# Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE



## Daniel 78d (Mar 1, 2015)

Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 1, 2015)

Daniel 78d said:


> Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.


still here in Canada....


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 2, 2015)

I expect a decent update for 17-55mm F2.8. It could be a STM version launch price below $800, and not sucking dust inside.


----------



## Ryan708 (Mar 2, 2015)

It is still there for me, but just sends you to the main page


----------



## dcm (Mar 2, 2015)

The Canon USA Store still has it listed. Currently "Out of stock", but so are several other lenses.


----------



## SpartanII (Mar 2, 2015)

dcm said:


> The Canon USA Store still has it listed. Currently "Out of stock", but so are several other lenses.



I think he was referring to the main (non-store) product url here.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 2, 2015)

Daniel 78d said:


> Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.



These things happen from time to time.


----------



## Frage (Mar 2, 2015)

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 2, 2015)

Frage said:


> Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.



Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 2, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Frage said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.
> ...



But it IS a 2.8, isn't it? If you put a 24-70 2.8 on a crop it's the same. 

Aperture and DOF, although related, are not the same (from what I understand)...


----------



## ReggieABrown (Mar 2, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Frage said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.
> ...



Looking at it like that, I guess a 2.8 on a "full frame" really isn't a 2.8 when compared to using a real 2.8 f stop lens on a medium format or large format camera.


----------



## Joey (Mar 2, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Frage said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.
> ...


Aperture is written as a ratio - focal length divided by a number representing the effective maximum diameter of the lens aperture. It describes the brightness of the image on the sensor (or film, in the old days). An f/2.8 lens resolves an image of the same brightness no matter what size sensor the camera has. You can set the camera to manual and use an external light meter and if the light meter says 125th of a second at f/8 you can dial those settings in on a crop camera, a full frame camera or even a medium format camera and the exposure will be right on all three.

I've seen statements on these forums several times claiming that the effective aperture of a lens is different on a crop camera than on a full frame camera, but I haven't read that justified anywhere. Someone even pointed me to a dense article on equivalence which I ploughed through, but it didn't convince me that I'm wrong about this. Can anyone explain this assertion so that a bear of very little brain can understand it?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 2, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Frage said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.
> ...


There are some people who think: "DOF is the only thing that matters"

"But, full frame will have more shallow DOF" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

"But, APS-C will have more noise" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

"But, APS-C does not allow ISO 51000" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

"But, APS-C does not capture all the light that enters through a lens EF" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :


----------



## kiwi (Mar 2, 2015)

*why isn't the 17-85mm gone ?*

What I don't understand is why the EF-S 17-85 is still there. I thought it would've been discontinued not long after the EF-S 15-85mm was released. The 15-85 is one third dearer but it's so much better that buying the 17-85 is a weird decision, isn't it?


----------



## Famateur (Mar 2, 2015)

Joey said:


> mangobutter said:
> 
> 
> > Frage said:
> ...



This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):


For *exposure*, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
For *depth of field*, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your _distance _from the subject, and _that _is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?


----------



## Joey (Mar 2, 2015)

*Re: why isn't the 17-85mm gone ?*



kiwi said:


> What I don't understand is why the EF-S 17-85 is still there. I thought it would've been discontinued not long after the EF-S 15-85mm was released. The 15-85 is one third dearer but it's so much better that buying the 17-85 is a weird decision, isn't it?


Yes, the 17-85mm, not to be confused with the excellent 17-55mm f/2.8, is a disappointing lens, it was the first EF-S lens I bought and I quickly disposed of it when the 17-55 was released. Terrible chromatic aberration, as I remember. The 17-55 lens, on the other hand, is superb.


----------



## DomTomLondon (Mar 2, 2015)

I used the 17-55 IS lens for years on my 40D and then 7D. It is a great fast standard zoom lens for photo and video. And with IS to boot. I have not found anything equivalent for full frame yet. The closest was the 24-70 Tamron VC, but with its doddgy AF I had to send it back. The canon lens was a treat to use. Yes a bit of dust got in but it never effected the image quality. Mind, I didn't use to pixel peep the way I do now, I use to just shoot and enjoy.


----------



## Botts (Mar 2, 2015)

*Re: why isn't the 17-85mm gone ?*



kiwi said:


> What I don't understand is why the EF-S 17-85 is still there. I thought it would've been discontinued not long after the EF-S 15-85mm was released. The 15-85 is one third dearer but it's so much better that buying the 17-85 is a weird decision, isn't it?



That is odd. The 15-85 blows away the 17-85, and isn't that much more, I'm blown away the 17-85 wasn't disco'd. I was under the impression it had been.

