Why is it uncommon? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2006 10:42:32 PM · #1

So I have my eye on the Canon 17-55 F2.8, but it's pricey and I'm debating. Seems its only suitable for the 350/400D and 20/30D; and less than 30 DPCers own it...
So, I'm wondering - is it the price or something else about the lense that makes it a rarity among all of the shooters here? Its not a new lens...I don't get it.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

12/11/2006 10:56:02 PM · #2

It's very sharp but then again it's also expensive, EF-S, plastic, slightly vignettes, and suffers from a little pincushion and barrel distortions. Not a bad lens but I think the price is what keeps most people from picking one up.

fotomann_forever

12/11/2006 11:02:07 PM · #3

Once you get one Cindi, everyone will want one ;-)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/11/2006 11:04:59 PM · #4

Sort of a weird thing, an expensive lens, but a dead end that would 'lock' you in to non-full frame sensors.

So you have to have the money, but not the inclination to move up to the full frame sensors.

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Canon

12/11/2006 11:07:55 PM · #5

Originally posted by Gordon:

Yeah, that's the part that made me stop and rethink, If it can't be used full-sensor, then I have to be commited to my 20 & 30 for a long time to justify its cost.

dv_rock

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

12/11/2006 11:08:02 PM · #6

Here the best voted picture in a challenge.
Using that lens.

Not many submission.
You can lead the pack to begin buying.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/11/2006 11:12:47 PM · #7

Originally posted by dv_rock:

Here the best voted picture in a challenge.
Using that lens.

Not many submission.
You can lead the pack to begin buying.

That's fantastic. See then I want it again. The shortest lens I have is the 15mm fishey the big jump to the 50 1.4 (my love).

fotomann_forever

12/11/2006 11:15:09 PM · #8

Why not this one Cindi? 17-40 f/4 L

Cheaper, EF amd L

Or this Sigma 17-35 EX I've been checking out.

Message edited by author 2006-12-12 09:45:43.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

12/11/2006 11:15:53 PM · #9

Yeah, that whole EF-S mount is the BIGGEST trepidation I had (and still have) with buying the 10-22 - I am certainly not planning on repeasting that where I have other options. Personally, There are other lenses in that range that work on a full frame, so IMO there is less reason to get that lens. For some people it's a decent fit but not everyone.

Message edited by author 2006-12-11 23:16:53.

asimchoudhri

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/11/2006 11:17:49 PM · #10

Originally posted by idnic:

[...] The shortest lens I have is the 15mm fishey the big jump to the 50 1.4 (my love).

your profile says you still have the 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens... (not ideal, i know, but it's not a terrible lens)

edit: trimmed some of the quoted text

Message edited by author 2006-12-11 23:20:33.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/11/2006 11:18:09 PM · #11

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Why not this one Cindi? 17-40 2.8 L

Cheaper, just as fast EF amd L

Or this Sigma 17-35 EX I've been checking out.

I thought that one almost too short, but for the price and the L, its definitely in the running.

I Enjoy Ham

Canon EOS-30D

12/11/2006 11:19:01 PM · #12

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Why not this one Cindi? 17-40 4.0 L

Cheaper, just as fast EF amd L

Or this Sigma 17-35 EX I've been checking out.

editing for leroy, the 17-40 is f/4 ot f/ 2.8 :)

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

12/11/2006 11:19:30 PM · #13

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Why not this one Cindi? 17-40 2.8 L

Cheaper, just as fast EF amd L

Or this Sigma 17-35 EX I've been checking out.

never mind

Message edited by author 2006-12-11 23:19:55.

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Canon

12/11/2006 11:19:40 PM · #14

Originally posted by asimchoudhri:

your profile says you still have the 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens... (not ideal, i know, but it's not a terrible lens)

Yeah, I still have it, but never shoot with it. As soon as I shot with a L I saw the difference. Taylor uses it now, and the 50 1.8

dv_rock

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

12/11/2006 11:22:05 PM · #15

The picture I posted not mine.If you click on picture you can read who picture and lens details..

Originally posted by asimchoudhri:

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by dv_rock:
Here the best voted picture in a challenge.
Using that lens.

Not many submission.
You can lead the pack to begin buying.

That's fantastic. See then I want it again. The shortest lens I have is the 15mm fishey the big jump to the 50 1.4 (my love).

your profile says you still have the 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens... (not ideal, i know, but it's not a terrible lens)

fotomann_forever

12/11/2006 11:24:43 PM · #16

Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:

editing for leroy, the 17-40 is f/4 ot f/ 2.8 :)

You're right.

petrakka

12/11/2006 11:53:18 PM · #17

I'm not sure how the optics would compare,
but I use the nikon version of this lens,
and the focal length is great.

I own the 17-35 which I love, but work provides me a 17-55 and man do I love that extra reach.

So in terms of a good walkaround lens, I would say go for it. It really is a great range. Much better than the 24-70 or 28-70 I think ...that extra wideness is great to have.

Prof_Fate

12/12/2006 01:36:15 AM · #18

I've been using a sigma 18-50 2.8 and it's 1/4 the price - and I plan to get the canon in the late spring even at $1100.

I got to use one.

I want one now. For fun, no it's not worth the extra cost IMO. Shoot weddings for money and you'll find it immensely useful. I was able to handhold a 55mm shot and get a sharp image at 1/5 second. That much much much better than I can do now unless I use a tripod and that won't be happening during most of a wedding day. I forgot to see how slow I could manage at the 17mm end...half second????

Faster focus, IS and you have a recipe for more keepers, less flash usage for more natural looking shots and well, less PS work and better images mean more profit!

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

12/12/2006 02:02:59 AM · #19

I like my 17-40. Nice sharp lens. I don't use it as often as I should though. 17mm is pretty wide on a FF sonsor.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/12/2006 06:24:54 AM · #20

I have the Canon 17-40L, had the Tamron 17-35 F2.8, and the Sigma 17-35 EX F2.8. I rank them in that order. The Canon is the sharpest of the lot but it was worth it to have the F2.8 of the Tamron. The Sigma was fast but the distortion and CA were difficult to get around. The Tamron had much less and so I used the lens a lot more. The CAnon replaced the Tamorn which replaced the Sigma when it broke.

gloda

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/12/2006 08:09:50 AM · #21

Cindi, it will be less uncommon after Christmas :)
<--- Santa likes 17-55.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

12/12/2006 08:18:37 AM · #22

Cindi,

I went through the same debating process. I didn't want to be locked into the 20/30D as I am with the 10-22 EF-S.

I got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 LD

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=1333

It is not IS but is is 2.8 and it is very sharp.