Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE

[Daniel 78d]

Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.

 

[Don Haines]

Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.

still here in Canada....

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I expect a decent update for 17-55mm F2.8. It could be a STM version launch price below $800, and not sucking dust inside.

 

[Ryan708]

It is still there for me, but just sends you to the main page

 

[dcm]

The Canon USA Store still has it listed. Currently "Out of stock", but so are several other lenses.

 

[SpartanII]

The Canon USA Store still has it listed. Currently "Out of stock", but so are several other lenses.

I think he was referring to the main (non-store) product url here.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

 

[Canon Rumors]

Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.

These things happen from time to time.

 

[Frage]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

 

[mangobutter]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

But it IS a 2.8, isn't it? If you put a 24-70 2.8 on a crop it's the same.

Aperture and DOF, although related, are not the same (from what I understand)...

 

[ReggieABrown]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

Looking at it like that, I guess a 2.8 on a "full frame" really isn't a 2.8 when compared to using a real 2.8 f stop lens on a medium format or large format camera.

 

[Joey]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

Aperture is written as a ratio - focal length divided by a number representing the effective maximum diameter of the lens aperture. It describes the brightness of the image on the sensor (or film, in the old days). An f/2.8 lens resolves an image of the same brightness no matter what size sensor the camera has. You can set the camera to manual and use an external light meter and if the light meter says 125th of a second at f/8 you can dial those settings in on a crop camera, a full frame camera or even a medium format camera and the exposure will be right on all three.

I've seen statements on these forums several times claiming that the effective aperture of a lens is different on a crop camera than on a full frame camera, but I haven't read that justified anywhere. Someone even pointed me to a dense article on equivalence which I ploughed through, but it didn't convince me that I'm wrong about this. Can anyone explain this assertion so that a bear of very little brain can understand it?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)
this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

There are some people who think: "DOF is the only thing that matters"

"But, full frame will have more shallow DOF" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

"But, APS-C will have more noise" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

"But, APS-C does not allow ISO 51000" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

"But, APS-C does not capture all the light that enters through a lens EF" :'(

This does not change the fact that a F2.8 lens will have identical exposure in APS-C and full frame. :

 

[kiwi]

why isn't the 17-85mm gone ?

What I don't understand is why the EF-S 17-85 is still there. I thought it would've been discontinued not long after the EF-S 15-85mm was released. The 15-85 is one third dearer but it's so much better that buying the 17-85 is a weird decision, isn't it?

 

[Famateur]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

Aperture is written as a ratio - focal length divided by a number representing the effective maximum diameter of the lens aperture. It describes the brightness of the image on the sensor (or film, in the old days). An f/2.8 lens resolves an image of the same brightness no matter what size sensor the camera has. You can set the camera to manual and use an external light meter and if the light meter says 125th of a second at f/8 you can dial those settings in on a crop camera, a full frame camera or even a medium format camera and the exposure will be right on all three.

I've seen statements on these forums several times claiming that the effective aperture of a lens is different on a crop camera than on a full frame camera, but I haven't read that justified anywhere. Someone even pointed me to a dense article on equivalence which I ploughed through, but it didn't convince me that I'm wrong about this. Can anyone explain this assertion so that a bear of very little brain can understand it?

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

• For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
• For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?

 

[Joey]

Re: why isn't the 17-85mm gone ?

What I don't understand is why the EF-S 17-85 is still there. I thought it would've been discontinued not long after the EF-S 15-85mm was released. The 15-85 is one third dearer but it's so much better that buying the 17-85 is a weird decision, isn't it?

Yes, the 17-85mm, not to be confused with the excellent 17-55mm f/2.8, is a disappointing lens, it was the first EF-S lens I bought and I quickly disposed of it when the 17-55 was released. Terrible chromatic aberration, as I remember. The 17-55 lens, on the other hand, is superb.

