EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS II (PURE FANTASY, Unless...)

[victorshikhman]

Come on, all you 70/80/90D, SL1/2/3, 7DI/II, Rebel and EF-M owners. You know what we need.
The last great EF-S lens, to keep us shooting our gear for the next decade. Perfect all around zoom range for family, travel, video, etc.
An EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS Mark II with weather sealing, four stops of IS, and an updated optical formula to better resolve those 24 & 32MP sensors.

Canon's APS-C DSLRs are still among the company's best selling products.
There's a built-in market of millions of customers. Heck, it could even be an interesting (and relatively cheap) crop option for RF bodies.
What would it really take for Canon to update an old classic, originally released in 2006? They've likely already done the engineering.
Charge us $750-1k and watch this lens fly off the shelves.

Who's with me?

 

[Maximilian]

As a mainly FF but occasionally APS-C shooter on vacation I'd like be honest:

• I believe that Canon will go the R and M system way.
• APS-C will remain for several years for the amateur/entry market that does not want to go EOS M/EF-M
• So I suppose only the double zoom kit lenses 18-55/55-250 will get updates.

I really hope for all APS-C owners that a redesign of EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS will come, but I don't believe in it.
If I am right, then at least I hope for something equal in EF-M.

As I am not in the market for this lens I cannot take any of you're two votes.
I would vote for a "Great tech is always welcome, though I wouldn't buy it".

Fingers crossed.

 

[Joules]

For me, my 35 mm 1.4 Art is my multi purpose lens for my 80D. Not long enough? Just crop, images havee tons of detail straight from f/1.4. And for wider shots I take panoramas. The bright aperture allows me to do portraits and astro.

For an EF-S zoom to be an enticing upgrade, it would need to have a wider aperture than 2.8 for me.

For 1850 € (includes the 100 € cash back going on currently), I can get the RP + 24-105 4.0 L IS. That combination offers more range at the wide and long end than a 17-55 mm would, slightly more light (one stop slower, but FF gathers 2.56 times more light), is actually shorter when you factor in the body length and reduced flange distance, and weights basically the same, depending on which SLR you compare it with.

I can Totally see why Canon is doing things as they do them. And I don't feel left behind as an 80D owner, because they actually are expanding my options.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I don't think there is demand for the f/2.8 17-55mm nor do I think that product made much sense. It is an expensive lens that can only be used on crop cameras that competes against the 17-40mm L f/4 which is often cheaper and can be used on full frame. Please don't get me wrong, it is a good lens and I considered it when I had a crop. But then it just didn't make sense for that money.

 

[Maximilian]

... that competes against the 17-40mm L f/4 which is often cheaper and can be used on full frame ...

Hi Codebunny!
I agree with lots of your arguments. And I suppose the EF-S 17-55 was a really important lens when in the early 2000s the DSLR market was pointing towards APS-C.
Now that the prosumers go more and more the FF road it loses in importance. So I wouldn't expect a successor.

But I must disagree with your statement above from my own experience having the EF 17-40 that this one is no real competitor to the EF-S because of the missing 15 mm on the long end, which are important for portraits and esp. because of f/2.8 that are needed for indoor/shallow DOF.
And it is the only f/2.8 zoom for EF-S.
Having used (not owned) the 17-55 in the past I know it is bigger, heavier and not so nice to handle with a smaller APS-C body, but it is a good tool.
I use the 17-40 on my APS-C body but nor for the cases I would use the 17-55.

 

[victorshikhman]

Now that the prosumers go more and more the FF road

I'd just like to point out, Canon's M50 outsells all their full frame offerings put together, at least in Japan, where we have unit data. The 90D, SL3, M6MII are very capable prosumer cameras, without much of a native lens upgrade path from kit. A follow-up to the M5 is due shortly, fairly advanced Rebels are in the wild, and dollars to donuts, a 90DMII might happen. Can we agree a 17-55 kit upgrade would sell better than one of their new $3k behemoths?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I love my EF-S 17-55mm and would like an updated version.
However, in the coming years, the end of APS-C DSLR cameras is expected, and the market for this type of lens tends to decrease.

