Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS? or Third Party 17-50 f/2.8 Lenses?

[cedcanete]

Let's compare it's IQ output versus price. Is Canon's lens worth the price rather than buying those 3rd party 17-50 f/2.8 lenses?

• Tweet

[enew]

The Canon one has USM and IS, as oppose to the 3rd party ones which do not have USM and IS, except for Tamron's recent 17-50 with VC (equivalent of IS)

So if I were to choose, definitely canon.

• Tweet

[enzo]

just OT how much is a used 17-55 canon without box? i have here and its not being used for months

• Tweet

[cedcanete]

Is it true that the Canon 17-55 IS has almost the same quality as an L lens?

• Tweet

[engrmariano]

1st, how can you tell if an image is taken with an L?

actually, they only badge it with "L quality" coz its reasonably sharp from corner to corner when wide open.

• Tweet

[cedcanete]

1st, how can you tell if an image is taken with an L?

actually, they only badge it with "L quality" coz its reasonably sharp from corner to corner when wide open.

From what I know, L lenses have better built and better IQ. What I'm after is will the Canon 17-55 IS worth the money than buying those 3rd party lenses?

• Tweet

[mike c]

only you can answer that question.

i chose the tamron VC version (at half the price) for two reasons:
-i leave the artsy fartsy shots to my primes
-takot ako sa IS mechanism ng 17-55

the reasons to get the canon version:
-if you want ONE lens to do it all, that includes the best picture quality
-focus reliability (yung tamron has focus issues)
-lowlight focus speed (tamron sometimes hunts)

i came from a canon 24-70 2.8 L.

up to now, di ko pa rin alam anong ibig sabihin ng 'IQ' na yan.

• Tweet

[nichi]

+1 to Mr. Mike C

OT: IQ po ata Image Quality 

• Tweet

[cedcanete]

only you can answer that question.

i chose the tamron VC version (at half the price) for two reasons:
-i leave the artsy fartsy shots to my primes
-takot ako sa IS mechanism ng 17-55

the reasons to get the canon version:
-if you want ONE lens to do it all, that includes the best picture quality
-focus reliability (yung tamron has focus issues)
-lowlight focus speed (tamron sometimes hunts)

i came from a canon 24-70 2.8 L.

up to now, di ko pa rin alam anong ibig sabihin ng 'IQ' na yan.

Pareho tayo.. pero nasa 24-70 2.8 L pa ako. I think you're right na worth parin tlga ung 17-55 IS. I'll be selling my 24-70L and get the 17-55 for my 50D na lang.

Thanks sa inputs!

• Tweet

[Gideon]

Me too, chosed the 17-55mm F2.8 over the 24-70 F2.8 for my walk-around...

• Tweet

[enew]

haha ako naman "medyo" baligtad, 17-50 (tammy) -> 24-70 hehe. Nabibitin kasi ako sa 50mm for portraits.

• Tweet

[mike c]

Pareho tayo.. pero nasa 24-70 2.8 L pa ako. I think you're right na worth parin tlga ung 17-55 IS. I'll be selling my 24-70L and get the 17-55 for my 50D na lang.

Thanks sa inputs!

if you are moving from the 24-70 to the 17-55 because of the wide end, i'd recommend the 10-22 as a second lens na lang than change to the 17-55 unless you specifically want the IS.

• Tweet

[enew]

mike C is right, the 10-22 is a good complement for the 24-70 or 24-105.

• Tweet

[cedcanete]

Yes, but the problem wala nakong extra cash for the extra lens. im planning to buy a 70-200 2.8 IS pa kase..

• Tweet

[krusher]

i have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS paired with the 30D, very much satisfied with the output, pero nung nag FF ako, i had to buy the 24-70L, comparing the output of these two lenses, the 17-55 2.8 is at par with the 24-70, siguro depends upon the user on what route is he going to... if eventually you go the FF route, i think its better to buy the 24-70, pero if youll stay with crop sensor cams, 17-552.8 IS is the lens to beat...

