Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is usm

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok here's the question for a walk around day time and low light night time, indoors, outdoors, portrait type of photography.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 is usm
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 os hsm
Or canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm and a prime like 50 f/1.4 usm or a canon 35 f/2 usm
Shallow depth of field is wanted but not absolutely needed although having the choice for shallow DOF is better than not having the choice at all.
Ps: a EX 430 II flash, 35 f/2 usm or a 50 f/1.4 usm is to be added to the kit at a much later date any way, regardless of the walk around lens choice.
 
The 17-55mm f2.8 not a bad option

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (cheaper option instead of the canon)
Canon 17-40mm f4 (landscape but a little short)

canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm Not fast enough for low light or indoor work, but has a good focus range for a walkabout lens
 
pete.rush said:
canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm Not fast enough for low light or indoor work,
Click to expand...
Not true if you have static subjects. The IS system is brilliant on it.
 
pete.rush said:
The 17-55mm f2.8 not a bad option

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (cheaper option instead of the canon)
Canon 17-40mm f4 (landscape but a little short)

canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm Not fast enough for low light or indoor work, but has a good focus range for a walkabout lens
Click to expand...

Agree, get the Canon if you can afford it, otherwise go for the Tamron.
 
I shot a wedding with the tamron + 7d and had a lot of trouble with it talking to the camera whilst using the flash (430 mk 2) Loads of overexposed shots whilst shooting outside
Now changed to the Canon 17 55 f2.8 and exposures are bang on every time
The Tamron is a good sharp lens but now i avoid 3rd party lenses due to MY compatability issues
Bottom line, if you can afford it get the Canon
 
re. the 15-85 f3.5-f5.6

Originally Posted by pete.rush View Post
canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm Not fast enough for low light or indoor work,
Click to expand...

arad85 said:
Not true if you have static subjects. The IS system is brilliant on it.
Click to expand...

Yes but the 17-55 has brilliant 'is' as well and is faster at all focal lengths so not really a comparable contender and if your subjects always had to be static for a better success rate thats more than a bit limiting. Still a good lens though but in this scenario it loses out IMO.

I have my 17-55 on my camera about 90% of the time, love it.
 
Last edited:
I bought the 17-55 lasy year for my hols and it has very rarly been off the camera, it just seems to work for what I want it to do.
If you can afford it go for it

spike
 
Gazamonk said:
re. the 15-85 f3.5-f5.6

Yes but the 17-55 has brilliant 'is' as well and is faster at all focal lengths
Click to expand...
The 17-55 is 3 stops, 15-85 is "4+a bit" stops. I.e. the 15-85s IS is better than the 17-55.

If you want faster aperture for artistic effect or for freezing motion, that's fine, but given the current crop of cameras have superior high ISO performance over those over a few years ago, the choice of a slower lens (plus saving a few hundred £) is one that should always be considered.
 
pete.rush said:
The 17-55mm f2.8 not a bad option

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (cheaper option instead of the canon)
Canon 17-40mm f4 (landscape but a little short)

canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm Not fast enough for low light or indoor work, but has a good focus range for a walkabout lens
Click to expand...

17-40 is a bit short,slow and no IS and I'm sure it's a good lens but I have no use for it.
 
I would like to see a replacement for the 6 year old 17-55f2.8 maybe a 15-85 f/2.8 with 4 stop IS and some heavy quality glass with 77mm filter and a free hood included for £600-700 and it could be the top *******s of the EF-S lenses.
 
After reading an endless amount of reviews for each lens I'm still at square one...
15-85 is usm f/3.5-5.6
Pros: focal length (something **** I always thought my 18-55 is lacking and always wanted more reach and wider angle)
4 stop IS although it would not freeze action.
Build quality although not a great deal better than the 17-55.

Cons: aperture.

17-55 is usm f/2.8
Pros: aperture
Shallower depth of field
More aspherical elements than the 15-85

Cons: focal length.
I know these are points that have been made many times before
But my question to all you lovely people is, do I go for 15-85 £550 + Ex 430 II £190 and later on a prime like 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4
Or do I just go for the 17-55 f/2.8 and be done with it?
Ps: I want more focal length than my 18-55 is kit lens,
I want sharper images and better IQ,
I want shallower DOF than my 18-55 is.

At the moment I have 18-55 + 55-250 but the 55-250 is not ideal as a walk around lens and keep changing them over is becoming a bit of an enoyance. Please help..
 
lucky_13 said:
Ps: I want more focal length than my 18-55 is kit lens,
I want sharper images and better IQ,
I want shallower DOF than my 18-55 is.

At the moment I have 18-55 + 55-250 but the 55-250 is not ideal as a walk around lens and keep changing them over is becoming a bit of an enoyance. Please help..
Click to expand...

Lets do this logically:

More focal length: 17-55: No, 15-85: Yes
Sharper images: 17-55: Yes, 15-85: Yes
Shallower DoF: 17-55: Yes, 15-85: No (+primes yes and better than 17-55)
Need to change lenses above 55mm: 17-55: Yes, 15-85: No

Personally I think the 15-85 with some primes is the best compromise for a walkaround and is the way I'd go - you could even pair it with a "lowly" 50mm 1.8 as your first prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top