# Upgrade for 17-55 2.8



## koolman (Dec 31, 2013)

Hi,

I currently use a t2i and have no intentions to move to FF in near future. I'm fine with crops.

What I would like to see is a high quality wide to long zoom to rival the new 24-70 L mark 2 for FF. I guess this would mean a mark 2 for the 17-55. The current version is quite old, and could use an upgrade to something more modern, smaller, better build, and improved IQ to match the look and feel of the new L lenses - and the new fuji / tamron/ micro 4/3 lenses flooding the market.

I'm surprised this seems to be a non issue and nobody else brings this up?

thoughts ?


----------



## Jim Saunders (Dec 31, 2013)

I have little doubt Canon could do it, but I'd wager that they don't want to so as to protect full-frame sales.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2013)

The EF-S 17-55mm is from 2006, so it's not that old as lenses go (it's a year younger than the 24-105L). The 17-55 is sharper than the 24-105/4L IS, and sharper than the new 24-70/4L IS, when compared on the same APS-C body. No, it's not quite as sharp as the 24-70/2.8L II, but the latter is double the cost. 

I doubt Canon sees the point in L-series build quality, weather sealing, etc., on an EF-S lens, since the 7D is the only compatible body that has decent sealing. It's also unlikely they'll bring out an EF-S lens costing $2K like the 24-70 II, or even close to that. 

Instead of releasing optically excellent lenses for APS-C, Canon brought out the 6D which is getting down to the price range of the 'flagship APS-C' so people can buy even more expensive lenses. 

The 17-55 remains the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.


----------



## koolman (Jan 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF-S 17-55mm is from 2006, so it's not that old as lenses go (it's a year younger than the 24-105L). The 17-55 is sharper than the 24-105/4L IS, and sharper than the new 24-70/4L IS, when compared on the same APS-C body. No, it's not quite as sharp as the 24-70/2.8L II, but the latter is double the cost.
> 
> I doubt Canon sees the point in L-series build quality, weather sealing, etc., on an EF-S lens, since the 7D is the only compatible body that has decent sealing. It's also unlikely they'll bring out an EF-S lens costing $2K like the 24-70 II, or even close to that.
> 
> ...


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2014)

i understand the 15-85 is very good and well received. it's not as fast but it has more range. there is also the sigma 18-35 which lacks the range and it has no "is" but it is really sharp and it is f/1.8 which gives you a similar look to an f/2.8 lens on a ff camera.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 1, 2014)

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is an excellent lens, one of the two best EF-S zooms. There really isn't a better APS-C option unless its the EF-S 15-85 which has better range, but is slower and variable aperture. I've owned both the 17-55 and 15-85 and they are both terrific lenses. According to the TDP crops, the 15-85 looks slightly sharper to me at similar focal lengths and apertures.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 1, 2014)

I think in order to get better, you would need to bite the bullet and get the 24-70L mkii and get something like a 10-22 from one of the manufacturers to provide the wider angle needs you may have. Of course, a company like sigma may release something similar in the future, but my crystal ball isn't that clear.


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> I think in order to get better, you would need to bite the bullet and get the 24-70L mkii and get something like a 10-22 from one of the manufacturers to provide the wider angle needs you may have. Of course, a company like sigma may release something similar in the future, but my crystal ball isn't that clear.



The sigma 18-35 is better than the canon 24-70ii on a crop body. It doesn't have much range though. its like having a 28, 35, and 50 on ff.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 1, 2014)

candc said:


> The sigma 18-35 is better than the canon 24-70ii on a crop body. It doesn't have much range though. its like having a 28, 35, and 50 on ff.



Based upon what I have read about the new sigma lens (and not from actual experience), I agree with you. But, the OP mentioned that they were looking for wide to long, and I felt that 35mm wasn't long enough for what was being asked for. If Sigma chose to make a 15-45~50 F2.8 (or F2.0) with OS, that might be a better fit for what was being asked for. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist to my knowledge.


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2014)

Sigma makes a 17-50 and a 17-70. From what I have read the 17-50 f/2.8 os has really good center sharpness but its got soft corners and AF issues "shocker!". I think that if I had to pick only one lens to stay on the camera it would be the canon 15-85.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 1, 2014)

candc said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > I think in order to get better, you would need to bite the bullet and get the 24-70L mkii and get something like a 10-22 from one of the manufacturers to provide the wider angle needs you may have. Of course, a company like sigma may release something similar in the future, but my crystal ball isn't that clear.
> ...



I have no experience with the Sigma 18-35, but the TDP image quality comparisons show the 24-70 2.8 II to be sharper mid frame and corner at common focal lengths, but the Sigma appears slightly sharper in the center. That said, I would not recommend the any 24-70 lens on a APS-C body as 24mm just isn't wide enough for most people. From the review, the Sigma 18-35 appears to be a great lens however. If I were still shooting APS-C, I'd probably be using a EF-S 15-85 as a walk around lens and fast primes (24-28-35-85) for shallow DOF.


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2014)

If I were to recomend one of the 24-70's I think the f/4 would be an interesting option for its macro capabilities. I haven't seen this reported on but if its .70 mag on ff then it should be more than 1 to 1 on aps-c and give you more working distance. Its a bit smaller so that fits better on the smaller body.