Honestly, for EF-S "normal" zooms, I see the market for the following:

1. Cheap kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6)
2. Enthusiast kit lens (17-85mm f/3.5-5.6)
3. Fast aperture prosumer standard zoom lens (17-55mm f/2.8)

Where the 17-85 fits in is anyones guess. Cheap enthusiast kit lens?




Back to topic:

If I had to make a wish list to replace the 17-55mm, I'd add the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Modern/upgraded IS
[*]Weather sealing
[*]Dust reduction
[/list]

Unrealistic ask: f/1.8 performance. Though if trading off IS was the exchange, I think it actually would hurt marketability.

Enthusiast users like my dad like the fast and sharp 2.8 with IS, but when he borrows my 6D, really misses the IS for tripod free night landscape shots even if he's using my 35mm f/1.4. Last time he borrowed my 6D, I rented a 24-70 f/4 IS for him, and he actually preferred it over the 24-70 f/2.8 and 35 f/1.4.



DomTomLondon said:


> I used the 17-55 IS lens for years on my 40D and then 7D. It is a great fast standard zoom lens for photo and video. And with IS to boot. *I have not found anything equivalent for full frame yet.*



Agreed. When I lent my dad the 6D as mentioned above, he found the same thing, nothing could offer the 2.8 aperture with IS combo that he found so dear. His favorite lens on the 6D was the 24-70 IS, the only saving grace was the 6D's high ISO performance is at least a stop better than the 7D.

The lack of a comparable lens is why he is going to buy a 7D2 instead of 6D. The Tamron 24-70VC is close, but the thing weighs a bloody ton, and AF/IS is not perfect.


----------



## Joey (Mar 2, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > mangobutter said:
> ...



That's how I understand it too. 

Depth of field is an imponderable, depending on a range of factors including the eyesight of the observer(!) and it's a lot less simple than stating that depth of field of a particular lens and aperture on a crop camera will be 1.6x what it would be on a full frame camera. 

F numbers describe aperture, which describes image brightness, and has an influence on depth of field but there are other factors involved too. It is therefore misleading to state that an f/2.8 EFS lens is 'actually an f/4.4 lens'.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 2, 2015)

This lens needs to be replaced, and the new one needs to start at 15mm, not 17mm. I can't believe how many low-end compacts start at 24mm-equivalent and that Canon only makes one crop-lens that does, the 15-85IS, and it's not even their top-of-the-line!

EF-s 15-60/2.8 IS with better build, please!


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 2, 2015)

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a lens that is (or was) suitable for some. With these combined features it is easy to see that it is attractive for many APS-C (crop sensor) DSLR photographers:
•	3 stop effective IS
•	Fast, reliable USM AF
•	Good image quality (sharp, decent contrast, etc).
•	f/2.8 aperture (which yes, means exposure is f/2.8, but equivalent DoF different than cameras with different sensor sizes, eg LF, MF, 35mm, 1”, micro 4/3, ‘compacts’, etc)

I expect the reason the 17-55mm is no longer listed on just ONE website (Canon’s USA site) is a mistake, update omission or other issue, rather than a replacement being imminent (but hey, feel free to surprise me!) 
Now commenting on the ‘other’ aspect of this thread, ie about alternative lenses and/or features…. For me the 17-55mm f/2.8 never quite matched what I want in a general purpose lens / travel zoom. 
•	Greater zoom range at both wide angle and tele end
•	When I want ‘fast’ I want faster than f/2.8, eg f/1.4 – f/2 on APS-C (that’s why I use primes).

The above are the reasons I bought the 15-85mm instead of the 17-55mm…. and I haven’t looked back. For other Canon photographers, the 17-55 suits their shooting style better.

The 15-85mm suits my purposes better with its greater zoom range. It also has fantastic IQ (basically a match for the 17-55) – uses 72mm filters, has great USM and a 4 stop effective IS to boot.

If there would be an EF-S Canon 15-85mm f/2.8, naturally I would love that (but it would be larger and likely more expensive to maintain the same IQ). Nearly always trade-offs…. So I don’t hold my breath, but of course I’d love a lens like that, or even better a 14-70mm f/2 USM IS with a 72mm filter size! What a lovely dream.

Canon has been making many great lenses lately: primes, zooms, L’s and non-L lenses… kudos to them. Looking forward to what the future holds… particularly (hopefully) the announcement of a new Canon 50mm prime sometime soon.

Paul 8)


----------



## preppyak (Mar 2, 2015)

The fact that the 17-55 has come down quite a bit in price actually makes it competitive with the 3rd party options that take up the f/2.8 crop space.

