Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124

    Anyone keep their 17-55? Debating trading my 35L in

    Anyone keep/still using their 17-55? Debating trading my 35L in for it.

    Opinions? Feelings? Will I hate the colors on the 17-55?

    Tim

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,222
    I'm thinking about trading in the 24-70 F2.8L for the 17-55 F2.8L. I find that 70mm is too far and 24 may not be wide enough for what i'ma use the lens for... And the IS is starting to appear to be more useful...

    However i hear rumors the 24-70 is gonna get IS soon... so i'm going to wait until march to decide.
    Canon 50D; 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4L IS, 50 F1.8, BG-E2n

    Downtrodden's Flickr - Deviant Art: LAME

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    isnt the 17-55 an ef-s lens ? (not L either as far as i know).
    you wanna go FF dont ya cory ? i'd keep the 24-70 and then trade up to the IS version when it comes out.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    530
    I still have my 17-55 s lens. If you shoot a crop body Canon I'd recommend it. It's very fast, but does have a dust problem. It's not hard to remove the front element to clean. I'm just talking a few really small specs every two years or so if you use it heavily as I do. My dog shot over on the Canon pic of the day thread yesterday was taken with this lens.
    Spook
    Canon EOS 50D,7D and some lens and equipment.
    Fuji F200 Exr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookonthe8ball View Post
    I still have my 17-55 s lens. If you shoot a crop body Canon I'd recommend it. It's very fast, but does have a dust problem. It's not hard to remove the front element to clean. I'm just talking a few really small specs every two years or so if you use it heavily as I do. My dog shot over on the Canon pic of the day thread yesterday was taken with this lens.
    Spook
    Agreed.

    Amazing lens, optically. I still miss mine. Extremely sharp, fast USM, very good in low light. It doesn't have the build qualtiy of an L, but the optics are every bit as good. Its is the walk-aorund lens for Canon 1.6X cams, IMO. The only optical negative that I saw with this lens was a tendency for flare when shooting in sunny conditons.

    Don't worry about the dust. If it bothers you it can be removed in about 5 minutes.
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    isnt the 17-55 an ef-s lens ? (not L either as far as i know).
    you wanna go FF dont ya cory ? i'd keep the 24-70 and then trade up to the IS version when it comes out.
    Yeah, i want to move up to FF and that's another reason why i'm going to wait until March to decide. To give Canon a little time to sweeten the deal. However, due to financial reasons and a change in living arrangements, If i haven't made my camera purchases by June, it's very likely it'll be years before I can make another big purchase. So If Canon doesn't have a FF out by then I like, i'm either going Nikon or sticking with the 40D or 50D.
    Canon 50D; 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4L IS, 50 F1.8, BG-E2n

    Downtrodden's Flickr - Deviant Art: LAME

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    I wish I still had my 17-55, but i couldn't use it due to the 1D. i miss the lightness and the IS.
    Tim
    Canon 5D Mark II, 1D Mark II, Rebel XS
    50 F1.4, 85 F1.8, 100 2.8 Macro 70-200 F4L 580EX, 24-70 F2.8L

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Murrays Beach, NSW
    Posts
    130
    I'm still using the 17-55. It's what is usually mounted on the camera and is great in low-ish light. It isn't quite as sharp as the 70-200, but that is a cracker of a lens to stand up to.
    Canon EOS 5D III
    Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS, 70-200mm f4L IS
    Canon GP-E2, Eye-Fi Card

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    Decided against it.

    I decided to set my 35 to 2.8 and decide how "crippled" it felt and outside of it being ridiculously amazing at 2.8 I kept saying "I've got the cheap 18-55IS for slow shots, I want something that just wow's"

    So keeping 35L.

    Thanks for opinions!

    Tim

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    3,209
    ok well you made your decision.

    But you brought up the 17-55 so I'm gonna reply anyway. I traded in my 24-70 for my 17-55 and it's pretty much the best decision I've made...well lenswise anyway. Crazy ridiculous sharp. I'd have to post up some 100% crops but it's just a badass lens.

    Btw I doubt I'd trade the 35L in if I were you either but they're not exactly comparable either. Yea you'll get more of a wow factor from the 35 but that 17-55 will get you flexibility as well as consistently good shots.
    40d | 5d mk II | 2.8/16 zenitar fisheye | 16-35L | 35L | sigma 1.4/50 | sigma 2.8/50 Macro | sigma 1.4/85 | 70-200L IS
    website
    disclaimer: posts are for personal entertainment only...not to be taken seriously...ever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •