Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
165 of 166 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The best Lens for 1.6x Crop Canon DSLRs, December 28, 2006
I received my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens today (12/28/06). It feels heavier by far than the 18-55mm kit lens, but lighter than I expected. Feels good (well-balanced) cradling the lens in the left hand near the base of the lens when mounted to my Canon Digital Rebel XT. I put the lens on the camera right away in a manner that would limit the opportunity for dust to intrude on the back of the lens or into the camera, since I've read about this lens not being sealed as well as "L" series Canon lenses. I may never take it off. 8-)
This lens focuses fast and sure--even in low light, no hunting around to lock onto a subject. Pictures taken with the camera hand-held at 1/10 to 1/15 sec shutter speeds inside with no flash were tack-sharp (Thanks to the IS). With F2.8 and IS, this lens opens up a whole new world of natural low-light photography. Not only are more inside shots possible, you also have the versatility to create gorgeous bokeh. You create these bokeh effects generally zoomed to 55mm (where the kit lens' max aperture is F5.6). Since the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 has a constant F2.8 max aperature, you don't have to worry about the depth of field increasing as you zoom. It is so confidence-inspiring to walk around and set your aperture where you want it to give you the depth of field you want, and not really worry about the shutter speed being too slow. Some of my outside dusk (low-light) shots at 1/6 sec shutter and F22 came out sharp (Thanks again to IS). I almost got vertigo when I first looked at my pics uploaded to my PC--they were so realistic. Images really pop!
The decision to go with this lens instead of some of the "L" grade lenses involved the following criteria:
1. Focal Length Range. I wanted at least the range of the 18-55mm kit lens.
2. Max Aperture. I wanted f/2.8, since f/4 is too confining for low-light situations. Also, f/4 doesn't give you the depth of field limiting ability of f/2.8. Trade-off is size and weight (and price).
3. Constant Max Aperture. I wanted a constant max aperture throughout the zoom range. I don't want to set the aperture and have the camera stop it down due to the max aperture decreasing as you zoom in (as is the case with the kit lens).
4. USM. I wanted the Ultrasonic Motor (USM) feature, since this is known to be the fastest and quietest autofocus technology.
5. IS. I wanted Image Stabilization (IS), since this effectively makes your lens faster, because you can shoot in lower light at lower shutter speeds without fear of blur (provided the subject is still). Also, zoomed-into 55mm, camera shake can be more of a problem than at shorter focal lengths. IS has got you covered there as well. This lens only has one IS mode (no mode for panning).
6. Full Format or Crop-optimized. It is true that going with a full format lens would mean that you could use it on any DSLR (35mm film, APS-C DSLR, and Full Format DSLRs such as the 5D and 1Ds Mark II). However, full format lenses are not optimized for the 1.6x crop of the Canon DSLRs Rebel through 30D. The crop-optimized lenses (designated by the "EF-S" in the model name) are tailored to the smaller image sensors of the APS-C camera bodies. The lens elements and coatings are designed to minimize the ghosting and flare that can come from reflections off of the image sensors in digital cameras. Also, the crop-optimized lenses tend to be smaller, lighter and less expensive than otherwise identical full format lenses. I considered the EF 17-40mm f/4L, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF 24-105mm f/4L. But, none of these had the focal length range I wanted, and two of them weren't fast enough (f/4), and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L was very heavy (2.1 lbs). I determined there was no need to sacrifice performance now for some possible benefit later on if I purchase a full format camera. If I ever do, I would hope there would be full format lenses that have been designed to limit chromatic aberrations and introduce other digital optimizations currently provided by the crop-optimized APS-C format-only lenses. Besides, you can always continue to use your old camera and lens as a back-up, or you can sell them to help purchase the new ones.
7. Grade ("L" series or Advanced Amature). Of course, if all else is equal, take the "L" lens with the red stripe. But, all else is not equal. I'd rather have an optically superior lens that is well-built (although not as well as an "L" series) that meets all my other criteria, and just be careful to keep the dust out. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is expensive (I paid $[...] on [...]). But, I'm sure if there were an "L" series version of this lens, it would be even more expensive.
Conclusion: This is one great lens! There's nothing else out there for 1.6x crop digital cameras that gives you the sweet spot of zoom range, low light capability, depth of field control, image stabilization, fast and quiet auto-focus, and superior image quality rivaling prime lenses. And to put the considerable weight (22.8 oz.) into perspective, it is still 3.8 oz. lighter than the very good digital-only Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, and the Nikon does not even have image stabilization (and costs more to boot). Game, set and match!
UPDATE 2/3/07: I've taken 1000+ pictures. I'm impressed with battery life given that I thought IS would use a lot of power. But, since flash is nearly never needed (due to f/2.8 and IS), battery life has seemingly been extended. I didn't realize how much I would grow to expect a stable image through the viewfinder until I looked through a viewfinder with a lens without IS and saw the image shaking. Note that cameras with built-in image sensors (such as Sony Alpha) don't stabilize the viewfinder. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM autofocus locks-on amazingly fast even in low light. No apparent optical weak spots at any focal length or aperture. Lens hood (optional) eliminated most, but not all, flares from bright sun. I think this is the best, most versatile walk-around lens you can get. I wish Canon would make an EF-S 55-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens to pair it with so I could zoom in closer on distant wildlife, etc.
|
|
|
176 of 180 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Upgrading your lens for Rebel XTi? 17-85 USM IS vs 28-135 USM IS vs 17-55 2.8f USM IS vs 24-105 4.0f USM IS, January 8, 2008
Folks, I know you want it short. But I am covering quite a bit of information and condensed it so that you can get good information and are able to digest it in less than 5 min.
