making the swap...24-70 for 17-55

[adam75south]

how is it the one day i want to order a 17-55 b&h has it out of stock? weird.

so yea, i have a buyer on my 24-70 and i'm getting the 17-55 instead. as of late, the lack of wide angle has limited me and i really feel that the 17-55 would be more beneficial. i'll miss the portrait end of the 55-70, but i guess i'll have to make due with the 70-200 from now on...:D

and now i'm thinkin about selling the 50 1.4 and going with the 85 1.8. man i love new gear.

[Nickcanada]

hmmm, sounds like a good plan to me! I think the 85mm would be more useful for you too. It's a very light and easy lens to use. I find the colours a little muted from it but nothing a little PS can't fix.

[adam75south]

found a seller on potn, $925 shipped new and not grey market. i found it on b&h for $925 w/ search code, but they were out of stock. he's shipping it today, so hopefully i'll get it monday. or if i was really lucky...friday!

i have family portraits sunday, so it looks like i'll be shooting with the 50 and using my feet to zoom.

[Nickcanada]

found a seller on potn, $925 shipped new and not grey market. i found it on b&h for $925 w/ search code, but they were out of stock. he's shipping it today, so hopefully i'll get it monday. or if i was really lucky...friday!

i have family portraits sunday, so it looks like i'll be shooting with the 50 and using my feet to zoom.


Works for me. :D

[adam75south]

i'm gonna have to stand back pretty far with the 50 too. oh well.

[GaryS]

Thats funny Adam, because I've been contemplating getting rid of my 18-50 for the 24-70! (plus adding a UWA, 10-20 or something).

While my Sigma 18-50 works great, I find myself rarely using the wide-end for walk-around shooting, so I would rather have a bit more length.


I am going to pick up a 85 1.8 in the spring though....

[adam75south]

i used the 55-70 quite a bit. but lately i've been limited. i was shooting indoor shots for a custom media company that installs home theater systems and restaurant systems. well i actually had to borrow a kit lens because the 24 seemed like a freakin 200mm inside those places.

[cdifoto]

I like my 24-70 a little too much to get rid of it, but that's why I added the Sig 12-24. I'm contemplating adding a 16-35L though too. A 17-55 would be awesome if I had a cropper to use it on.

[adam75south]

that's right, you got all big boy cameras.

[cdifoto]

I tend to overcompensate. :D

[adam75south]

any reason i should buy the $40 canon lens hood as opposed to a $5 knockoff?

it doesn't come with the hood right?

[cdifoto]

I'd probably get a knockoff as long as it was solid plastic and not a rubber cheapo.

[adam75south]

i'm pretty sure i'm going to.

[fractalgfx]

I ordered a chinese lens hood for my 17-55 and it is made from some pretty flimsy plastic, but it serves its purpose, so i'm happy to have saved $40.

[SynterX]

I say get the real canon hood. They are very sturdy, have a nice felt lining (for reflection absorbtion I'm assuming) and you KNOW they are cut correctly for the lens. After spending $3K on body/lenses, I found it hard to put a generic cheapo lens hood on my lenses. Just my opinion. Also, the fit seems very precise on my 3 hoods...are the chinese ones made precisely enough to fit tight? I'm curious about that.

I had the 17-55 for a week, returned it. For $1K it felt too "cheap". I then tried the 17-40L, and it's nice, but the 40 wasn't cutting it. I just got the 24-105L, and that has proven to be the perfect sweet spot for me. I will likely keep the 17-40, as it's nice as heck. The 24-105 caught my eye because it was less than $100 more than the 17-55, and all it gives up is the 7 on wide end...yet build quality is so much better to me. With IS, an included lens hood and pouch. The 2.8f is nice on the 17-55, but the 4f has proven plenty.

Just my .02

[njoy_az]

any reason i should buy the $40 canon lens hood as opposed to a $5 knockoff?

it doesn't come with the hood right?

No, afaik only L's come with hood.

I eventually got the Canon one (€35 / US$ 50 :eek: :eek: :eek:). It looks quite sturdy and is lined with some kind of flock coating on the inside (to avoid any stray reflections I guess). I still think it should be included on a €1000 lens, though (or at least be made from pure gold for that price). :mad:

[downtrodden]

No, afaik only L's come with hood.

I eventually got the Canon one (€35 / US$ 50 :eek: :eek: :eek:). It looks quite sturdy and is lined with some kind of flock coating on the inside (to avoid any stray reflections I guess). I still think it should be included on a €1000 lens, though (or at least be made from pure gold for that price). :mad:

could you imagine the lens flare and ghosting you would get!?!?

[downtrodden]

Not to mention how heavy it would make your camera!!!

You could do arm curls with it and get buff for all the ladies!!!

[24Peter]

I'm contemplating adding a 16-35L though too.

Renting the 16-35L MkII this week (should get it tomorrow). We'll see how it is. BTW - I had the new 18-55 IS for a couple of weeks: optically, what a GREAT lens. Highly recommended. But since I feel (fear?) a full frame is in my future, I sent it back. (Plus it was just so whimpy on my 40D with the grip(e).) I also rented the Sigma 12-24 last week. Optically it was kind of weak (I know: you need to try at least three copies...) and as always with Sigma lenses, I found the focus to be too hit or miss for me. So... it will be the 16-35, or more likely 17-40, for moi. :D

[cdifoto]

I really like my Siggy 12-24 but I want a faster aperture and I'm kinda feeling L snobbish these days. Take off the red ring and I'd still buy 'em though because there really is a difference. When I can fund them, I'll have an 85L and perhaps a 35L too.

