# The future of the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM



## noodles (Feb 11, 2012)

Often reviewers remarked that the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is the APS-C counterpart of the 24-70 f/2.8 FF

Do you think that Canon will release a MKII for the 17-55 f/2.8 in the next 12 months now that Canon released the 24-70 MK II?

And, what should Canon improve on the 17-55 if the release a MKII?

I am curious what you think.


----------



## JR (Feb 11, 2012)

Since most of the new lens over the past few years have all been EF and since most of the rumored new ones coming are also almost EF only, I dont beleive this lens is up for an update anytime soon. It is so good anyway that not sure if there would be a need to.

The only thing I could see is as Canon unviel its camera roadmap in the next little while, it will be interesting to see what do they plan for the APS-C market. So far the rumors have focused mostly on FF. Depending on their APS-C strategy, they may decide to update some EF-S lens...but I doubt it.

Jacques


----------



## AJ (Feb 11, 2012)

noodles said:


> And, what should Canon improve on the 17-55 if the release a MKII?


An extra 2 mm on the short end. Better coatings. Otherwise the lens is perfect.


----------



## jwong (Feb 11, 2012)

noodles said:


> Often reviewers remarked that the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is the APS-C counterpart of the 24-70 f/2.8 FF
> 
> Do you think that Canon will release a MKII for the 17-55 f/2.8 in the next 12 months now that Canon released the 24-70 MK II?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure the market would support a 1.5-2k version II. I rather see an update to the 10-22 to make that a constant f/2.8.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 11, 2012)

AJ said:


> noodles said:
> 
> 
> > And, what should Canon improve on the 17-55 if the release a MKII?
> ...



Sounds good to me. Although I might push it and ask for an extra 5-10 mm at the long end. Probably too much to expect, but one can wish. Doubt that Canon would do it because then it would replace two lenses 15-85mm and 17-55mm. Of course, the way things are going, they might also charge as much as the two lenses combined.


----------



## pete22230 (Feb 11, 2012)

For those of us that want a truly ultra wide AND FF how about an EF version of the 10-22 with a fixed f4. Right now if you want to go there it seems to be Sigma's ball game and it's still a variable f. I'd buy it in a flash.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 11, 2012)

The 17-55 EF-s is a relatively new lens compared to the very old 24-70L MK I, a new 24-70L MK II does not mean a newer 17=55mm will be appearing, its already a expensive lens to put on a Rebel body, and a excellent and sharp lens.


----------



## akiskev (Feb 11, 2012)

pete22230 said:


> For those of us that want a truly ultra wide AND FF how about an EF version of the 10-22 with a fixed f4. Right now if you want to go there it seems to be Sigma's ball game and it's still a variable f. I'd buy it in a flash.


Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 does not have a variable f


----------



## JonJT (Feb 11, 2012)

I also do not believe that we will see an upgrade to this lens any time soon. Although, if they did, I'd love to see an extra 15-20mm on the long end, updated IS and L build quality. But, then again, if any of those improvements were to be proffered, we'd likely have to pick only two. This EF-S lens must remain subordinate to it's EF counterpart, IMO. An EF-S 17-70 IS "L" II would, on paper, be superior to the 24-70mkII that Canon just released. But, it would be nice if Canon would release a general purpose zoom that matched the 7D's build quality and class leading architecture. One can dream......


----------



## x-vision (Feb 11, 2012)

noodles said:


> I am curious what you think.



As others have said, let's see what Canon does with the 1.6x line.

I have a strong feeling that there won't be a 7DII. 

The 7D is fantastic but it seems to me that Canon expected to sell it at a higher price. 
Since this is not happening, I think we'll see the 70D going back to being the top-of-the-line 1.6x model. 

In this scenario, there will be no need for a mark-II of the 17-55 lens.
The current lens is already good enough and also expensive enough.

Btw, no worries about the specs of 70D. 
It will be spec'd more or less like the 7D but will likely have a smaller/lighter body, so that pros don't buy it instead of the 5DIII ;D.


----------



## JonJT (Feb 12, 2012)

x-vision said:


> noodles said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious what you think.
> ...



Meh, I'm not convinced. I do think Canon will make a new APS-C that supersedes the 7D in capabilities, whatever it ends up being called. THe camera is just too damn popular for it not to be. 

I also don't think people often cross shop the 7D and the 5D, and I don't think they will do so in the future. They are very different cameras.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 14, 2012)

noodles said:


> And, what should Canon improve on the 17-55 if the release a MKII?



Very bad flare resistance is one of the two reasons I wouldn't get this lens - it's wide angle, after all. The second is the weak IS that is prone to break just outside canon warranty, and since more and more people know about this by now you'd have a hard time selling the 17-55.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 14, 2012)

noodles said:


> And, what should Canon improve on the 17-55 if the release a MKII?


Easy...
Up to date IS (4 stops vs the current 3), new coatings, better build quality and weathersealing. Range could use a push into the short tele range (i.e. to 65). If image quality doesn't take a hit from that (or the opposite), that's one hell of a lens. If it would turn out that way, and I were to obtain it, I'd actually do the red ring paint job for it. I honestly would.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 14, 2012)

It's an awesome lens as it is IMO. And the 24-70 is 10 years old and just now getting updated, the 17-55 is 5 years old, going on 6. I'm sure it'll get updated sooner or later, but I think there is a lot of other stuff that needs to be upgraded more than the 17-55.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

noodles said:


> Often reviewers remarked that the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is the APS-C counterpart of the 24-70 f/2.8 FF



I disagree. The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 on APS-C is 27-88mm f/4.5, so the more apt counterpart is really the 24-105mm f/4L IS (which, by comparison, is wider, longer, and faster in terms of DoF for equivalent framing).


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 14, 2012)

There are many happy users of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. It can produce great photos in the hands of the right person - as can a lot of other lenses...  The constant f2.8 is great for low light work, and to get a decent amount of subject isolation / background blur at the tele end.

I don't believe an update for the 17-55mm will be coming anytime soon though. One of the major reasons that I have for this, is that Canon released the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM a few years ago, ie a few years after the 17-55. 

While the 15-85mm isn't a constant f2.8 lens, it does improve on a few other aspects of the 17-55mm:

better flare control
2mm more on the wide end
30mm more on the tele end 
better IS (4 stops)

Some people argue the 15-85mm build quality is slightly better than the 17-55mm... but I'd say it's quite close.

Both lenses (17-55mm and 15-85mm) are very sharp, have good contrast, make use of Canon's true USM focus and benefit from IS (3 & 4 stops respectively). So they are great 'kit lenses', which each meeting differing photographer's needs. (The 15-85mm meets my needs much better in a 'kit lens' - eg when I want a fast lens, it should be at least f/1.8). 8)

So while there might be a 17-55mm II sometime in the future, I expect that is probably around 4 or 5 years away at least..... In the meantime I think Canon will be producing lenses to complement it (eg more dedicated / primes lenses).

I also believe that it's very hard to compare an EF-S lens with an 'equivalent' EF (ie FF compatible) lens, due to the differing nature of focal length, DOF, etc - although f2.8 (on APS-C) will always let in more light than f4 (on FF) even if the background / blur isn't as affected as much. Then there is the whole argument about "difference in build quality between an L, the new prosumer lenses, older 'gold ring' lenses, etc, etc,". I won't even go there... :

Best wishes.... and happy photographing.... 

Paul


----------

