File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey!

Im considering buying a canon 40d with EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM, what do you think of this combo? If anyone owns this combo and have experice, it would be appreciated with answers and SAMPELS if you have..

Thanks!
>> Anonymous
Get a Tamron f2.8 instead
>> Anonymous
7chan.org
/pho/

They can help you.
>> Silver lens? NitroMonkey
Why in gods name are you looking at a canon silver range lens?

Always, and I mean always get the Gold series. So much better!
>> Anonymous
>>183535
Lolz, been a canonfag for years never put two and two together that silver was the shittiest, then gold, then red L. Oh, can't forget DO green.
>> Anonymous
>>183520

dont listen to these faggots, the EF-S 17-55 IS is regarded as THE best EF-S lens. L-quality glass but not quite the build quality and does not include a hood.

Go to flickr and type in EF-S 17-55 and you'll see.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>183535
This lens has a gold ring....
>> Anonymous
What the difference between the silver-gold-red?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>183695
Generalized IQ/BQ. It doesn't always really mesh together nicely though.

By and large, with Canon lenses only, you can assume L lenses (red ring) are the best BQ/IQ/most expensive, gold ring are somewhere in the middle and silver are cheap shit. Still, you should probably look at the lenses individually when making decisions...
>> Anonymous
I can't find any webshop providing those alternatives, only the silver... Do you know a site which has all three of them so I could compare? I've been google:ing but no success..

thanks
>> beechan
This is why most "photography forums" fail. Filled with a bunch of stupid people giving out really bad info and saying some really stupid shit. Fucking hell.

>>183587<--- this guy though, has a clue.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
is hands down the best zoom lens withen the focal range availible.

It's optics are better then the 16-35, 17-40 and 24-70.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>183742
Yep. If I could afford it, I'd certainly own it right now. Rather distinctly the best within its range, with only the downside of crop-only.
>> Anonymous
>>183742It's optics are better then the 16-35, 17-40 and 24-70.

it's better than just about every zoom out there with a unique combination of 2.8 and IS

beats out a few primes too except the 4 digits top dogs

but uh yeah, the one flaw is that it's not EF
>> Anonymous
If you have Canon EF lenses you must multiply the focal length value with the 1.6 crop factor to get the absolute folcal length.
What about EF-S lenses. Is the crop factor already incorporated?
Is the EF-S 17-55 really 17-55 or 27-88?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>184126
Shut up now before you start another crop-factor definition shitfest. But just so you know, the focal length of a lens is a property unrelated to how wide or tight of a picture it creates. On a APS-C format camera, though, you must multiply the focal length of the lens you're using by 1.6 in order to get the same VIEW that a lens of the resulting length would have given on a 35mm frame of film.

So when you're using that EF-S 17-55, yes you do have to take the crop factor into account if you want to know what field of view you're effectively getting in 35mm format. It is "really" a 17-55mm focal length lens, but it also "really" gives the view of a 27-88mm lens on a full frame camera.
>> Anonymous
>>184128

But EF-S lenses can only be mounted on APS-C format cameras. Why not use the correct numbers on the lens then?
>> Anonymous
>>184134
Because that would be confusing when using non-EF-S-lenses on crop cameras etc. Why use 2 standards (or 3 if the 1,3x crop cameras are considered) when it's much easier to just use 1 and just multiply the true focal length to get the field of view.

And yeah, the focal length stays the same no matter the sensor crop. It's still 17mm to the focal plane, not 27. The field of view is never written on the lens. A 80mm on a medium format camera won't act as a 80mm on an APS-C, APS-H or a full frame camera, but the distance from [whatever that part of the lens is called] to the focal plane is still 80mm. Get it?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>184134
That's because focal length is an intrinsic characteristic of the lens' concave or convex. Mounting it to a different camera doesn't change the curvature of the glass. L2highschoolphysics.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
what's with Canon and that "lip" some of their lenses have

it's fucking ugly, look at all these

i'm talking about that plastic rim that sticks out from the rest of the barrel

i'm thinking it's just to make it a unified 77mm filter size but it still looks ugly as fuck and i use Canon

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:05:18 14:40:37Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/8.0Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.09 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1150Image Height443RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>184206
having big glass increases the size of your balls
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>184252
Well, one wouldn't want that. Best to keep them reasonably sized, I think.

How else is she going to fit both in her mouth?
>> Anonymous
>>184206
I don't know, but I hate the idea of unified filter sizes. Most people- especially today, with digital- will only have a few filters: a polarizer, an ND, a GND, and maybe a soft focus filter, and a protective filter if they shoot in shitty conditions or like to pretend they do. Filter cost is not a huge issue, and is easily resolved by step-up rings.

So what's wrong with it? I guarantee you some of these lenses (like the poster I'm quoting points out) are made artificially large and bulky to fit that standard. Fast autofocus zoom lenses are already huge enough; doing anything to inflate them is dubious, doing it with no benefit except saving people who drop $1,000 on a lens as a business expense the cost of a step-up ring is stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>184262

so you're saying it's all a big conspiracy
>> Anonymous
>>184206
For some reason, I quite like the lip on them.

Gives you something to fit your hand between (lip and cam body).
>> Anonymous
>>183697

BULLSHIT.
>> Anonymous
the silver or gold ring never had any meaning

they were added for aesthetics

some older lenses that never had any updates don't have a colored ring at all
>> Flash Diffuser for Canon Speedlight 430EX Anonymous
/p/ I feel like a real idiot, here.

I've got a couple of functions coming up (a wedding, several 6th form leavers balls etc.) and I'm getting to the point where "bounch the flash off the ceiling" isn't really cutting it any more.

I've been hoping to invest in a flash diffuser for my Speedlight 430EX but the only ones I can find on the net/in local shops are ones for the 580!