I cant imagine an updated 17-55, with new IS, STM, better sealing, and better optics (as all Canon updates have) going for anything less than the original list of the 17-55. Which was $1179. Cant see the market for it over $800 with options like the Sigma 18-35, and a lens like the (full-frame) Tamron 24-70 going for around the same price.

It'd have to either extend the range (17-70, 15-55, etc) or be <f/2.8


----------



## tyger11 (Mar 3, 2015)

preppyak said:


> I cant imagine an updated 17-55, with new IS, STM, better sealing, and better optics (as all Canon updates have) going for anything less than the original list of the 17-55. Which was $1179. Cant see the market for it over $800 with options like the Sigma 18-35, and a lens like the (full-frame) Tamron 24-70 going for around the same price.
> 
> It'd have to either extend the range (17-70, 15-55, etc) or be <f/2.8



Those three lenses aren't really all that equivalent, though. The Sigma doesn't have IS, and doesn't go out as far, adn the Tamron isn't anywhere NEAR as wide as the Canon. Those things may not matter to you, but to some of us, those features are what makes the Canon such a great deal (in addition to the fine IQ, of course). Lenses appeal for different reasons.

I'd definitely like to see an updated version with 14 or 15mm on the wide end, STM, and an aperture ring.


----------



## rs (Mar 3, 2015)

Famateur said:


> This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):
> 
> 
> For *exposure*, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
> ...


The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens _is_ f2.8, and there's no getting away from that. And it also has a focal length range of 17-55. And when shot on a crop body at ISO 5000, it is shot at ISO 5000.

While these cold hard facts are indisputable, it's only _if_ you want to compare to different sensor formats that you have to start doing maths. If you don't, stop reading here. 

While you can say it's the equivalent of a 27-88mm lens, due to the physical size of the entrance pupil (which can't alter at a given focal length and aperture setting), the equivalent aperture changes. (Take the lens set to 55mm, f2.8. The entrance pupil is 55mm/2.8, or 19.64mm. If you insist on calling 55mm 'equivalent' to 88mm, that fixed entrance pupil size means that at '88mm' the aperture ratio is 88/19.64, or 'f4.48'). Equivalent ISO can be calculated by multiplying by the sensor area ratio.

But, as I said, equivalence is only useful if you want to know how two different systems compare. If you only shoot one sensor size and/or have no interest in how your system is equivalent to anything else, it is irrelevant. As I said, f2.8 is f2.8. 55mm is 55mm. ISO 5000 is ISO 5000.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 3, 2015)

The support page is still there.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/professional/lenses/ef_lenses/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 3, 2015)

ReggieABrown said:


> mangobutter said:
> 
> 
> > Frage said:
> ...


I like this line of thought. So, I originally bought my 70-200 f2.8 II for use with my 60D. Eventually, I upgraded to a 5D3 and now my 70-200 _feels _like an f1.8 lens. Wow!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I expect a decent update for 17-55mm F2.8. It could be a STM version launch price below $800, and not sucking dust inside.



Huge opportunity to make an L lens (or for FF purists, L lens _quality_) in the EF-S mount. This was the crop luxury lens when it came out, and I think 7D2 users would prefer an EF-S native sized 17-55 F/2.8 USM IS _II_ over slapping an ultrawide EF mount L zoom on and calling it a 'standard zoom' after the crop factor.

But make it _STM_ and it's absolutely dead on arrival for me. I don't shoot video, so STM is simply a cheaper and slower way to autofocus, and moving from USM to STM would be a downgrade as a result.

- A


----------



## x-vision (Mar 3, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)



I'd rather see Canon make an EF-S 15-60/4 IS.

I used to have the 17-55/2.8. 
It's a great lens but too big and heavy. Mine had the dust issue as well.
So, I sold it and replaced it with the 17-40/4L - and now I miss the extra range and the IS.
Not the f2.8 aperture, though.

So, I say replace the 17-55/2.8 with a more compact and lightweight 15-60/4.
That would be a lens I'd buy (assuming high image quality and a price of $700-800 max).


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 3, 2015)

rs said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):
> ...


Thanks for great info. DPReview is the source where I came across this equivalence thing. They mention it in every crop camera review. As soon as I realized this equivalence comes at the expense of either slower ss or higher ISO, It felt something wrong to me. I stopped thinking about upgrading to FF.


----------



## Dfunk99 (Mar 3, 2015)

Held one in my hand one day for about 10 minutes - zoom stunk & the lens was waay too heavy! I'll take my 17-40L over this clunky lens Any day!!


