Equipment Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - A good choice?

This is about shooting between 18-55mm so the lenses relevant to this thread which I own at the moment are;

• The bone stock EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens (MKII)
  
• The blindingly good, pin sharp Sigma 17-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens
  
• A plastic fantastic Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II (is never getting back on the 60D again, you'll see why at the bottom of this list)
  
• A lovely Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (haven't used it nearly enough yet)
  
• And last but not least, my most recently purchased and also pin sharp Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG

I shoot on a 60D and 450D. Mostly on the 60D if I'm honest, sadly the 450 doesn't see as much use as it should because I'd rather be using an older body for stills and perfecting my techniques than relying on the better performance of the 60D's sensor. Anyway, I shoot a lot of time lapse with the 450, obviously all of my video with the 60D and most of my stills as well.

The lens I'm asking about would be used mainly for video. It would be purchased to replace the kit lens at the top of the list above in order to achieve better low light performance and obviously with the fixed aperture, increase video quality. My 17-35 Sigma shoots gorgeous video, but it lacks the "reach" and IS that I need for video.

Thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated!

[edit]

It goes without saying but considering this is an EF-S lens, I suppose I should add that I have no need or desire to move to a full frame body any time soon. I'll be using the 60D for the foreseeable future. Most of the reviews I've read on this list that as one of the closing comments; if you think you'll move to a full frame sensor body in the near future, it's a fairly pointless purchase.

 

To very briefly answer your question, yes the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is an excellent choice if you have deep pockets, however I don't so much was having exactly the same dilemma recently (well sort of - I wanted a kit lens upgrade basically) and after having done a lot of research I actually decided to go for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM.

All the reviews said that it was essentially as good as the Canon (perhaps if the Canon was 10/10 then the Sigma was 9/10) but significantly cheaper. The cheapest the Canon is in the UK currently is £575 whereas the Sigma is £290 and they're currently running a cashback offer whereby you can claim £50 back, bringing the effective cost to £240 or nearly 60% less than the Canon (I bought the lens about a week too early and so missed out on the cashback ). Add into that the fact that the Sigma comes with a lens hood which the Canon doesn't (and would cost you the best part of £30 if you bought it) and also the Sigma comes with a 3 year warranty compared with the 1 year warranty from Canon. Also there are reports that some early versions of the Canon lens were prone to IS failure and were a bit prone to sucking in dust.

This video sealed the deal for me



I'm very pleased with it so far although I've not used it all that much (will be using it more over the next few days on a trip to Belgium) and don't have any regrets about saving the money over the Canon

Hope that helps!

GK

 

Silly question and I cba to Google, what on earth is an Art Lens? (your Sigma 17-35). Sounds...ridiculous?

 

It's just their name for their newer range of lenses - top quality by what I've read

 

Sigma's "Art" is their version of Canon "L" glass (I think).

 

Sigma's EX line is their 'L'. Sigma are moving towards having their lenses classified by being either 'Art', 'Contemporary' or 'Sports'

 

Based on the lenses that you currently own I don't think there's any point in getting a 17-55mm zoom. It'd be better to get something like the 24-70mm F/4 L or 24-105 F/4 L as the quality will easily be the same (or better) plus all the extra features you get with the L lenses; the only compromise is the loss of that nice f/2.8 aperture, so you really need to be clear what you need more: the speed, or the reach.

I used to use the 17-55mm on my 7D and can give you full res samples if you like.

 

That's pretty much what I'm after as well, because I find myself shooting most of my videos with the kit lens. I'm looking for an upgrade with good IS, fixed aperture and a focal length as useful as the kit lens it'll be replacing.

The others have already explained it. As ridiculous as the name may sound to you, the results speak for themselves. I'm told it puts a lot of L lenses to shame, but all I can say is that it's the best zoom lens I've ever shot with, hands down. It's probably the highest performing, most versatile piece of glass you can put on the front of an APS-C camera for less than a grand.