----------



## Policar (Jan 1, 2014)

I find the 17-55mm f2.8 IS to be an excellent performer, substantially better than the (old) 24-70mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4 IS and of course the third-party competition.

The 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma is the sharpest zoom I've used but the zoom range is limited (35mm is not long enough for portraiture) and autofocus glitchy. For the money I can't think of a better lens than the 17-55mm f2.8 IS for an APS-C walkabout lens; if it's not enough I'd upgrade to FF.

That said, even the 18-55mm IS II is great for what it is.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 2, 2014)

Policar said:


> I find the 17-55mm f2.8 IS to be an excellent performer. (...) For the money I can't think of a better lens than the 17-55mm f2.8 IS for an APS-C walkabout lens; if it's not enough I'd upgrade to FF.



+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2014)

candc said:


> If I were to recomend one of the 24-70's I think the f/4 would be an interesting option for its macro capabilities. I haven't seen this reported on but if its .70 mag on ff then it should be more than 1 to 1 on aps-c and give you more working distance.



You haven't seen it reported because that's not how it works. Maximum magnification is measured at the minimum focus distance - both are intrinsic properties of the lens, independent of the sensor. It's called a crop factor for a reason. On APS-C, you're still getting 0.7x mag at the same working distance, but you're capturing a smaller FoV. Of course, if you back up so you've got the same framing you'd get on FF, you do get more working distance, but in that case you're getting less than 0.7x mag. 

To the extent that your APS-C sensor has higher pixel density, you're getting more pixels on target (_digital_ magnification, as opposed to optical magnification). If you compare a 5DII and 20D, there's no difference, for example. If you used the 24-70/4 at the MFD on the full frame Sony a7R (36 MP) you'd get _more_ digital magnification than with that lens at the MFD on the T3/1100D (12 MP), and capture a larger FoV at that 0.7x mag, too.


----------



## candc (Jan 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > If I were to recomend one of the 24-70's I think the f/4 would be an interesting option for its macro capabilities. I haven't seen this reported on but if its .70 mag on ff then it should be more than 1 to 1 on aps-c and give you more working distance.
> ...



okay, that makes sense when you think it through. the maximum magnification of the lens refers to the size of the image it projects on the sensor plane. that means the ef-s 60 projects a larger image than the 24-70 at mfd. i was thinking there was some multiplier involved with the 60. like an equivalent to 100% mag on ff. and that the 60mm projected a smaller image on the crop sensor but was an equivalent to the 100mm on a ff sensor but it sounds like the projected image size is the same. its just that the working distance is greater on the 100mm due to the longer focal length?

thanks for explaining


----------



## Aglet (Jan 2, 2014)

As a few have suggested, the 15-85mm is a very good lens.
It's my most used because of the range, low CA, very sharp, has great IS, fast AF and is no bulkier than the 17-55. I still have both of these lenses but the 15-85 is nearly welded to my 60D. The 17-55 comes out for some indoor shots or shallower DoF work with my older bodies.
Only complaint i have about the 18-85 is that I sometimes get severe corner shading, likely from a filter I keep on it. This is intermittent and likely a factor of the IS group being near its physical limit plus the filter not being a super-thin type. Other than that, it's provided 1000s of excellent images and lets me leave the tripod in the car a lot more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2014)

candc said:


> ...it sounds like the projected image size is the same. its just that the working distance is greater on the 100mm due to the longer focal length?



Correct. At their respective MFDs (for 1:1 magnification), the 60mm, 100mm, and 180mm lenses will all project the same sized image of the subject on the sensor. The longer FL means two things: a longer working distance (which is why bug hunters like the 180L), and the narrower angle of view with the longer lenses means less of the background is in the image, and what is there is more strongly blurred (stronger background blur, even though the DoF for the subject is the same).


----------



## Promature (Jan 2, 2014)

For what it's worth, I had a T2i and the 17-55 f2.8 and decided to get the 24-105 f4 instead. I already had the 10-22, so losing the 17-24 range wasn't a problem and losing the 1 stop in appeture didn't really do anything either. What I got in exchange was (in my opinion) a better walk around lens. Also, since upgrading the T2i to the 70D, I can honestly stay that the loss of appeture is a complete non issue now with the better low light performance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2014)

Promature said:


> ...losing the 1 stop in appeture didn't really do anything either. What I got in exchange was (in my opinion) a better walk around lens. Also, since upgrading the T2i to the 70D, I can honestly stay that the loss of appeture is a complete non issue now with the better low light performance.



More light is just one reason that a wider aperture is beneficial, and you're right that with current cameras, the high ISO performance compensates effectively in many situations. But, shallower DoF for better subject isolation is another major benefit to a faster lens.


----------



## Promature (Jan 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Promature said:
> 
> 
> > ...losing the 1 stop in appeture didn't really do anything either. What I got in exchange was (in my opinion) a better walk around lens. Also, since upgrading the T2i to the 70D, I can honestly stay that the loss of appeture is a complete non issue now with the better low light performance.
> ...



True, true. But, if I want a walk around lens, I would rather have the range than DoF. If I want to do portraits, I use my primes. This of course is just a personal preference. I'm sure people out there want exceptional subject isolation out of their walk around lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2014)

Promature said:


> I'm sure people out there want exceptional subject isolation out of their walk around lens.



Well, I'd call f/2.8 on APS-C more like barely adequate subject isolation, certainly not 'exceptional'.


----------

