Question about Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS

[Pitman68]

Can anyone tell me his experience with the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS please. Is it worth the money, about 3 times the price of the 3rd partys 17-50 (18-50) 2.8?<br><div></div>

[AstroImager]

<DIV>I don't own this lens, but a friend with a 20D does, and I've used it.</DIV>
<DIV>It's quite good, but not "L" lens level in terms of sharpness, light falloff, and distortion.</DIV>
<DIV>Optically, the third-party 18-50's (or so) compare quite nicely.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>What that extra cost gets you is something none of the third-party lenses have:&nbsp; IS (Image Stabilization).&nbsp; If that's important to you, the Canon is the only game in town.&nbsp; If it's not, then you can get virtually the same optical performance (a little better in some areas, a little worse in others...it's a wash) for less money with one of the third-party lenses.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Paul</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

[DrJalapeno]

<div>This <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/fourpoundshowdown">lens comparison test</a> certainly doesn't show that the Canon is worth slightly more than twice as much money as the competition, especially looking at that flare test!</div><div>What you're paying the extra $$$ for is image stabilization. It boggles the mind that Canon doesn't include a lens hood with this lens. http://www.pbase.com/johnsgallery/image/11227741.jpg</div><div> </div><div> </div>

[BobF]

Jan, don't want to discourage you from asking here but just want to provide another point of reference. This <a target="_blank" href="http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp">site</a> has does pretty good reviews of lenses and is a decent resource. Click on the Reviews tab to go to the equipment reviews.<br><div></div>

[Lemming51]

<div>Besides IS, the Canon lens also has ring-USM autofocus with full-time-manual focus that the competitor zooms lack. The focus ring turns with autofocus on both the Tamron and Sigma, requiring more careful hand placement.</div>

[Gochugogi]

I really like the 17-55 2.8 IS USM and think it's worth it provided you don't have to go hungry for a month to afford it! It ain't perfect but it's the ultimate travel and walkaround optic for a cropped sensor EOS. Here's the details of my expereince with this amazing optic:<br><br><a target="_blank" href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm">http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm</a>

[mrcoons]

With the USM the Canon is also very quiet. I also own (bought it first unfortunately) a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 but the focus is very noisy and the places I needed to use it it was just too loud. People were constantly giving me the evil eye, so I just quit using it. (Was very slow to AF in low light which was a problem for me also.)<br><br>Image quality wise the two were nearly identical. It's all a matter of what works best for you.<br><div></div>

[kevinliu4]

While I can certainly appreciate the benefits of USM, my priority is always picture quality. I almost always shoot outdoors so focus ring noise is not a problem...and I don't think it's that bad. But of course everyone's requirements will be different.<br><br>I tried both lenses in the store and was happier with the quality of the Tamron. I also like that it's much lighter and less bulkier than the Canon. This was important to me as this was going to be my main walkabout lens. There is a huge difference in price but again my priority is quality. I was more than prepared to pay for the Canon but felt the Tamron was better. It is the only non Canon lens in my kit. I also own the 10-22, 24-105, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8IS.<br><br><div></div>