It is quite surprising how many people are being "tortured" with the question on which lens is the right lens when it comes to finding the perfect lens to upgrade the Canon XTi Rebel kit lens (18-55) or even for the Canon 40D (which is often sold with the 28-135 USM IS lens).
I read about 500+ reviews and many of them I found very interesting but really did not answer my question on what a good lens is for the Rebel XTi... and with good reasons because YOU have to know what you want or need and then make a call. Here were the criteria I used and I hope you can leverage from these:
1. I wanted a lens which has a great picture quality to have a true upgrade feeling from the Canon 18-55 kit lens (during day light that lens is actually very good and with its light weight is a great carry around lens - however in low light or for really nice portrait shots this lens has limitations not to mention its built quality)
2. I wanted a versatile "Walk Around" lens with good zoom range to cover most of the picture I take (landscape and portraits) in addition to my telephoto lens (70-300mm)
3. If possible a low weight lens - however image quality was a higher priority for me
4. I wanted a Canon lens (though there are very good alternatives from Tamron and Sigma - however they have some disadvantages but given the lower price worth considering)
5. I wanted an Image Stabilizer (IS) and a low noise focus motor, i.e. Canon's USM
Many people are looking for a great "Walk Around" lens to avoid changing lenses all the time yet at the same time want great picture qualities. So, your criteria may be different and therefore your choice certainly a good one may differ from mine.
As one disclaimer upfront - I am not going into the professional details, i.e. vignetting differeneces at different aperture values or zoom ranges - to make it simple for many readers in this field who just want to make a good decision to buy a great lens without going through the trouble of returning lenses.
You will find many reviews on the cropped camera lenses (EF-S) and still people often don't get it right. So, if you have a cropped camera like the Canon Rebel XTi or Canon 40D then the cropped factor is 1.6. In other words no matter what lens you put on these cameras you will get the following zoom ranges which are different from the product names for the lenses:
Canon Lens Min Zoom Max Zoom
17-85: 27.2 - 136
28-135: 44.8 - 216
17-55 f2.8: 27.2 - 88
24-105 f4.0 L: 38.4 - 168
Source: Canon's website
I went through the extra burden of testing all the lenses myself and not just rely on reviews. So, I went ahead and rented them for 1-2 days and then made up my own verdict so to speak. I also took pictures in similar conditions, looked at them on the computer and printed them out to compare the lenses:
1) The first upgrade lens from Canon which comes to mind is the EF-S 17-85 USM IS f3.5-5.6 lens. This lens would have been a great kit lens but did not meet my requirements for an upgrade lens. It has a very good zoom range and it is still light weight. But the image quality is not as sharp as I would like it to be. And if you commit to spend more money (like $500 for this lens) then you don't want to waste it by just getting a bit more zoom range and an Image Stabilizer.
2) The first lens I actually tried was the EF 24-105 f4.0 USM IS L (luxurious) lens from Canon and I was really happy about the image quality. I was very close to buy this lens but wanted to check out other lenses first. Following drawbacks for me: it is not a wide-angle lens which is useful for landscape shots or even travels shots when you can't afford walking back 5-10 feet. Plus a wide angel lens can give you a nice effect on the picture itself. Another drawback is the aperture value of f4.0 in low light. An aperture factor of f2.8 is faster in low light (the lower the value the larger the aperture - think the Iris of your eye is getting larger and therefore you can see better in low light) and with a running kid or pet at home that is a true advantage. However, with the Image Stabilizer this would not be a big issue. (For more advanced people you can stop down one step to get enough light into the lens in low light conditions but if the object is in motion that may be tricky.)
A big plus however is the option to use this lens for any non-cropped canon camera. However, I am ok with using the Rebel XTi and if I want to upgrade to another body later then the 40D would be a great way to go. So, I don't mind to buy EF-S lenses. The EF-S lenses have the advantage that they are generally lighter weight than the full frame lenses.
3) The EF 28-135 USM IS f3.5-5.6 lens has a great zoom range (44-216) but does not have a wide angle (basically anything less than 35mm). However, if zoom range is your top criteria then I'd get the 24-105 L lens without a doubt over this 28-135 lens. For example when you are in full zoom and you are not in bright daylight your pictures will not be as sharp. I tried this lens and the image quality is simply not as good as the 24-105 L lens or the 17-55 f2.8 lens. The 24-105 is also more solidly built. It is a lot of metal built with this lens and it is sealed against dust and water. However, if budget is a constrain to you then the Canon 28-135 lens is a better option for you and according to many folks out there considered to be a better choice than even the EF-S 17-85 USM IS lens.
