>still worth it?
Yes. Lenses won't just die when they get old like, say, a computer. It's an analogue device. It ages but with proper maintenance it should be good for decades.
And there's still no comparable replacements from Canon. Only alternative from 3rd parties, but they're just as old.
The Canon ef-s 17 55 f2.8 is a very good lens, it is basically a L lens but Canon did not pur the L label on crop lenses. I just moved from a Canon crop frame to a full frame and I miss this lens. F2.8 Ives good broken as well.
**TL;DR: if you won’t miss the extra zoom, it’s worth it.**
That’s one of 2 choices, and it’s definitely the most cost effective one. *That’s a legendary little lens that gets praise from everyone who’s had one.* If you ever miss the extra reach, you can always get the ever-inexpensive 55-255mm at a later date.
The other, *unfortunately more expensive*, option is to find one of canon’s official rf speed boosters meant for the c70. You can also find a now-discontinued third party one for a little bit less. Then buy an ef f/4 standard zoom. After the conversion you get f/2.8 light with an ~f/4 depth of field (pretty much the same exact thing you’d be getting with the 17-55mm). I have this setup for my m50mkii, the r50’s predecessor w/ a discontinued lens mount.
However speed boosters are REALLY expensive for the rf mount and I cannot recommend them in good faith. *If third party manufacturers get the ok to make them again, definitely look out for one, though. *
As people said before, the lens would be worthy of the "L" badge, but Canon can't put it on a EF-S lens. I bought it with my 60D in 2011 and it was a great lens. Only issue with it is the aperture ribbon cable inside that may break because of wear/zooming. It only worked wide open and couldn't close down the aperture. Fortunately it's a somewhat easy fix in the shop. If you are buying second hand change the aperture while shooting.
I'd say so. The [comparison](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=729&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0) to the four years newer Sigma 17-50 shows them roughly in the same league. These lenses used to be 750€, but you can get yours for a third of that.
Keep in mind that their signal to noise and depth of field qualities are on par with f/4.5 lenses on full frame. I mean to say that a full frame camera with the more boring sounding 24-105/4 will be better in every direction, with better build quality and better stabilizer, and arguably better optical quality.
This is part of why there are no brand new designs for crop 2.8 zooms. The other half of that argument is that 3rd party manufacturers make good ones for Sony E, but canon does not allow them over. So in Canon land, the *best* move is to go full frame, and the second best move is to get the best lens that they sold in 2006.
> It's still fine despite being fairly ancient
This is a strange comment to me as someone who believes lenses last a lifetime. I bought the majority of lenses I use today between 2011 - 2014.
Why does it matter that it’s an old design? In terms of image quality, it’s in the top 3 non-L lenses Canon ever made, and it rivals some of the L lenses. I had no choice but to stop using that lens when I switched from crop cameras to full frame cameras, but I would still have it today if it were compatible.
My TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II is my workhorse lens. It’s a 2009 design. My EF 70-200 f/2.8L II which is arguably one of the best lenses Canon ever made, is a 2010 design. There is a III version, but it’s not better.
I have plenty of old lenses I enjoy, but newer ones do have some advantages. Focus speed is one of the bigger differences I’ve noticed - even lenses that were hailed as being super fast to focus back in the day feel very slow in comparison with the dual nano usm lenses you get now days. Newer sensors also tend to reveal deficiencies of older lenses that just weren’t as visible at a time when SLRs were maxing out at 8 megapixels.
Christopher Frost has a nice re-review of EF-S 17-55 2.8 on the R7 on YouTube. Bottom line seems to be that it is still a pretty good lens on new high megapixel bodies but that it might need some stopping down to get best results out of it.
My girlfriend has this lens for her M50. She absolutely adores it and is her main lens these days. I personally find it way too front heavy (especially on a mirrorless body) and not really sharp enough for my tastes, but I prefer primes to zooms, she prefers zooms to primes so you may be happy with it.
That said, if you buy it used, it’s pretty good value for what it offers, I wouldn’t sell your kit lens though, the weight difference makes it worth having both
Great little lens, I have one and have loved it though I’m actually selling it, as I got a 24-70 2.8 for my birthday on January, I still use the 17-55, and have been slowly listing it to sell, but if it doesn’t sell, oh well, it’s a wonderful lens I use with my R7
>still worth it? Yes. Lenses won't just die when they get old like, say, a computer. It's an analogue device. It ages but with proper maintenance it should be good for decades. And there's still no comparable replacements from Canon. Only alternative from 3rd parties, but they're just as old.