----------



## Bullwye (Mar 3, 2015)

afaik this is the only EF-S zoom lens with fixed aperture. So I do not think Canon will just drop it. btw, german product page is still alive


----------



## Joey (Mar 3, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...


If you use a crop camera, then you change to full frame, you WON'T have to use slower shutter speed or higher ISO. That's the whole point of the discussion above. An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens irrespective of the sensor size. The exposure doesn't change. Only the field of view and depth of field that the lens provides vary when you change sensor size.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2015)

EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was the main reason I stayed with Canon and did not switch to Nikon when the D300 came along, while the 7D was not around yet. Back then and still today Nikon only has one constant aperture f/2.8 DX zoom ... back the clunky, heavy mediocre optical performance, 17-55/2.8 without VR in it, at a ridiculously high price. Nikon never updated it and the rest of their DX lens lineup is second rate to Canon.

I started out with a 350D plus crappy 18-55 (first version!), next got the EF 28-135 (poor), then Tamron 28-75/2.8 (optically good, but not wide enough), then Tamron 17-50/2.8 (very good, but no IS and zoomring turned the wrong direction, which i hate), then finally the 17-55 came. Expensive then, but wirth every cent to me. Excellent IQ, good IS, extremely fast Ring USM AF drive ... except for weathersealing a real "hidden L" lens. It was the most used lens on my 40D and on my 7D for 6 years. It helped me capturing countless family events, weddings, children at home, at play, at various sports, outdoors, indoors, in poor light, without and with strobes - did i mention how much i like fixed aperture f/2.8 zooms? Street shots, concerts, cities, travel, urbex expeditions, men at work on wintery airports de-icing planes? That EF-S 17-55 did it all and did it well, without fail. It delivered crisp, sharp images, faithful color, hardly any CA, and little, easy to correct distortions. My copy collected very little dust (pun) inside and out. I really loved that lens and was rather sad having to sell it recently for as little as € 420.

It is by far the best and most useful EF-S lens. Along with the excellent and underrated 60/2.8 Macro (unless one wants to capture moving critters and needs more working distance) and the EF-S 10-22 (which I had only wished to be constant f/4).

I do not believe Canon will drop the 17-55. could the further improve it? Sure! A 16-80/2.8 with further improved optics and a latest generation 4+ stop IS would be fantastic. I don't think it will ever come though. APS-C DSLRs are on their last leg now and will be replaced by Mirrorless bodies and native new EF-M lenses. 

Looking forward to seeing a stellar EF-M 16-80/2.8 IS STM - with mirrorless hybrid AF systems STM is the best suited AF drive - and an equally good Canon EOS M1 "Pro" camera. 

Until then i'll continue with the "lowly and dark but nicely sharp" EF-M 15-55 IS STM in the EOS M. And the 24-70 II on my 5D3. But ... both combinations are not as versatile as that mighty EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 3, 2015)

Joey said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



And image noise. So, DOF and noise change just like changing fstop and ISO on full frame. That's why the discussion above from rs is absolutely correct.


----------



## photonius (Mar 3, 2015)

Daniel 78d said:


> Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.



Well, as we know, CANON USA has its own idea what to sell and what not (see EOS-M).
Presumably they want to keep flogging the EF 28-135 on crop instead of the 17-55, maybe more profitable... ;D


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 3, 2015)

x-vision said:


> mangobutter said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)
> ...


I must disagree.

The 17-55 f2.8 is to crop bodies what the 24-70 f2.8 is to full frame. With the introduction of the 7D2, Canon has made it clear that it is committed to the crop body market. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a great lens on full frame and on crop. Canon needs a companion short lens. The 17-55 f2.8 should be replaced with a Mark II version to upgrade the USM, the IS system, and to improve the build quality.

The fixed f2.8 is critical to the success of this lens. It may not be for everyone, but for low light events with crop bodies, it's a must. Plus, bodies like the 7D and the 7D2 can leverage f2.8 lenses for quicker AF. In my experience, the 17-55 f2.8 on the original 7D focuses much quicker than the 24-105 f4 (even when on the 5D3). I think the f2.8 speed of this lens is a reason for the improved AF response.

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.



Agree. Crop shooters are stuck with a 16-35 f/2.8L II or third party zooms to get an f/2.8 lens wide enough to be considered a 'standard' zoom.

I'll go a step further. The 7D2 is not a toy. Many of its owners see crop as a strength and not a weakness for what they shoot (i.e. stuff that is further away) and have cabinets full of high-end glass. Yet for closer FLs, they are stuck with UWA L zooms as their best standard zoom option. 