Thanks for replying Lenny. A photography friend has made exactly the same point to me as you have, there's such a big overlap in focal lengths when I already own the 17-35 Sigma that it's fairly pointless to buy the Canon, unless of course I was going to keep it on my 450D most of the time, but I was going to be buying it for both video and stills so it would be used on the 60D more often. He also recommended a 24-70mm; the Tamron f/2.8 with the (apparently very good) VC stabilisation system, which he owns and is very happy with, as opposed to the EF f/4L.

What I need most is definitely the speed and the fixed aperture, combined with image stabilisation. If the Sigma 17-35 had that, I wouldn't be considering another purchase. It's fine for shooting off a tripod with a nice fluid head, but once you go handheld with it, the video becomes unusably jittery.

So, as well as stills this will be used to shoot a lot of video, sometimes in low light. I'm just concerned that 24mm won't be wide enough for where I'm shooting, so my friend has very kindly offered to let me try his Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 before I make my decision.

[edit]

I forgot to mention, because of the usage for video, smooth full time manual focus is pretty important as well. I know most lenses in this price range have it anyway, but I thought I should mention it just in case some don't.

 

If you need full time manual focus then unfortunately the Sigma I recommended isn't for you as it doesn't have it. Good points raised above about the 17-35 you already own (which I somehow missed when reading your original post) - if you didn't own that then the 17-50/55 would be a great option, but since you do then the 17-50/55 is a lot of money for that extra 20mm of reach.

 

Ah yes, in that case I'm glad I mentioned it! FT manual focus is becoming more important for me because of how much of my time behind the camera is spent shooting video

 

Alright, if you're adamant that this is for video work and you absolutely need FTM and IS then you're basically stuck with the Canon. The one thing making me twitch is the EF-S mount, as that limits you to APS-C for ever ever. However my alternatives are L, and a lot more expensive.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f2-8-is-usm-lens/p1012403
£576. Dear god lenses have gotten expensive. I remember that thing launching and it was about £400 at best. The again, I did get my 16-35 for £800 brand new...

 

I am adamant (?!) that it's needed for video work because... it is Obviously I'll shoot stills with it as well, but I'm buying it spefifically to shoot a video project with.

I've tentatively decided to go for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD instead, as long as I'm happy with it after trying my friend's copy. It's £590 from a reputable seller on eBay. VC is apparently excellent, has FTM and that good constant aperture of 2.8. Much better off with it than the Canon, as long as I can work with the 24mm focal length which having taken a few test shots today, I don't see being a problem.

 

Well, I hope Tamron have improved QC since I was in the game(tm). Back then it was literally case of buying and returning lenses until you found a good copy.

Saying that, it's more expensive than the Canon? What makes the Tamron better (beyond the fact it isn't EF-S)?

 

Better than which Canon, the 24-70 L? It has Tamron's VC which I'm told is superior to Canon IS, it's f/2.8 as opposed to f/4 and as you said yourself, it's not an EF-S mount.

 

The 17-55 you were originally looking at is what I meant, sorry. I always found 24mm on APS-C to be a bit, well, not wide, so I personally wouldn't be too happy with that.

 

Oh, well I think it's going to work all right. I'd rather spend that sort of money on something I know to be good and which I don't have access to at the moment. I staged a few test shots at 18mm and 24mm on the 60D earlier and the difference isn't going to affect my shots enough to take a chance on a potentially problematic lens with a huge overlap in focal length with what I already have. I'm not ordering it for a couple of weeks, so there's plenty of time to look around a bit more and make my final decision.

 

I have this lense.. It's massive! Comparison to Olympus kit lense that's similar in size to Nikon and canon kit lense on cheap slrs.

Absolutely superb bit of kit and the single best lense I have ever owned!

 

I have the Sigma 17-50 mentioned earlier, and it's a fantastic little lens, would wholeheartedly recommend it. I don't personally think that getting something like that would best serve you though, as you've got the whole focal range already, albeit with small gaps.