IMHO

• Tweet

[xploziv]

una nagalangan ako kasi ang mahal . . .  nung nagamit ko di ako nagsisi . . . canon 17-55 f2.8 hands down . . . worth the money  . . . if you are planning to buy 70-200m f2.8, why not weigh your options first if you're going for tele or walkaround . . . mahirap yung masyado kang nagplplan ng future ahead if you dont have anything for present yet . . . things might change at yung tele baka maging uwa pa yan . . . just buy what you need and want for now, you can always save up for later . . . everything will be expensive at some point when you sum it all up but the rewards would not be equalled  . . .

• Tweet

[platinum007]

una nagalangan ako kasi ang mahal . . .  nung nagamit ko di ako nagsisi . . . canon 17-55 f2.8 hands down . . . worth the money  . . . if you are planning to buy 70-200m f2.8, why not weigh your options first if you're going for tele or walkaround . . . mahirap yung masyado kang nagplplan ng future ahead if you dont have anything for present yet . . . things might change at yung tele baka maging uwa pa yan . . . just buy what you need and want for now, you can always save up for later . . . everything will be expensive at some point when you sum it all up but the rewards would not be equalled  . . .

Sir, i definitely agree with this one. Thanks 

• Tweet

[cedcanete]

una nagalangan ako kasi ang mahal . . .  nung nagamit ko di ako nagsisi . . . canon 17-55 f2.8 hands down . . . worth the money  . . . if you are planning to buy 70-200m f2.8, why not weigh your options first if you're going for tele or walkaround . . . mahirap yung masyado kang nagplplan ng future ahead if you dont have anything for present yet . . . things might change at yung tele baka maging uwa pa yan . . . just buy what you need and want for now, you can always save up for later . . . everything will be expensive at some point when you sum it all up but the rewards would not be equalled  . . .

I'm more into studio and portrait kase. I've given this some thought na and I would need the 17mm for the studio shots for group portraitures and the 70-200 for those photoshoots.

If given the chance to get a UWA, maybe later after the 70-200.

update lang, May nakikipagtrade sa 24-70 ko for a 70-200 f/2.8. what do you think guys? After then I can just use my kitlens for my wide shots muna 

• Tweet

[caterpillar]

I'm more into studio and portrait kase. I've given this some thought na and I would need the 17mm for the studio shots for group portraitures and the 70-200 for those photoshoots.

If given the chance to get a UWA, maybe later after the 70-200.

update lang, May nakikipagtrade sa 24-70 ko for a 70-200 f/2.8. what do you think guys? After then I can just use my kitlens for my wide shots muna 

  I traded my 24-105L for a 70-200 f2.8L IS mk-I + cash. I liked my 24-105L, but it's not often someone wants to trade their 70-200 for a 24-70/105. I presume the 70-200 is the non-IS version? It's good and sharper at 170-200 than the IS version wide open. But you'll struggle in low light without IS. Of course, the mk-II solves all that including sharpness at 200mm, but it is very expensive.

  To CED,

    I'd go for the tamron 17-50 VC without hesitation (or the non-VC version, but get the VC). Why?

  - tamron is smaller
  - lighter
  - cheaper
  - on par optically with the 17-55 IS
  - iffy and unreliable robustness of the 17-55 IS in terms of IS or AF (lots of reported busted IS or malfunctioning AF in 2-3 years of use).

   The only weakness of the Tamron VC is the lack of ring USM. Maybe in their mk-II VC they'll put their new ring USM in it and all will be complete. The barrel distortion is also annoying at 17mm. It's also not a true 17mm in FOV. It' more like a 16-45mm lens in FOV. Other than these quibbles, all is ok. The Tamron also does not flare too much.



   Again, this is just my opinion. YMMV.

• Tweet

[pinoyslinger]

thanks for the inputs guys, i had some doubts at first pero now im enjoying my 17-55 on a 7D for my walk around lens, although, may 24-105 din ako for my next project, a FF camera 

• Tweet