How about one -- _just one_ -- great L lens for crop? 

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs. How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM? Make it awesome. Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it. Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would _gladly_ get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.
> ...


+1 
A 15-55 f2.8L IS would be great. They could also go longer, but with the 70-200, it isn't necessary. The gap between 55 and 70 is nothing. Going shorter, however, would great and would truly make these two lenses the Dynamic Duo for crop.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> How about one -- _just one_ -- great L lens for crop?
> 
> 17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs. How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM? Make it awesome. Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it. Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would _gladly_ get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.
> 
> - A



To Canon, "L" specifically requires that it works with FF. There will never be an EF-S lens tagged "L". It can be just as good optically, but it will not get the red ring.


----------



## rs (Mar 3, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> To Canon, "L" specifically requires that it works with FF. There will never be an EF-S lens tagged "L". It can be just as good optically, but it will not get the red ring.



There's one exception I know of - the PowerShot Pro1


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 3, 2015)

Joey said:


> If you use a crop camera, then you change to full frame, you WON'T have to use slower shutter speed or higher ISO. That's the whole point of the discussion above. An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens irrespective of the sensor size. The exposure doesn't change. Only the field of view and depth of field that the lens provides vary when you change sensor size.


I will check for alternatives to 17-50 f2.8 and 30mm f1.4 lens. 6D is very tempting. It is not that far off from 70D in terms of price. Price of equivalent FF glass is the only thing scaring me.


----------



## Daniel 78d (Mar 3, 2015)

It's back on. So it must have been a bug.


----------



## cannondale1974 (Jun 25, 2015)

I got this lens recently for Christmas and love it. (on a T3i) I'm thinking of stepping up to a 6D, how does this lens compare to the 24-105L? Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2015)

cannondale1974 said:


> I got this lens recently for Christmas and love it. (on a T3i) I'm thinking of stepping up to a 6D, how does this lens compare to the 24-105L? Thanks!



The 17-55/2.8 is a great lens, I used mine extensively. However, the FF equivalent is a (hypothetical) 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105/4 on FF is wider, longer, and 'faster'. The only thing you're giving is activation of the f/2.8 central AF point. 

The 6D/24-105 combo will deliver all-around better IQ than the T3i/17-55 combo.


----------



## Joey (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> cannondale1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this lens recently for Christmas and love it. (on a T3i) I'm thinking of stepping up to a 6D, how does this lens compare to the 24-105L? Thanks!
> ...



Why oh why are we still getting this? It's equivalent (in the terms most of us accept) to a *27-88mm f/2.8*. Any statement about its 'equivalence' to an f/4.5 lens needs lots of explanation and qualification otherwise it's just mischief-making.


----------



## rs (Jul 3, 2015)

Joey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cannondale1974 said:
> ...


Why oh why are we still getting equivalence only applying to focal length?

It is a 17-55/2.8, regardless of the sensor size. However, if you want to see what it's equivalent of, you can't change just one side of the equation. In FF terms, the 17-55/2.8 is equivalent to a 27-88/4.5.

Just stop and think what the aperture ratio is. It's a ratio between the physical aperture and the focal length. The physical aperture at any zoom setting can't change by changing the sensor size. It's 19.64mm at full zoom, end of story. But if you want to call 55mm 88 instead, then the aperture ratio has to change.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

Joey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cannondale1974 said:
> ...



In fact, no.

If you'd like to make mischief, explain how f/2 on a PowerShot with a 1/1.7" sensor is equivalent to f/2 on a FF sensor. Why oh why does Canon assure us that the S100's, "..._bright f/2.0 lens makes it ideal for low-light conditions or using shallow depth-of-field for dramatic, soft backgrounds_??"


----------



## rs (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Come on Neuro, we all know that the legendary 1200/5.6 with its 214mm entrance pupil would easily be outdone by an iPhone's f2.4 lens should someone make a sensor small enough ???


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2015)

Joey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cannondale1974 said:
> ...



Because it is still the truth?

If you stand next to me and we want to print (or look at on screen) the exact same image with the same noise, dof, shutter speed and framing, you with a 17-55 f2.8 on your 7D MkII and me with a FF camera, I would have to use a 27-88 f4.5 to do it.

The 24-105 f4 IS is effectively, wider, longer and faster on a ff than the 17-55 f2.8 IS is on a crop camera.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


you can't have equivalent in everything at the same time.......


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Joey said:
> ...



Sorry Don, I don't understand.


> _
> 'Equivalent' - e·quiv·a·lent
> əˈkwiv(ə)lənt/
> adjective
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > you can't have equivalent in everything at the same time.......
> ...