Do 580 diffusers fit properly on the 430? Failing that, do you guys know where I can order the right one for it?

Cheers in advance, pic related etc.
>> Anonymous
>>184287
Just ignore me, I'm aan idiot
>> Anonymous
>>184289
>>184287

lern24chan

click the box next to your post, then click the delete button down bottom.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
taken with an EF-S 17-55 this morning at brunch.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:18 18:25:33Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height683RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
i wouldn't call that the best example ever to be honest
>> Anonymous
>>184297

1/30 of a second though.
>> Anonymous
>>184301
>>184297

and wide-open aperture.
>> Anonymous
1/30 at 28mm with IS on is nothing impressive, no offense
>> Anonymous
>>184303

Idiot. The whole point is the fact that it has IS!
>> Anonymous
>>184304

idiot.. 1/30 at 28mm with IS on is nothing impressive

i'm sorry, that's just nothing spectacular or anything to boast about

i've said this before but the thread is probably gone, i can take 1/15 at 200mm reliably with IS

so 1/30 at fucking 28mm is really nothing you should be proud of, again no offense dude
>> Anonymous
>>184303

double idiot.. constant aperture of f/2.8, and sharp wide-open. find another non-L lens like that.
>> Anonymous
>>184306

YOU ARE A MORON AND YOUR MOTHER HAS A SLOPPY CUNT THAT SHE LOANS OUT TO AIDS VICTIMS FOR ONE DOLLAR

"no offence"

Put it in any post and you can say what you like! LOLOLOLOLOL

Even better. Don't say it at all if you have to use weasel words like "no offence"
>> Anonymous
>>184306

prove it, faggot.
>> Anonymous
are you changing the subject because you realize 1/30 at 28mm with IS on is nothing impressive?

>>184307double idiot.. constant aperture of f/2.8, and sharp wide-open. find another non-L lens like that.

wow, sounds like someone's got a hardon for the 17-55

but you forgot to specify "find a standard zoom with 2.8 and IS" because it IS the only one

however, there are plenty other lenses that match it

tamron's 17-50 2.8, there's one

>>184308

uh, calm the fuck down?

if you think taking a shot at 1/30 and 28mm is impressive then you really have issues
>> Anonymous
>>184311

PROTIP: you are arguing with more than one person here.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>184309prove it, faggot.

oh wow, you're actually serious

here you go, off by a little bit but hey, i'm at 200mm

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:18 20:14:14Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height683RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>184316

Moron. What is the keeper rate hand held in the streets or in the field? One in a million means nothing. Balancing on something to get that one in a million means even less.

Unless you are getting reliable shots then it is not usable.
>> Anonymous
http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Canon%20Zooms/Canon%20EF-S%2017-55mm%20f2.8%
20IS/
>> Anonymous
>>184317

what's with the namecalling? calm down dude

>> i've said this before but the thread is probably gone, i can take 1/15 at 200mm reliably with IS

key word, reliably

read more before posting hastily
>> Anonymous
>>184319

"Reliably" to one person could be one in a hundred. I can read fine, you simply can't mange to explain yourself or your lies.
>> Anonymous
>>184321

jesus christ, dude? why are you getting so damn defensive? are you the one who posted that 1/30 at 28mm picture?

i came in, and respectfully said it was nothing impressive:

>> i wouldn't call that the best example ever to be honest

you start calling me an idiot and a faggot because you think it's great

i say i can do 1/15 at 200mm and post an example

and now you're saying i'm lying? what the hell man?

seriously dude, i'm not dissing you or anything, i just want you to realize that 1/30 is hardly slow, specially at 28mm..
>> Anonymous
>>184317

With optical image stabilization- I have no experience with sensor-based- I can reliably get sharp exposures at down to 1/5th of a second at normal focal lengths and 1/20th-1/30th at long teles, and reasonably sharp exposures at 1/15th.

It's really one of the few new technologies from the past thirty years that are actually useful for taking photographs for most applications.

>>184276

No, just the sort of design decision made after being hit in the head with a sledgehammer.
>> Anonymous
>>184325

if you ever had to buy some kasemann B+W circ pol filters then you'd be happier about them all being 77mm
>> Anonymous
I think 2.8 is wasted on a wide lens. Spend your money on the longer lenses, you can afford to get 3.5+ consumer gear on the wider end and not sacrifice visible quality.
>> Anonymous
The lesson for today is that, all else being equal, it's easier to get motion blur free pictures at the wide end at slow speeds than on the long end.
>> Anonymous
And IS on a wide lens is even less needed, fwiw.
>> Anonymous
>dont listen to these faggots, the EF-S 17-55 IS is regarded as THE best EF-S lens.

lol by who

im sure its fine but id much rather have a 10-22
>> Anonymous
>>184332I think 2.8 is wasted on a wide lens.

It does go all the way to 55mm.

But other than that, brighter viewfinder? Constant aperture? Increased AF accuracy and speed because of high sensitivity AF points only at 2.8? Bokeh?

>> Spend your money on the longer lenses, you can afford to get 3.5+ consumer gear on the wider end and not sacrifice visible quality.

Personal preference, what one person can do with 3 primes, one can do with 1 zoom. So let's not get into that debate.
>> Anonymous
>>184335

It's generally acknowledged to be the best in regards to pure image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>184206
That isnt plastic on some of those lenses, its metal..
>> Anonymous
>>184408

I don't think any of those have metal shells. The mount, sure but not the outside barrel.

I've only handled the 17-55 and 17-40 though so feel free to prove me wrong.
>> Anonymous
>Why in gods name are you looking at a canon silver range lens?

I love people who buy lenses based on what color the ring is and not the actual specs involved