#14 in Camera lenses
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras, Lens Only

Sentiment score: 21
Reddit mentions: 36

We found 36 Reddit mentions of Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras, Lens Only. Here are the top ones.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras, Lens Only
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
17-55mm wide-angle zoom lens with f/2.8 maximum aperture for Canon DSLR camerasAD and aspherical elements deliver impressive image quality through entire zoom range, Closest focusing distance : 1.15 feetImage Stabilizer lens groups shift to compensate for image shake even in dim lightingLarge circular aperture produces shallow depth of field; ring-type ultra-sonic monitor (USM)Measures 3.3 inches in diameter and 4.4 inches long; weighs 22.8 ounces; 1-year warranty
Specs:
ColorBlack
Height3.30708 Inches
Length4.37007 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMarch 2006
Weight1.4219815899 Pounds
Width3.30708 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 36 comments on Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras, Lens Only:

u/frostickle · 34 pointsr/photography

Hi Nooby_Scooby, there is an ongoing Question thread is here for small questions like this :) You might find it interesting to read and there will always be people answering questions in there.
***
As for your question, Why do you plan to buy a full frame body? You're spending more money now and carrying extra weight for the years until you upgrade to full frame.

I'm going to go against pretty much everyone in this thread and offer you this alternative advice :)

A lens like the 17-55mm f2.8 is actually an option you should consider if you're not upgrading very soon (i.e. next purchase or within the year).

Lenses like this have very good resale value especially if you buy them used. You would lose at most $100 from buying a new one and selling it in 2-3 years when you upgrade to full frame. If you buy used, and resell it, you probably won't lose any money and might even make money if you're a good haggler.

The 17-55mm f2.8 is about half the price and half the weight of the 24-70mm f2.8, and actually has a more normal focal length when on your camera. (Although some photographers might prefer to have a the longer focal length that the 24-70mm would have on a x1.6 crop)

u/jonjiv · 7 pointsr/personalfinance

This is highly dependent on your price range, but if you're going to be in it for $500 prizes, I'm going to assume you'd like to spend less than $1000.

In that case, you can't really go wrong with a Canon dSLR, especially the t series, their entry level camera. I think the newest version is the Canon t5i, but the t4i and t3i also shoot high quality 1080p video and you'll be able to find them for cheaper.

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is increasingly popular in that price range, but I wouldn't recommend it to an amateur. It has a fantastic image but a high learning curve.

Nikon dSLR's are great too, but if you invest in Nikon lenses as a videographer, you're going to have a bad time. The majority of video camera bodies are manufactured for Canon mount lenses, so if you ever want to leave Nikon, you're kind of stuck or forced to use lens mount convertors.

With all of these cameras, lenses are arguably more important than the camera itself. With the Canon, the best bang for your buck is going to be a Canon 50mm 1.8. It's a cheap lens, but it has a great image for the price and is great in low light. If you can afford a good 2.8 zoom lens like the 17-55 2.8, go for it, but it's often near $1000.

u/Razalas · 6 pointsr/photography

The T2i is an excellent camera, I bought mine shortly after it was released and I still love it.

The image quality is on par with a 7D or 60D but it's much cheaper. The auto-focus system isn't on par with pro-level cameras and it has a mediocre continuous shooting frame rate, but that shouldn't be a deal breaker. I've used my camera to shoot college sports (baseball and basketball), wildlife, landscapes, portraits, etc. and it has always proved to be a capable camera. If you get it, I would suggest getting a vertical grip and then saving up for some nice glass.

While the kit lens is fairly capable for outdoor shooting, you might eventually consider upgrading it to Tamron's 17-50mm lens or Canon's 17-55mm lens.

u/ThePugDC · 4 pointsr/photoit

Well, there's the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. It's only a little bit wider, but quite a bit faster and a lot better built than the 18-55. It's not cheap though.
Or you could go off-brand and look at either the Sigma 18-50 or the Tamron 17-50

u/novawreck · 4 pointsr/Filmmakers

Canon's EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 is a great starter lens. It covers a wide to standard focal range, it's fast, has image stabilization, and by most accounts has image quality and edge to edge sharpness comparable to L-series glass.