To many variables.....

Framing is a fairly easy equivalent.... standing at the same spot and looking at the same object, 20mm on a crop camera will have the same field of view as 32mm on a FF camera.

Depth of field is a lot more fuzzy.... first we have to agree if we are talking depth of field as per the whole image, or if we are talking depth of field as per adjacent pixels... For example, take a 20Mpixel crop and a 20Mpixel FF camera.... The FF camera will have greater depth of field by either metric, but make it a 50Mpixel FF camera and the depth of field becomes the same if you use the "by pixel" metric...

Exposure is another fun one..... yes, FF gathers more light, but it spreads it out over a wider area. at the same aperture, the density of light per square mm is the same on either, but if we measure it by pixel, FF pixels gather more light..... unless we bring that brand new 50Mpixel FF camera in and we find out that the pixels are exposed identically to the crop pixels....

it's never as simple as we would like..... sigh....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Well I think the fairest and most logical concept for photographic equivalence is the idea of two same sized reproductions exhibiting the same image characteristics, those being noise, dof and subject/camera motion. If you take that as a comparison, and why wouldn't you, then equivalence is a relatively simple concept.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 3, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


 27-88mm f/4.5... and 1.3 f-stop higher-ISO to compensate for the darker aperture setting. 
(This will equalize full frame noise to the APS-C noise level)


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 4, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Joey said:
> ...


Nikon latest crop cameras are almost same as forum favorite Sony latest FF offerings in terms of noise. Unfortunately Nikon is kinda lazy to offer live view / video experience same as Canon/mirrosless and STM lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7-ii/9
"In fact, in terms of ISO performance, the a7 II appears to fall near performance levels of the smaller, APS-C sensor in the Nikon D5300, showing similar noise in midtones. This somewhat nullifies the noise advantage one typically expects from larger sensor cameras, although, to be fair, it also speaks to performance increases in APS-C sensors."


----------



## rs (Jul 5, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> Nikon latest crop cameras are almost same as forum favorite Sony latest FF offerings in terms of noise. Unfortunately Nikon is kinda lazy to offer live view / video experience same as Canon/mirrosless and STM lens.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7-ii/9
> "In fact, in terms of ISO performance, the a7 II appears to fall near performance levels of the smaller, APS-C sensor in the Nikon D5300, showing similar noise in midtones. This somewhat nullifies the noise advantage one typically expects from larger sensor cameras, although, to be fair, it also speaks to performance increases in APS-C sensors."


FF sensors have a 1.3 stop advantage over crop sensors on paper. There are always variables, such as the technology used in the sensor. A good example of a camera which doesn't adhere to this rule is the A7 II - even the lowly old tech Canon sensor in the 5D mk III has a one stop advantage at high ISO over this Exmor FF camera.


----------



## Joey (Jul 6, 2015)

I'll have a go at setting out the reason for my point of view, and then I'll leave it - not going to get into a flame war. 

This 'equivalence' thing can have a number of facets - exposure, depth of field, noise, field of view etc as others have stated. Some of these depend solely on the size of the sensor and the lens and nothing else influences it. Others are also affected by the pixel density of the sensor, the particular characteristics of that sensor, the processor that deals with the raw data off that sensor and maybe other factors too.

When I put a lens on a crop sensor camera after previously using a full frame camera, if I've been exposing at, say, 1/500 sec at f/2.8 and ISO 400, when I switch to the crop camera and set it to 1/500 sec at f/2.8 and ISO 400 I will expect to get a correctly exposed shot. I don't have to think "this lens on the crop camera is equivalent to an f/4.5 lens, therefore I'll have to set it to f/2.8, remember that that's really f/4.5 and use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO setting to get the correct exposure." I don't have to do that because, as far as the exposure settings I'll use is concerned, my f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens whatever the size of the sensor in the camera. It is NOT equivalent for this purpose to an f/4.5 lens.

Others have argued that the noise level is higher on the crop sensor and therefore we should consider the lens to be equivalent to an f/4.5 lens, I've seen arguments here that the depth of field will be less, and that the depth of field will be greater, using a crop sensor. Noise depends on the abilties of the processor, and the pixel layout and other aspects of the design of the particular sensor in use. So it can't be stated that the noise on a crop sensor will be 1.6x higher (or 1.5x higher in the Nikon world) than on a ff sensor unless the two sensors are otherwise identical and use identical post processing - which they don't. The manufacturers tailor their cameras to get the best out of the sensor they're using.