[adam75south]

man you guys are making my head spin. there's so many things i want(need) that i just can't make up my mind. my next purchase should be a bracket for the camera though. then a second body.

[zmikers]

Have you sold your 24-70 yet? I'm interested in that lens for my upgrade, along with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I already have the sigma 10-20 so I think that would make for a nice setup.

[michaelb]

any reason i should buy the $40 canon lens hood as opposed to a $5 knockoff?

it doesn't come with the hood right?

I bought my 17-55 used. I didn't realize that the seller had the hood, so I bought a cheap knockoff hood on Ebay. Now I have both the Canon one and a cheap Chinese hood.

The Canon hood fits on easier and is felt lined, but its shorter. When I shoot outdoors in snow or light drizzle I actually prefer the Chinese knockoff because its longer and keeps crap off my front element better than the Canon one. Also, its a pain to wipe snow off of the felt; so the Chinese one is better in this regard as well.

Because the knockoff is longer though, it vinegettes on my 10-22, so I now use the Canon one for my 10-22 and the knockoff hood on the 17-55.

The 17-55 is amazing optically, but it does feel somewhat cheep for such a pricey lens. For me though, the optics and the IS are a killer combo; I'm amazed at the shots I can take hand-held with this lens.

As long as I can get shots like this with it though, I can ignore the build quality....(posted earlier on the "Picture of the Day" post)..






http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/257301141_dM9ke-L.jpg

[SynterX]

Build quality, and IS...I returned my 17-55 and settled on the 17-40 L lens. It is not 2.8, but I like it for all the other reasons.

[adam75south]

zmikers, yes i sold my 24-70. to ivan(r6isnum1), i've been thinking about the swap for a long time now...and him offering to buy the lens just pushed me on the other side of the fence.

i got the 17-55 today. i freakin LOVE it! i love the wide angle, should be PERFECT for weddings! my first shot with the lens.

17mm ISO 100 f/2.8 1/5s

[killing switch]

i think imma get that one too adam....

[michaelb]

zmikers, yes i sold my 24-70......
.....i got the 17-55 today. i freakin LOVE it! i love the wide angle, should be PERFECT for weddings! my first shot with the lens.
17mm ISO 100 f/2.8 1/5s

You'll love the images from the 17-55. I swear I could make prints from 100% crops taken by this lens. In terms of build, it doesn't feel like an L, but the results are incredible, IMO.

[adam75south]

You'll love the images from the 17-55. I swear I could make prints from 100% crops taken by this lens. In terms of build, it doesn't feel like an L, but the results are incredible, IMO.

shot some family portraits yesterday with it. and i was freakin blown away when i zoomed in to 100%. i mean my 24-70 was ridiculously sharp too, but i think this lens is even sharper. i'd have to compare some similar shots to be sure, but i gotta say, i almost shed a tear it was so beautiful.

and to be honest, i bought this thing for 2 reasons....focal length and IS. i expected it to be sharp, but not THAT sharp. i'll post up what i'm talking about later.

[adam75south]

i think imma get that one too adam....

you won't need me anymore if you do.

btw, i went ahead and bought the canon lens hood. it was either $50(through amazon) for the canon hood, or $20 for an opteka or fotodiox...so i bit the bullet.

[SynterX]

My 17-55 certainly didn't blow me away. It was alright, but I returned it and bought something else. I never bought in to the idea that you could reliably get good or bad lenses of the same model, but maybe so. Mine was not much sharper than the kit lens. I'm finding my kit 28-135 is only a very small amount less sharp than my 24-105 L lens, a $1200 lens vs. $400 lens.

I'm also finding I prefer the not-super sharp photos I'm getting with the 28-135. I have been shooting mainly people and kids, and I like the super slight softness. For product shots though, I can see sharp as a tack being nice.

[Nickcanada]

17-55mm 2.8 IS is among the 1-2 zoom lenses I would think about buying. Nice acquisition.

Nice place too, I like the crown molding but it looks like it could use a woman's touch. ;) haha.

[adam75south]

to be honest, sharpness has never been something i worried about all that much, as long as it's sharp before crop i'm happy. even if i shot with the kit lens, i seriously doubt anyone would tell a difference when you print them out. the shots i'm talking about from yesterday were shot at ISO 100, f/5.6-f/8, 1/250s...of course they're gonna be sharp.

all i really care about in this lens is f/2.8, 17mm, and IS. the sharpness is just a bonus.

[njoy_az]

...
Because the knockoff is longer though, it vinegettes on my 10-22, so I now use the Canon one for my 10-22 and the knockoff hood on the 17-55.

The EW 83J would work on the 10-22, too? :confused: That would be great news as a 10-22 is definitively on my long-term wish list. :)


The 17-55 is amazing optically, but it does feel somewhat cheep for such a pricey lens. For me though, the optics and the IS are a killer combo; I'm amazed at the shots I can take hand-held with this lens.


I second that, but I do love mine too. :D

[michaelb]

The EW 83J would work on the 10-22, too? :confused: That would be great news as a 10-22 is definitively on my long-term wish list. :)
...


Hmmm.....I just looked and my 17-55 hood is the EW-83E, which is supposed to be for the 10-22 or 16-35. This is the one that my used 17-55 came with though. It does fit on my 17-55. So you could get this hood and use it on the 17-55 and the 10-22. Its shorter than the EW 83J. You couldn't use the 83J on the 10-22 though - it vinegettes at the wide end.

[njoy_az]

Thanks for checking it. :) Guess I will have to add a 83E to my wish-list too ...