Skywise said:I am going to be using a 7D also. I have been looking at the Canon 17-55mm. It doesn't have the same range as the 18-85 others have mentioned already, but that f2.8 is very attractive (not only for this trip, but for a great lens to add to my kit after). Has anyone had experience traveling with this lens? Did you miss that 15-17mm or 55-85mm range at all?
I've got the 17-55, the 10-22 wide angle and the 70-300 EF. The 17-55 was my standard walk around for awhile, especially in Vegas at night. It's colors and sharpness are fantastic and the ability to take indoor shots without a flash is unsurpassed (but somewhat lessened with the newer cameras handling higher ISOs). The cons are that it's heavy and somewhat large and it's zoom range never seems to be quite close enough.
A few years back I started walking around primarily with the 10-22. It's lighter, smaller and the 22mm length was good enough for most portrait style shots I was looking for while the 10mm gave me the ability to take in much larger views and I found that combination more versatile. (If I wanted a close up shot I just moved close up. But after going back and looking at some of the photos, I didn't think the lens brought out the detail of some of my scenes as well as the 17-55 did (shadowing seemed better, colors seemed to be better represented) and my last trip I went back to it as my default lens. (Although both are in my camera bag).
Not saying the 10-22 is bad, it's great but the 17-55 edges it - especially if I'm going to shoot above 17mm.
The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, certainly L quality glass. I do not own one, but rented one for a few weeks and loved it on my 7D.
I recommended the 15-85 over it however due to focal range and price (the 15-85 is roughly $380 cheaper). If you really need a 2.8 lens, the 17-55 is an excellent option.
Upvote
0