I would rather, then, limit my concept of 'equivalence' to exposure (the aperture of the lens is primarily an exposure element, although it also affects depth of field etc) and consider all these other matters that have been argued about as separate. Thus I'm fully aware that when I use a crop sensor camera I'm going to have more trouble with image noise than I do when I use a FF camera, but I rely on Canon to keep the noise problems as low as they can within the constraints of the sensor size. Similarly I know when I'm shooting portraits on a crop camera it's going to be a bit more difficult to throw the background nicely out of focus. But I don't consider either of these issues to be related to the 'equivalence' between the two sensor sizes.

That's my two penn'orth.


----------



## meywd (Jul 6, 2015)

This article calculates the equivalence on all aspects 

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes Comparison


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2015)

Joey said:


> When I put a lens on a crop sensor camera after previously using a full frame camera, if I've been exposing at, say, 1/500 sec at f/2.8 and ISO 400, when I switch to the crop camera and set it to 1/500 sec at f/2.8 and ISO 400 I will expect to get a correctly exposed shot.



Sure, and 1/500 s, f/2.8, ISO 400 will give the same exposure on a PowerShot S100. Equivalent image? Not so much. 




Joey said:


> ...the aperture of the lens is primarily an exposure element...



The aperture is an opening within the lens through which light passes, and because it's a physical opening it has a maximum diameter. That diameter, along with the focal length of the lens, is used to calculate the f/number – the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. If you say 50mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 80mm f/2.8 on Canon APS-C, that's I ncorrect because the physical aperture isn't 'growing' from 18mm to 29mm.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > When I put a lens on a crop sensor camera after previously using a full frame camera, if I've been exposing at, say, 1/500 sec at f/2.8 and ISO 400, when I switch to the crop camera and set it to 1/500 sec at f/2.8 and ISO 400 I will expect to get a correctly exposed shot.
> ...



I don't have a full frame camera yet, but haven't I read that since the sensor is larger the light gathering ability is better compared to a crop sensor? If so, just another reason to go full frame.


----------



## rs (Jul 6, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't have a full frame camera yet, but haven't I read that since the sensor is larger the light gathering ability is better compared to a crop sensor? If so, just another reason to go full frame.


Yep. It's like comparing two solar panels. If they're of the same sensitivity and one is 2.56x bigger, it'll gather 2.56x as much light.


----------



## meywd (Jul 6, 2015)

rs said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a full frame camera yet, but haven't I read that since the sensor is larger the light gathering ability is better compared to a crop sensor? If so, just another reason to go full frame.
> ...



Its not the sensor size, its the pixel size, if two sensors has the same pixel density while one is full frame and the other is crop then both will have the same light gathering ability, however since most full frame sensors has larger pixels you see better high ISO performance, and even though this is the case now, the real cause is not just the pixel size, its the SNR, because if you have theoretically a pixel with zero noise, then no matter the pixel size the total image will be the same.

Imagine you have a bucket of water covering an area, and also have 9 smaller ones that cover the same area, if the rain volume was the same for both areas then the total amount of water collected should be the same in both cases, the difference in the sensors and pixels case is that when the analog signal is converted to digital there will be some noise in the data, and if that noise is greater than the light signal data then the data will be lost, which what happens in low light when using a crop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2015)

meywd said:


> Its not the sensor size, its the pixel size, if two sensors has the same pixel density while one is full frame and the other is crop then both will have the same light gathering ability
> 
> Imagine you have a bucket of water covering an area, and also have 9 smaller ones that cover the same area...



Ummmmm....no. 

The area is not the same, a FF sensor is 2.56-times larger than an APS-C sensor.


----------



## meywd (Jul 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Its not the sensor size, its the pixel size, if two sensors has the same pixel density while one is full frame and the other is crop then both will have the same light gathering ability
> ...



Sorry for not stating it more clearly, but I am taking about pixels and not sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2015)

meywd said:


> Sorry for not stating it more clearly, but I am taking about pixels and not sensors.



The pixel discussion is tangential to the point under discussion. The question (which you quoted) was, "Does a FF sensor gather more light than a crop sensor?" The answer is, "Yes, because the FF sensor has a 2.56x greater area."

Your statement that, "It's not the sensor size, it's the pixel size," is flat out incorrect in that context. Compare the 5DII and the 30D, or the 7DII and 5Ds: similar technology, approximately equivalent pixel pitch. Which one of each pair gathers more light? Which one of each pair has lower noise?


----------



## rs (Jul 6, 2015)

meywd said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > meywd said:
> ...


