Canon 17-55 f2.8 or 50

Lostgear

Lostgear

Messages
402
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
I have 50 1.4 on my 40d, but over Xmas was struggling with not enough width. So have been thinking about swapping for a 17-55 F2.8. How does the 17-55 compare with the 50mm prime? In terms of image quality is this a step backward?
 
I've never used the 50mm 1.4 but my 50mm 1.8 has been in retirement since i got my 17-55 well over a year ago
 
In IQ terms there is not much between them once the 50 is stopped down a bit. The 50mm f/1.4 does not get sharp until f/2.8 whereas the 17-55 is sharp wide open (f/2.8). The 50mm does have sharper edge resolution above f/2.8 but the 17-55 is slightly better in the centre (where it counts).

The 17-55mm is the better lens, but it costs 2-3 times as much so it should be. I sold my 50mm (and 24-105mm) after getting the 17-55mm.
 
The Matt said:
If you want to get pixel-peepy you can compare the two here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

For me though there'd be no contest. I'd accept a drop in quality for the extra focal lengths. Wouldn't want to be confined to 50mm all the time.

Alternatively consider the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50. Not quite as nice but if cash is an issue, might be worth thinking about.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that particular review of the 17-55 2.8 is not a representative test. They say as much in the text, as the test procedure is completely wrong for checking sharpness on wide-angles (flat target, shot too close).

17-55 2.8 is one of Canon's very best. It's at least as sharp as the 50 1.4, plus it obviously zooms and has IS. It's not so good at f/1.4 or f/2 though ;) so if you use the 50mm at very low f/numbers at lot you will miss it. If not, you will wonder why you didn't change ages ago.
 
I have had a 17-55 for a while and it is almost never off my camera, except when I need a really wide shot on the Sigma0-20. Tis a very nice all rounder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top