 

[DomTomLondon]

I used the 17-55 IS lens for years on my 40D and then 7D. It is a great fast standard zoom lens for photo and video. And with IS to boot. I have not found anything equivalent for full frame yet. The closest was the 24-70 Tamron VC, but with its doddgy AF I had to send it back. The canon lens was a treat to use. Yes a bit of dust got in but it never effected the image quality. Mind, I didn't use to pixel peep the way I do now, I use to just shoot and enjoy.

 

[Botts]

Re: why isn't the 17-85mm gone ?

What I don't understand is why the EF-S 17-85 is still there. I thought it would've been discontinued not long after the EF-S 15-85mm was released. The 15-85 is one third dearer but it's so much better that buying the 17-85 is a weird decision, isn't it?

That is odd. The 15-85 blows away the 17-85, and isn't that much more, I'm blown away the 17-85 wasn't disco'd. I was under the impression it had been.

Honestly, for EF-S "normal" zooms, I see the market for the following:

1. Cheap kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6)
2. Enthusiast kit lens (17-85mm f/3.5-5.6)
3. Fast aperture prosumer standard zoom lens (17-55mm f/2.8)

Where the 17-85 fits in is anyones guess. Cheap enthusiast kit lens?




Back to topic:

If I had to make a wish list to replace the 17-55mm, I'd add the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Modern/upgraded IS
[*]Weather sealing
[*]Dust reduction
[/list]

Unrealistic ask: f/1.8 performance. Though if trading off IS was the exchange, I think it actually would hurt marketability.

Enthusiast users like my dad like the fast and sharp 2.8 with IS, but when he borrows my 6D, really misses the IS for tripod free night landscape shots even if he's using my 35mm f/1.4. Last time he borrowed my 6D, I rented a 24-70 f/4 IS for him, and he actually preferred it over the 24-70 f/2.8 and 35 f/1.4.

I used the 17-55 IS lens for years on my 40D and then 7D. It is a great fast standard zoom lens for photo and video. And with IS to boot. I have not found anything equivalent for full frame yet.

Agreed. When I lent my dad the 6D as mentioned above, he found the same thing, nothing could offer the 2.8 aperture with IS combo that he found so dear. His favorite lens on the 6D was the 24-70 IS, the only saving grace was the 6D's high ISO performance is at least a stop better than the 7D.

The lack of a comparable lens is why he is going to buy a 7D2 instead of 6D. The Tamron 24-70VC is close, but the thing weighs a bloody ton, and AF/IS is not perfect.

 

[Joey]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

Aperture is written as a ratio - focal length divided by a number representing the effective maximum diameter of the lens aperture. It describes the brightness of the image on the sensor (or film, in the old days). An f/2.8 lens resolves an image of the same brightness no matter what size sensor the camera has. You can set the camera to manual and use an external light meter and if the light meter says 125th of a second at f/8 you can dial those settings in on a crop camera, a full frame camera or even a medium format camera and the exposure will be right on all three.

I've seen statements on these forums several times claiming that the effective aperture of a lens is different on a crop camera than on a full frame camera, but I haven't read that justified anywhere. Someone even pointed me to a dense article on equivalence which I ploughed through, but it didn't convince me that I'm wrong about this. Can anyone explain this assertion so that a bear of very little brain can understand it?

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

• For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
• For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?

That's how I understand it too.

Depth of field is an imponderable, depending on a range of factors including the eyesight of the observer(!) and it's a lot less simple than stating that depth of field of a particular lens and aperture on a crop camera will be 1.6x what it would be on a full frame camera.

F numbers describe aperture, which describes image brightness, and has an influence on depth of field but there are other factors involved too. It is therefore misleading to state that an f/2.8 EFS lens is 'actually an f/4.4 lens'.

 

[Lee Jay]

This lens needs to be replaced, and the new one needs to start at 15mm, not 17mm. I can't believe how many low-end compacts start at 24mm-equivalent and that Canon only makes one crop-lens that does, the 15-85IS, and it's not even their top-of-the-line!

EF-s 15-60/2.8 IS with better build, please!