[amitk26]

Originally Posted by ampere

Any user experiences with Canon 17-55 IS f2.8?


Hesitation: Is it worth the price?

No user experience but I am am sure user experience will always be good for this lens.
If you have moolah to spend why not , Else you can look at Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC or Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non VC depending of budget.

[akp]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

MY entire ladakh 2009 trip was shot almost exclusively by 18-55 on a 350D.
Check this out
Favorites - Tanveer Singh (tanveer)'s Photos
An example

That's a lovely photo. What time of the day was it? Care to share the exif info? Thanks in advance.

[Speed Pujari]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

MY entire ladakh 2009 trip was shot almost exclusively by 18-55 on a 350D.
Check this out
Favorites - Tanveer Singh (tanveer)'s Photos
An example


Yes, the 1.8D is good enough for you. 1.8G will cost significantly more

Dark frame does not measure anything. Its just like taking a pic with lens cap on, and then subtracting this image from your original image.

Amazing shot !..
18-55 is always underrated which I have tried to analyse why-
1. Since it is quoted as a 'kit' it always come bundled with entry level SLRs. Entry level SLRs are mostly owned by new time photographer who are totally new to photography.
2. The new time photographer are unable to compose and shoot impressive shots, so they start blaming it to the lens (and sometimes to camera since it is 'entry level').
3. The lens is seldom used by a pro due to
a. Not a good build quality thought the optics are top notch.
b. Pro's normally go for a f/2.8 grade or Primes. And also 18-55 never comes as a 'kit' in any pro level bodies

4. The lens is cheap. People sometime mistake the cheapness is due to low optical quality. They might be quite unaware that cheapness is due to cheap plastic quality (build quality).

5. 18-55 when used in a right away can give pro level quality shots even on a entry level SLR. I do not think the quality of images and its impression is highly dependent on the cost of Camera bodies/lenses.

6. E.g. is the Nikon 18-55mm VR which is like 5-6k. I was blown away by the quality of images when I tried it on my friend's D60.

Originally Posted by ampere

Any user experiences with Canon 17-55 IS f2.8?
Was plan to upgrade kit lens. Main reasons :

- Good wide range (apart from 10-22)
- Faster lens.
- Also makes a good walk through

Hesitation: Is it worth the price? As I hear that 90% of the snaps can be managed by kit lens (18-55 itself). Main interests : Landscape and Low lights.
Camera is 550D

Optics may be good but the build quality does not compliment the price. I tried that lens in canon lounge once when I had plans to buy a 50D.

The 17-55 will give you low light advantages in addition to f/2.8 bokeh advantages while shooting wide angled closeups.

If I were you, I would have gone for either the Tamron 18-55 f/2.8 or the kit 18-55 f/2.8 plus the 50mm f/1.4 .

[anujmishra]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

MY entire ladakh 2009 trip was shot almost exclusively by 18-55 on a 350D.
Check this out
Favorites - Tanveer Singh (tanveer)'s Photos
An example

Fabulous, I want display of only such photos and output to be displayed for mostly 18 - 55 owners. Fantastic effects and over my imagination.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ampere

Any user experiences with Canon 17-55 IS f2.8?
Was plan to upgrade kit lens. Main reasons :

- Good wide range (apart from 10-22)
- Faster lens.
- Also makes a good walk through

Hesitation: Is it worth the price? As I hear that 90% of the snaps can be managed by kit lens (18-55 itself). Main interests : Landscape and Low lights.
Camera is 550D

Originally Posted by amitk26

No user experience but I am am sure user experience will always be good for this lens.
If you have moolah to spend why not , Else you can look at Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC or Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non VC depending of budget.

17mm vs 18mm, not really wide. For your use, I would recommend 15-85. Its more of a walkaround, and gives you a 24-120 range(approx)

Originally Posted by akp

That's a lovely photo. What time of the day was it? Care to share the exif info? Thanks in advance.

Here is the complete EXIF

Shot it in aperture priority mode, RAW

1/250
F/10
ISO 200
55mm

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

Amazing shot !..
18-55 is always underrated which I have tried to analyse why-
1. Since it is quoted as a 'kit' it always come bundled with entry level SLRs. Entry level SLRs are mostly owned by new time photographer who are totally new to photography.
2. The new time photographer are unable to compose and shoot impressive shots, so they start blaming it to the lens (and sometimes to camera since it is 'entry level').
3. The lens is seldom used by a pro due to
a. Not a good build quality thought the optics are top notch.
b. Pro's normally go for a f/2.8 grade or Primes. And also 18-55 never comes as a 'kit' in any pro level bodies

4. The lens is cheap. People sometime mistake the cheapness is due to low optical quality. They might be quite unaware that cheapness is due to cheap plastic quality (build quality).

5. 18-55 when used in a right away can give pro level quality shots even on a entry level SLR. I do not think the quality of images and its impression is highly dependent on the cost of Camera bodies/lenses.

6. E.g. is the Nikon 18-55mm VR which is like 5-6k. I was blown away by the quality of images when I tried it on my friend's D60.



Optics may be good but the build quality does not compliment the price. I tried that lens in canon lounge once when I had plans to buy a 50D.

The 17-55 will give you low light advantages in addition to f/2.8 bokeh advantages while shooting wide angled closeups.

If I were you, I would have gone for either the Tamron 18-55 f/2.8 or the kit 18-55 f/2.8 plus the 50mm f/1.4 .