Do not listen to the people in this thread who recommend getting a prime as your first and only lens.

u/Bensmcc · 3 pointsr/BuyItForLife

It's not though. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm is far better than the Canon EF 28-135.

u/fryfrog · 3 pointsr/canon

Your current camera is a crop sensor, how about the [EF-S 17-55 f2.8] (https://smile.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/)? It covers virtually the same range (27-88) as the 24-70, but for a crop sensor camera. It even has image stabilization. I hear you say something like "But if I get the EF 24-70, I can use it when I get a full frame" and you're totally right. But if you get the 17-55 used, you can re-sell it when you're done for about the same price you paid for it. Even better, it is half the price of the 24-70.

Don't get me wrong, I <3 my EF 24-70 f2.8L II and it is what I have on my camera virtually all the time. It is a fantastic lens. Nothing wrong with going that route! Just realize its like a 38-112 on crop. Not a big deal if you weren't looking for a zoom that goes wide.

u/jujjyfruit · 3 pointsr/Filmmakers

You should really get a prime lens if you're a beginner. I thought it would be a hindrance if anything, but the lack of zoom makes you WAY more conscious of your shot composition. The most recommended lens after the kit one is the "nifty fifty" a 50mm f/1.8 prime. Mine is a canon FD, I bought it off ebay along with an FD to EF adapter, cost ~80 bucks total (the EF-S version is only like 120 bucks either way).

If it's really burning a hole in your pocket, I'd go with audio and lighting equipment first, and then either a 24-70 or a 17-55

u/InactiveBeef · 2 pointsr/Cameras

Buy used and save some money. Skip the kit lens if it makes a big financial difference because they're generally trash. Pick up a nifty fifty and maybe a third party zoom. This can be applied to any of those cameras in your list.

Now, for my advice. Do you have any friends/family who do photography? It might be beneficial to buy into their manufacturer so that they can help explain how to use your camera and you can borrow lenses. At this level, they're all about the same, though I believe that Nikon has slightly better ISO performance.

I'm a Canon guy myself. I'd recommend a T6i, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and if there's any money left in your budget, a 50mm f/1.8. All used. You'll be very happy with that setup, I think, and the lens will cover a good chunk of the normal focal range until you get a feel for what you want to shoot.

u/moopreader · 2 pointsr/photography

Excellent timing! I've actually been looking at the non-L Canon 17-55/f2.8 with IS. It's pricier than the L you mention (?!!), AND it's only an EFS, of course. But its USM AF motor blows my Tamron's screechy, plodding AF out of the water, its range (27-88) is marginally better and it has IS.

Confusion reigns at the moment. Upgrade body and buy an out and out lens upgrade, or just upgrade to somewhat better lens.

u/LaLapinRouge · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I'm a Canon shooter, and the lens that's on my camera most often is my Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have the older version that lacks image stabilization, but I don't miss that too much. What does frustrate me is how much my lens hunts for autofocus in low light. I've shot with Canon's 17-55 and found it to be much, much better in this regard.

With this in mind, and a $600 budget, you may want to pick up a used Canon 17-55 2.8 on the high end of your budget. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000EW8074/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

(Edit: derped and thought you were a Nikon shooter, updated with Canon info)

u/rjcarr · 2 pointsr/photography

As everyone is saying, buying good glass is a great investment. Keep in mind though that the L lenses are very heavy. And if this is going to be your primary lens also keep in mind that 24mm isn't very wide on a crop sensor.

Unless you want more zoom a 17-55 f/2.8 might be a better option:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/

Everyone I know that has one loves it. The only issue is it's an EF-S mount, but if you're just buying your first real lens my guess is you won't be getting a full frame anytime soon, and could resell this lens very easily.

u/airblizzard · 2 pointsr/photography

If you need a fast wide angle, check out the EF-S 16-35mm f/2.8. It's like the 16-35mm, but about $500 cheaper since it's designed for crop sensors. There are also a few fast primes like the Sigma 10mm f/2.8

If you're shooting in a lot of low light situations, I don't think f/4 is going to be enough.

u/ch00f · 2 pointsr/guns

That's with the kit lens. I'm using the 17-55 IS USM

u/djwork · 2 pointsr/photography

I would recommend a EF-S 17-55 2.8f if you go for the 7D (will not work with a 5Dmrk2)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1292814940&sr=1-1

It's not a L series but for the price it is an excellent lense.

Edit: It is also an easy lense to use as it has a constant apature (how much light comes it to the lense) through its whole zoom range.

u/Enduer · 2 pointsr/photography

I personally would go for the 24-105. It is a good lens and gives you more overall flexibility than the 24-70. I own a 24-70 and while it is an amazing piece of glass I do find myself wishing for a bit more reach relatively often. The 24-70 you are looking into buying isn't the f2.8 version, so it doesn't give you any obvious benefits over the 24-105.