4) The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 USM IS lens was the last lens I tested and chose over the other three lenses. First, my expectations toward a great image quality (like the 24-105 L lens) were fully met. This lens is using similar components like the L lenses (but it is not fully sealed like the 24-105 L lens is) and shoots extremely well in low light conditions. Plus for a f2.8 (main advantage is large aperture which is very useful for taking great shots in dim lights and faster than f4.0 lenses). Also this lens has less weight (640g) in comparison to the Canon 24-70 EF L f2.8 lens (950g). So, you get a great lens with an acceptable weight. Even the zoom range is fully acceptable to me on my Rebel XTi which comes to 27-88mm. I can take very good portraits shots (without hitting someone's nose with the lens if you will) and it has very nice blur as well (meaning a sharp face in the front and with a blurry background). The only drawback is a flare on some pictures at the bottom of the image when you take pictures using its built-in flash due to the larger lens diameter. However you can either put a better (external) flash light or use Photoshop to correct this issue. I am not a professional photographer and for me this is ok. If you are a professional photographer then you are most likely not as interested in this article anyways.
+++Summary+++
The bottom line is that for a true upgrade lens to your kit lens for the Rebel XTi I would recommend the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens. It is worth the investment. This type of lens along with any other L lenses from Canon will always keep its value and you can certainly sell this lens a lot easier if that is the final information you were looking for... ;)
I hope this article helps you in directing your decision on which lens to buy. If you are still not sure about what to do then I can only recommend testing the lenses of your choice in a store or ideally rent them or ask your buddies to lend you a lens for a few days.
Good luck and enjoy taking great pictures to treasure your memories!
Uwe
|
|
|
153 of 160 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very fine lens. My choice for daily walkaround use., December 4, 2006
This is a tough review. Many of the other reviews have touched on issues that may, or may not apply, and pretty much follow the lead of the internet photo pundits in content. They are legit issues, but not that important from my current perspective.
OK, here it is... First, I'll answer the concerns about the halflife of the crop sensor camera in general. It's a non issue, as I see it. Nikon is committed to crop sensor cameras for at least a generation. Canon is in the same boat with their crop sensor cameras. Witness the latest Rebel XTi. It boosts Canon APS sensors to over 10 MP, includes new chip set, and makes the thought of a continued series of APS sensor cameras with new tech features a no brainer. Sure, Canon will be marketing full frame sensor bodies. Sure, I will buy at least one in time. Then again, my APS sized crop sensor cameras will always be the choice for certain jobs, and will keep all of my current and future "S" lenses employed for decades.
I own some L lenses, and some full frame non L lenses, but my S lenses are the key to making APS sensor bodies excell. I already own two APS bodies, and if the new Rebel XTi is an indicator, I will own more in the future. Buying S lenses is not a sideshow, nor a dead end. It is just different.
If you desire a full frame camera in your future, choose lenses wisely. Buy what you need for the APS sensor bodies, and buy the rest to suit both bodies. If you never buy a full frame sensor body, no big deal, as the APS cameras will keep you very happy for years to come.
Meanwhile, I'll buy the next gen full frame Canon DSLR because I'm addicted to camera tech, but in the meantime, I won't starve my desire to fill out my APS body lens choices, as I know they will be around for many years to come.
OK, back to the lens at hand. It's a fine lens by any standard. People who bashed it's build quality might have been led astray by internet influence, but I can't imagine any complaints coming from people who used the lens over time. It is a very well built lens, with very smooth control surfaces. It's not made of metal (the lens mount is), but it is a supurb quality lens. It is light. It is solid in construction. It is smooth. It's optical quality is nothing less than outstanding, and it is a pleasure to operate.
Did I mention that it has IS? That is what places it above anything else on the market today. The 17-55 S IS is finely tuned glass. It is built well, and competition simply doesn't exist at this point in time. Sorry, but it's true. Where is the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lens that can best the optics, focus speed, smooth controls, and IS of this lens? Hmmm... They don't exist.
This lens isn't cheap, but it is the perfect addition to an APS sensor body as a standard zoom. Did I mention that it is f/2.8 from one end to the other? You can't beat this lens with a stick. Buy it.
This lens, along with the 10-22 S USM make a powerful package for a Rebel owner, or a 10,20,30D owner. I added a 50 f/1.4 USM, a 100 f/2.8 macro lens, and the 70-200 mm IS L f/2.8 zoom to round out the package. Notice that only two lenses are "S" lenses, and the rest can be used on any Canon body. The S lenses were key though, as they let my 30D take awesome ultra wide angle shots to mild telephoto, while the full frame lenses allow it to get extreme on the far end with high quality results.
Full frame might be in your Canon future, but APS is here now, and here to stay. You can buy a few S lenses today, use them for years to come, and buy more L lenses as they are retooled to include the IS feature. Other than the S 10-22 USM, I wouldn't buy a non IS L (or near L) lens at this point in time. I suspect that they will all be gone within a few years, and replaced by a better, all IS lineup.
One last thing.. Several people have complained about dust problems with this lens. So far, I have not had any dust problems, and even though dust on the elements will not likely degrade the image, it is irritating to see. If my lens develops dust issues, I will post an update right away.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
