a bit better than that too in the IQ department, especially on the wide end at 2.8.

I don't think you'll be disappointed with the 17-55

[Arg]

I have the 17-55 for 15 months and love it. It is my default lens. Certainly recommend it for the use you described. I am not a pro.

I would choose the 17-55 over a 10-22 or equivalent. The ultra wides are not quite as sharp near the edges; if you choose it in order to squeeze more heads in the wedding group shots, then some of those heads might not come up to pro standards at the edges. Even though the 10-22 is reportedly the best of the lenses available in that range.

As a pro you will control the shoots so you will never 'need a wider lens'. Right?