 

[victorshikhman]

the end of APS-C DSLR cameras is expected

Well, the entire camera market is contracting. I guess the point is, Canon's EF-M line seems secure, with more capable bodies coming, the 90D is six months old with a 3-4 year prime sales life, and there may be a 90D replacement, so this lens could be profitable for another decade. Canon may want to push sales into mirrorless, but for most of us, our existing gear is plenty capable of taking family and travel pics and youtube worthy videos for years to come. Not to mention that plenty of people are doing quality paid work with Canon's APS-C bodies, and will continue to do so for many years. Most pro photogs are not youtube influencers. I just met a guy who does macro photography for the Smithsonian and corporate headshots, 30 years in photography. His main kit is a 5DII with a 100mm f2.8 AFD. That's right, not the USM version launched in 2000, but AFD! That lens was released in 1990, and the guy is cranking out hundreds of images a week and getting paid for it.

By the way, if Sigma updated the 18-35 f1.8 with decent IS, I would settle for that, even without weather sealing. Maybe they're the ones we should be pressing, as the 18-35 remains widely popular for video on aps-c and m4/3rds, and the optics are more than sufficient for even the latest sensors.

 

[Joules]

I'd just like to point out, Canon's M50 outsells all their full frame offerings put together

But you where talking about the EF-S system, right?

A similar lens for the EF-M system is a completely different story. Given their diameter constraints, I doubt that we'll get one. EF-M is strictly about small size at this point. I am looking forward to the updates that we're originally rumored for the end of 2020 but are likely now pushed back into 2021 on the EF-M system's direction.

As for EF-S, it simply doesn't make much sense to keep that alive at this point. I would not expect Sigma to put money into that pit either. The way I see it, the only way for Canon to improve the existing EF-S lineup notably enough is to make it more compact or improve it optically. Under the smaller market, it only makes sense to make investments where the money has the most effect. Which is EF-M for smaller and FF for better quality.

 

[mb66energy]

I think the probability of an f/4 15-60mm EF-M is much higher which would fit into their 60mm diameter obsession - IMO EF-S is dead - more or less.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I doubt that they will be upgrading a higher end lens like that. The original cost was much higher than it is now. I don't expect buyers to want to pay $1450. (it was $1150 when announced in 2006 and that's roughly $1450 in 2020 dollars..

 

[Antono Refa]

I think the break between amateurs who can move to EOS-M and pros who can upgrade to RF isn't that clear cut, especially in regard to lenses. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM costs a 1/3rd the price of the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM, and in order to keep the pixel density the photographer would have to buy the more expensive R5. One could wait for a cheaper f/4 version & the R5's price to drop, but the 7DmkII is already 6 years old.

Which is why I think there's sense in releasing a 7DmkIII and an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS mkII, as long as Canon thinks there's profit in it, which depends on factors such as market size, patience, and competition.

 

[pj1974]

I quite like the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, USM IS and realise it worked very well for many on their APS-C DSLRs. Having a moderately bright aperture and IS is a good combination.

For me, the 17-55mm range was not quite what I needed in a all-purpose zoom, so I opted for Canon's 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens instead. It has similarly very good optical quality. And while a bit slower, the extra mm on both the wide and tele ends matched my needs better.

I can't see Canon coming out with a vii of the EF-S 17-55mm, although I understand some customer would really like it.

I believe Canon will stick to EF-M for compactness (and they have some decent lenses in that line-up too) - and RF mount for larger and higher quality lenses.

PJ

 

[victorshikhman]

Funny. Today on CR, two stories published of both an M50 and a 7DMII successor!
It's unclear if the camera mounts will be EF-M or RF, or one each.

There is only ONE lens mount capable of mounting to an APS-C camera in either EF-M or RF camera mounts and fully illuminating an APS-C sensor without the waste of EF lenses - EF-S (with adapter)! Come on guys and girls, you know it. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS II needs to happen

And I'll sweeten the pot, just to grow continued EF-S lens support... Canon should release a 7DMIII in DSLR. All you sports and wildlife shooters are out there for hours, looking through your viewfinders, waiting for the right moment to spray and pray. So, either you'll be looking at a crappy digital LCD with low resolution and contrast, or a gorgeous LCD that saps battery life without mercy. A 7DMIII DSLR with a high pixel count APS-C sensor just makes sense. And that means an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS II needs to happen!