If you don't have any intention of going full frame you could also look at a lens like this.

It gives you a bit more of a wide angle that you might need on a crop sensor camera, as well as better low light abilities with a faster f2.8 aperture. However if you ever plan on getting a full frame camera it would be wise to invest in glass that works for it.

Hope this helps!

u/anidal · 2 pointsr/photography

If you're looking for a higher quality alternative to you kit, then you can't do much better than the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. Not an L, but it bloody well should be. Lacks in build quality but makes up with opticals.

Be warned though, it's an APS-C lens so it only works with crop bodies. Would not be usable on a 5Dmk2

u/digital_evolution · 2 pointsr/photography

Purely speaking on brands:

  • Canon - Best of the best for Canon cameras. L series means it's more rugged. Also very pricey!

  • Sigma - Great brand - my second choice. Save money here.

  • Tamron - Interesting brand - I own a 70-200 F/2.8 lens and it works fantastic - there are some issues with slower focusing but you don't notice it unless you're trying to capture sports or moving objects (I tried it on motorcycles on a track and I couldn't track my focus as well!)

    I recently did a lot of research into starting lenses and here are my suggestions :)

  • 50MM 1.4 Canon (Save money - get a used 1.8 - this is a must buy, it's cheap)

  • Canon EF S 17-55MM - This lens is a bit pricey, see below to save money. Totally worth it. Remember your crop ratio on lenses, I'll assume you have 1.6 like I do on my 550D which would bring this lens to a '20-70' (not stopping to do math lol)

    This lens is used for 'walking around' you can get some wide angle and some good portraits with it. It's very flexible.


  • Cheaper Tamron alternative to the Canon above

  • The baddest mo-fo, the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS L II

    This lens is very pricey. Look at Tamron to save the most money (I vouch for it) or Sigma for a little more, but less than the Canon.

    Remember with crop ratio that changes the FL of a lens! Figure out if yo have one or not.

    Simple rules of thumb? Save money. Wherever possible. But, always get the best glass you can afford. Glass is greater than body.

    Hope this helps - if it does please pay this comment forward, it took a lot of typing so feel free to share with other people in similar questions :D
u/videoworx · 2 pointsr/videography

You're not going to have a constant use for 85mm prime with that camera (which works out to 136mm), unless you intend to shot lots of talking heads. Additionally, the lack of image stabilization means you can't even breathe on the camera during takes. For on location shoots, it's not the best investment.

If you want a fast, practical prime, get Canon's 24mm f/2.8 IS USM. On your body, it's right between a wide angle and portrait lens, so it'll work in many more situations.

If you want a cheap, but excellent zoom, check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, and compare it to Canon's 24-105 f/4. You won't see any difference with video footage at 5.6, and because the Tamron can drop to 2.8, you can be a bit more flexible with lighting.

EDIT: although I've never used it, this is considered the best crop-body zoom you can get, and, like the 24-105/24-70, it's flexible enough that you might not need much else.

u/Brothernod · 2 pointsr/photography

I bought this when I was still fairly new and was shocked at how much better photos looked compared to the kit lens.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EW8074/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qjhLxbEPQ4GH8

Used they go as low as $500.

u/enanup · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I think the 50mm L lens you were looking at was the f/1.2 one, not the f/1.8? There's a f/1.4 in between them also

That means it lets in more light, therefore is more expensive. The focal length is the same, it's just faster. The faster the lens (the lower the f-number), the more expensive it will generally be.


There are some faster zoom lenses that are f/2.8 but they will be much more expensive than the kit lens and imho it would make more sense to buy different focal lengths primes if one needs that much variety.

u/waterbottlebandit · 1 pointr/funny

Amazon pranked me a year ago. I ordered this lens:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000EW8074/ref=yo_ii_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And instead got a used sigma lens in the box.

Amazon got me a replacement after some confusion though. Same thing happened this year with some wireless headphones from Amazon. Someone returned some cheaper head phones in the wireless box. People suck.

u/kabbage123 · 1 pointr/videography

Are you happy with the Sigma 18-35?

If so, I'd say it would make more sense to get this lens rather than the 24-70. The two will pair well together on multicam shoots.

For me the 24-70 always felt weird on a non full-frame body. It's perfect on the 5D but it always makes me wish I had something wider when I use it on super 35 cameras. The 17-55 always felt a lot better on Canon's cinema lineup (aside from it's weird focus ring), it hit all the buttons for me moreso than the 24-70. But it wouldn't make sense to get that lens if you already have the Sigma.