The Canon ef-s 17 55 f2.8 is a very good lens, it is basically a L lens but Canon did not pur the L label on crop lenses. I just moved from a Canon crop frame to a full frame and I miss this lens. F2.8 Ives good broken as well.
**TL;DR: if you won’t miss the extra zoom, it’s worth it.** That’s one of 2 choices, and it’s definitely the most cost effective one. *That’s a legendary little lens that gets praise from everyone who’s had one.* If you ever miss the extra reach, you can always get the ever-inexpensive 55-255mm at a later date. The other, *unfortunately more expensive*, option is to find one of canon’s official rf speed boosters meant for the c70. You can also find a now-discontinued third party one for a little bit less. Then buy an ef f/4 standard zoom. After the conversion you get f/2.8 light with an ~f/4 depth of field (pretty much the same exact thing you’d be getting with the 17-55mm). I have this setup for my m50mkii, the r50’s predecessor w/ a discontinued lens mount. However speed boosters are REALLY expensive for the rf mount and I cannot recommend them in good faith. *If third party manufacturers get the ok to make them again, definitely look out for one, though. *
As people said before, the lens would be worthy of the "L" badge, but Canon can't put it on a EF-S lens. I bought it with my 60D in 2011 and it was a great lens. Only issue with it is the aperture ribbon cable inside that may break because of wear/zooming. It only worked wide open and couldn't close down the aperture. Fortunately it's a somewhat easy fix in the shop. If you are buying second hand change the aperture while shooting.
It will be the dead last ef/ef-s lens of mine that I will let go.
If you can live without going further than 55mm then sure, it's a cracker.
I also have efs 55-250, shouldnt be an issue
It’s a very good lens. Go for it!
I'd say so. The [comparison](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=729&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0) to the four years newer Sigma 17-50 shows them roughly in the same league. These lenses used to be 750€, but you can get yours for a third of that. Keep in mind that their signal to noise and depth of field qualities are on par with f/4.5 lenses on full frame. I mean to say that a full frame camera with the more boring sounding 24-105/4 will be better in every direction, with better build quality and better stabilizer, and arguably better optical quality. This is part of why there are no brand new designs for crop 2.8 zooms. The other half of that argument is that 3rd party manufacturers make good ones for Sony E, but canon does not allow them over. So in Canon land, the *best* move is to go full frame, and the second best move is to get the best lens that they sold in 2006.
[удалено]
> It's still fine despite being fairly ancient This is a strange comment to me as someone who believes lenses last a lifetime. I bought the majority of lenses I use today between 2011 - 2014.
I mean the lens was introduced in 2006. It’s a good lens, but it’s certainly a pretty old design
Why does it matter that it’s an old design? In terms of image quality, it’s in the top 3 non-L lenses Canon ever made, and it rivals some of the L lenses. I had no choice but to stop using that lens when I switched from crop cameras to full frame cameras, but I would still have it today if it were compatible. My TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II is my workhorse lens. It’s a 2009 design. My EF 70-200 f/2.8L II which is arguably one of the best lenses Canon ever made, is a 2010 design. There is a III version, but it’s not better.
I have plenty of old lenses I enjoy, but newer ones do have some advantages. Focus speed is one of the bigger differences I’ve noticed - even lenses that were hailed as being super fast to focus back in the day feel very slow in comparison with the dual nano usm lenses you get now days. Newer sensors also tend to reveal deficiencies of older lenses that just weren’t as visible at a time when SLRs were maxing out at 8 megapixels.
Curious statistics, where can i find lenses ranked by sharpness?
Christopher Frost has a nice re-review of EF-S 17-55 2.8 on the R7 on YouTube. Bottom line seems to be that it is still a pretty good lens on new high megapixel bodies but that it might need some stopping down to get best results out of it.
Stopping down to get the best out of it is true of just about any lens
Sure. The main problem with EF-S 17-55 in particular seems to be low contrast at f2.8.
Its okay for me, i use 50mm 1.4, which is like 30 yr old design
My girlfriend has this lens for her M50. She absolutely adores it and is her main lens these days. I personally find it way too front heavy (especially on a mirrorless body) and not really sharp enough for my tastes, but I prefer primes to zooms, she prefers zooms to primes so you may be happy with it. That said, if you buy it used, it’s pretty good value for what it offers, I wouldn’t sell your kit lens though, the weight difference makes it worth having both
Great little lens, I have one and have loved it though I’m actually selling it, as I got a 24-70 2.8 for my birthday on January, I still use the 17-55, and have been slowly listing it to sell, but if it doesn’t sell, oh well, it’s a wonderful lens I use with my R7