Sorry for not stating it more clearly, but what have the individual pixels got to do with this? We're talking about whole sensors, or whole images. We should view both at the same size - ie print or on screen. If you want to reproduce one bigger than the other, then equivalence is thrown out of the window and comparisons can stop there. It's sensor size, not pixel size which counts.


----------



## meywd (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for not stating it more clearly, but I am taking about pixels and not sensors.
> ...





rs said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



If by "more light" you mean there is more data in the image file, then you are correct, but that is not the point, because more Data doesn't mean a better image, more Data on the pixel on the other hand will make an image better, a sensor is not a single piece of light collecting surface, its an array of pixels, adding more pixels doesn't make your image better, it makes it larger.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2015)

meywd said:


> If by "more light" you mean there is more data in the image file, then you are correct, but that is not the point, because more Data doesn't mean a better image, more Data on the pixel on the other hand will make an image better, a sensor is not a single piece of light collecting surface, its an array of pixels, *adding more pixels doesn't make your image better*, it makes it larger.



Adding more _area_ makes it better. Refer to my questions above. The 5Ds and 7DII are same-generation and have nearly identical pixel size. By your logic, the 5Ds should not deliver a better image than the 7DII, because it merely has more pixels. Feel free to demonstrate the truth of that logic. The weight of evidence is not in your favor.


----------



## meywd (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > If by "more light" you mean there is more data in the image file, then you are correct, but that is not the point, because more Data doesn't mean a better image, more Data on the pixel on the other hand will make an image better, a sensor is not a single piece of light collecting surface, its an array of pixels, *adding more pixels doesn't make your image better*, it makes it larger.
> ...



Although both of the 5Ds and the 7DII are current that doesn't mean that the same technology was used in both, and you can never know for sure unless you have insider knowledge, if you compare the 5Ds/7D II/5D III/6D at dpreview on ISO 3200 for example you will see that the 5Ds image looks different than the other three cameras, which I think - no I don't know for sure either - is caused by a reduction in read noise or a calculation that reduce it when saving the raws, so you can't draw any certain conclusions from that comparison.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2015)

meywd said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > meywd said:
> ...



Sorry, but you're just really missing the point here. Put two buckets in the same rainfall, one with a 1 m2 opening, the other with a 2.56 m2 opening. Which collects more water?

A larger sensor collects more light than a smaller sensor. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light collected. Bigger sensor = more light = less image noise.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


The iris is like an inverted funnel that limits the collection of rainfall from more oblique angles


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 9, 2015)

Just trying to learn a little: Since my crop sensor does not gather as much light as a full frame sensor would... then would that mean an f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera would behave like a slower lens on a crop sensor camera? 

Example: On a full frame camera with lens X set at f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/250th of a second I get a correct exposure of my subject. If I then take the same lens, settings and subject but use a crop sensor camera... would I have to decrease my shutter speed to get the same exposure? 

If true... then my f/2.8 lenses will seem lightening fast on a FF body compared to crop. Which means the performance (speed) of my EF 400mm f/5.6L would greatly improve on a full frame body. 

Am I correct? If so, I can hardly wait to go full frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just trying to learn a little: Since my crop sensor does not gather as much light as a full frame sensor would... then would that mean an f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera would behave like a slower lens on a crop sensor camera? Example: On a full frame camera with lens X set at f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/250th of a second I get a correct exposure of my subject. If I then take the same lens, settings and subject but use a crop sensor camera... would I have to increase my shutter speed to get the same exposure? If true... then my f/2.8 lenses will seem lightening fast on a FF body compared to crop. Which means the performance of my EF 400mm f/5.6L would greatly improve on a full frame body. Am I correct?



No, you'd get the same exposure on FF as on crop. But the FF image will have lower noise. Accordingly, on FF you could choose to stop down to f/4 for more DoF, or boost the shutter speed to 1/500 s to stop motion, and still have slightly less image noise after raising the ISO to compensate. Now...the noise difference at low ISO isn't much, so in bright light the FF benefits are less. But at ISO 3200, you'll certainly notice the difference.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Just trying to learn a little: Since my crop sensor does not gather as much light as a full frame sensor would... then would that mean an f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera would behave like a slower lens on a crop sensor camera? Example: On a full frame camera with lens X set at f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/250th of a second I get a correct exposure of my subject. If I then take the same lens, settings and subject but use a crop sensor camera... would I have to increase my shutter speed to get the same exposure? If true... then my f/2.8 lenses will seem lightening fast on a FF body compared to crop. Which means the performance of my EF 400mm f/5.6L would greatly improve on a full frame body. Am I correct?
> ...



Thanks again!


----------