The 24-105 is a beast when paired with a lowlight camera. If you had a Sony A7sII (or equivalent) i'd say go for that if you don't own it already. It's a great 'run-n-gun' lens if you can survive with f4.

Edit: formatting

u/the_killionaire1 · 1 pointr/photography

What about the issues I've seen with that tamron lens and its focus and sharpness issues?

Is this a good lens?

u/av4rice · 1 pointr/photography

> What about the issues I've seen with that tamron lens and its focus and sharpness issues?

They're real. But sometimes you risk more issues like that when paying less.

> Is this a good lens?

It's excellent but also takes up almost all of your budget.

u/HomieMcBro · 1 pointr/photography

I have a 5D with two lenses: a 24-105mm f/4 and a 50mm f/1.8. I'm really into astrophotography and I've tried it a handful of times with what I have but my results are below average. My camera's ISO only goes up to 1200 so I have to work with that.

I'm looking for a lens around $500, something like this. Would this be a good fit for astrophotography? Just want a wide angle lens with the largest aperture possible.

u/phylouis · 1 pointr/photography

Hi ! My first camera was a canon 70D too ! A great all around camera especially if you are into videography. About what lenses you should get, you should definitely buy the nifty fifty, it is just a fantastic lens for its price !
If you are a video enthusiast, you should consider buying the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 which has a great IQ, a nice optical stabilizer and a constant f2.8, video I made with the sigma+70d here.

Or if you can afford a canon lens, the equivalent that is this one.

Anyway, the 70D is probably one of the best camera out there to start. Make sure to read a lot of books about photography, exposure, etc.. And even consider joining /r/photoclass2017/ !

Have a great day !

u/karlgnarx · 1 pointr/photography

Agreed that it all depends on the specific lens you are looking at. Taken with a grain of salt, I would trust user reviews, image searches from somewhere like pbase.com and photography-on-the.net to give you an idea of the what lens is capable of and what caliber/type of photographers generally use it.

Here is a search on that Tamron 10-24 from pbase.com

Personally, I have the Tamron 17-50 and couldn't be happier, given the price and the quality for my Canon XTi. However, I probably would have bought the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 if I had the money. I have used the Sigma 30mm and thought it was very good. I also have the Sigma 10-22 and my wife has the Tamron 18-270. The 10-22 can be fairly sharp and the 18-270 is pretty good for what it is. One can't expect tack sharpness and perfection from a super zoom like that.
.

tl;dr - totally depends on the actual lens model.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/photography

Then ignore the 10-22, the 24-70 is probably the best in terms of performance, but you may want to use the 16-35 for the extra wideness. It really depends on how tight the place is.

Also consider the 17-55 f/2.8. It's a pretty "comfortable" range for a crop sensor (I am assuming you have a crop given that the 10-22 is even an option).

Or if lighting is quite bad, then you may want a "standard" (~50mm equivalent) prime, like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 28mm f/1.8.

u/HybridCamRev · 1 pointr/bmpcc

u/soamz - both the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS and the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 fit your criteria and are great lenses.

Hope this is helpful and good luck finding the right lens for your needs!

u/gh5046 · 1 pointr/photography

> Do they make 1.8 EF-S?

The mount on the lens, EF or EF-S, isn't what applies the crop factor. It's the sensor on your body. Unless you have a full frame body, like the 5D, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will have a smaller field of view.

There are other prime lenses (fixed focal length lens) you can look at (scroll down to the 'Wide-Angle' section) if you want something wider.

If you want a zoom lens check out these lenses if you'd like to supplant your kit lens: the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8. (Disclaimer: I have not used any of these three lenses and cannot attest to their quaility)

u/Panaetius · 1 pointr/beards

A Canon EOS 500D SLR; and I took the standard kit lens (18-55mm) with me, for weight reasons. It's my most versatile and my worst lens... Been thinking about getting the 17-55mm lens for long hikes, which is as versatile, a lot heavier, but also a lot better in quality.

u/LunchBox42 · -4 pointsr/photography

If you have a prime lens then yes, you could leave the aperture a fixed value at varying zoom lengths. Or you can set it to the widest aperture at its zoomed value and that will be the smallest you can use across the zooming. So for a 18-55 f4-f5.6, set it to f5.6 and no matter what value you are at from 18 to 55, it will stay 5.6. But if you larger than that, you would need something like the Cannon 17-55 2.8. This means you can do f2.8 at 17mm through 55mm.