I shot it with a 18-55 Non IS (old kit lens). Remember, this lens is not as good as the current kit lens from canon (18-55 IS)
If you are a landscape shooter, you will shoot around F5.6-F9, and at these focal lengths, you will not be able to make out much difference between this lens, and lenses 5 times the cost.

Originally Posted by anujmishra

Fabulous, I want display of only such photos and output to be displayed for mostly 18 - 55 owners. Fantastic effects and over my imagination.

Thanks

[amitk26]

Yes 15-85 is a best walkaround but then F2.8 constant aperture has other usecases ,If fast lens is a priority F2.8 wins.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

MY entire ladakh 2009 trip was shot almost exclusively by 18-55 on a 350D.....

Thats a rocking collection there Tanveer

Guys, please dont get happy or sad because Tanveer used a 18-55 kit lens to capture those images. You send him there with a mobile camera, he might come back with the same set of images. So you know whats the basic point to be taken ....Its not the gadget !

Originally Posted by anujmishra

......I want display of only such photos and output to be displayed for mostly 18 - 55 owners......

I saw your message on the image thread too. Lot of people may not even have the kit lens with them anymore as people keep changing their interests and needs as time passes. Flickr is your best friend. There are millions of 18-55 images all over. Have a look.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Yes 15-85 is a best walkaround but then F2.8 constant aperture has other usecases ,If fast lens is a priority F2.8 wins.

Fast lenses are used for 2 things
1. Low light - Somewhat compensated by IS
2. Freezing action in not very good light
3. Bokeh for potrait shots.

For casual shooters (Street, architechture, landscape) a F3.5 at wide end lens does just fine.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Fast lenses are used for 2 things
1. Low light - Somewhat compensated by IS
2. Freezing action in not very good light
3. Bokeh for potrait shots.

For casual shooters (Street, architechture, landscape) a F3.5 at wide end lens does just fine.

Yes I fully agree but there are several other situations of casual shooters like taking indoor pictures for small family function or party and you feel need of fast zoom. It happened to me recently when I covered house warming ceremony of my sister's home.

IS compensates in sense you can lower shutter speed but since subjects are not always posing for you, subject motion blur becomes a major problem.

[ampere]

Thats the problem folks. I was thinking of a faster lens (< F4), but a decent wide angle too.
I was thinking of a 10-22 but I dont get a faster lens.

EDIT; I agree that 17-55 is not wide enough, but do I have a choice for a faster lens? But having said I also sometimes think a long exposure with a tripod should solve the problem with 18-55 itself.
If that is the case, again buying a 10-22 also does not make sense as it becomes specific to landscapes/wide angles alone.

Also that I would stay on EF-S and not graduate to full frame. From that point also I was thinking of 17-55 as against 24-70L.

[tsk1979]

Actually ampere, if you do not want a 10-22 or 10-24, a 15-85 will give you sufficient wide angle for landscapes(24mm equiv), and decent zoom for regular photography.
Since I moved to nikon, my primary lens is 16-85VR, which is approx same FOV as 15-85-IS on Canon

[ampere]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Actually ampere, if you do not want a 10-22 or 10-24, a 15-85 will give you sufficient wide angle for landscapes(24mm equiv), and decent zoom for regular photography.
Since I moved to nikon, my primary lens is 16-85VR, which is approx same FOV as 15-85-IS on Canon

Do you never feel the need for lower f numbers? Or is it that then you compensate by a tripod? Because during many of my landscapes, I felt light was enough.

But then that contradicts the fact that you need f/8 or f/10 for a landscape. Then how do you manage landscapes in low light? Tripod?

If thats case, then yes, I might as well settle for 15-85 IS.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ampere

Do you never feel the need for lower f numbers? Or is it that then you compensate by a tripod? Because during many of my landscapes, I felt light was enough.

But then that contradicts the fact that you need f/8 or f/10 for a landscape. Then how do you manage landscapes in low light? Tripod?

If thats case, then yes, I might as well settle for 15-85 IS.

I do not need a tripod till late evening.
Once its few minutes past sun set, I need to use a tripod.
With 16-85, I can shoot 1/8 shutter speed due to VR function.
If I had a 2.8 lens with IS, I could probably keep shooting handheld for few minutes more.

But then in landscapes, I need good DOF. So I use F6.3/F7.1 kind of F numbers. So in low light I will need a tripod. No escaping that!

[ampere]

So that explains it. Then I might as wll continue with 18-55 for some more time, before I look at 15-85. Thanks again. 1000$ saved for now!
For low light I will get the prime.

[amitk26]

Ampere about F number it is not true that for outdoors you always need F8 ,If you are in to street photography most often subject is in foreground some 10 - 40 feet away and then you want to cover whole scene around.

Even at F2.8 at 10mm you get a lot of DOF ( by virtue of low F number) check the DOF calculator, I have Sigma 10-20 mm but there are situations where you need lower then F4 when subject is in foreground like for street photography after dark. Tokina 11-16 F2.8 is one fast Ultra Wide Angle lens which you can choose for these kind of usage.

Coming back based on general purpose use I still do not think that 10 to 17mm is that useful , In Film terms people used to have lenses above 28mm.

About Canon 15-85 it is an awesome lens bit costly , A combo of Tokina 11-16 and Canon 15-85 coupled with Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS and 2X TC is what exactly you should buy and you can save money on that tripod he he he :-D