Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

[Miss Kelly]

Would you recommend the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens ? I have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens but I'm finding that I can't get a full length photograph in a studio setting. Maybe my room is too small but I can't seem to get it right. Any suggestions on this issue or the lens?

Thanks!

 

[Miss Kelly]

 

[DueyDooDah]

I find this site has excellent information on lenses. Check out the reviews by owners.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45

 

[ndelaware]

I don't own one but I hear this lens is excellent.

 

[allyn]

i've read several reviews that make the lens sound awesome, which it should be for the price. if you don't need the IS, check the similar sigma or tamron lenses instead. almost as good and a LOT cheaper. and lighter weight.

 

[Miss Kelly]

Thanks for the replies!

So, this would be a good lens for portraits? Excellent!

 

[DueyDooDah]

So, this would be a good lens for portraits? Excellent!

Yes, but ensure that if you mount it on a tripod, you disable the IS.

 

[handicap18]

While I wouldn't consider it a "Portrait" lens, it will serve the purpose you are looking for. It is a very good lens and you'll find you'll use it more than just for portraits. It will probably be sharpest around f/8, but for your purpose I wouldn't go higher than f/4, mostly keeping it at f/2.8 especially if you get closer and use the wider end to keep the background out of focus.

Good luck.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Yes, but ensure that if you mount it on a tripod, you disable the IS.

From Canon's press release:

IS automatically detects when the camera is mounted on a tripod, thus preventing feedback loops between the IS sensor and stabilizer motor vibrations.

I believe this is the case with all of the newer Canon IS lenses. This does not apply to the older IS lenses like the 28-135 and the 75-300.

 

[Miss Kelly]

Thank you all for the words of advice.

Is there another lens I should be considering instead of the 17-55mm for Portraits?

 

[handicap18]

Thank you all for the words of advice.

Is there another lens I should be considering instead of the 17-55mm for Portraits?

A portrait is typically defined as a likeness of a person, especially of the person’s face. In the film world "portrait" lenses were generally 85mm to about 105mm and have a wide aperture: f/1.4 to f/2.8. You typically don't want to get to close to the subject. You'd want to have some space between the camera and subject to at least allow some comfort space and a feeling of not being crowded among other reasons. When translated to the digital world a "portrait" lens would be about a 50mm to 85mm, again with the same wide apertures.

For full body shots the photographer would just move him/herself further back from the subject or move the subject further away. This is something that you can't do according to your OP. The next logical step is to look for a wider lens and you have found just that, and a good one too. It will definately suit your needs. Its up to you to decide if its worth the $1000.

Another lens to consider is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical lens. Its less than 1/2 the cost and seems to be getting some excellent reviews, at least over at amazon. I haven't checked other places, but it might be worth looking into.

 

[boBQuincy]

The 17-55 is rated highly (wish I had one).
If you can't get back far enough to use your 50mm you may have no choice but to get a wider lens, however, that changes the perspective and tends to make the subject's nose look larger. I am especially sensitive to this.

50 is probably the low end of preferred focal lengths for portait work. It would be better to use the 50 or even get a 85 if you can find a way to get further back.

 

[allyn]

the 50 f/1.8 would make a great portrait lens and is cheap at under $100.

 

[Miss Kelly]

A portrait is typically defined as a likeness of a person, especially of the person’s face. In the film world "portrait" lenses were generally 85mm to about 105mm and have a wide aperture: f/1.4 to f/2.8. You typically don't want to get to close to the subject. You'd want to have some space between the camera and subject to at least allow some comfort space and a feeling of not being crowded among other reasons. When translated to the digital world a "portrait" lens would be about a 50mm to 85mm, again with the same wide apertures.

For full body shots the photographer would just move him/herself further back from the subject or move the subject further away. This is something that you can't do according to your OP. The next logical step is to look for a wider lens and you have found just that, and a good one too. It will definately suit your needs. Its up to you to decide if its worth the $1000.

Another lens to consider is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical lens. Its less than 1/2 the cost and seems to be getting some excellent reviews, at least over at amazon. I haven't checked other places, but it might be worth looking into.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your explanations are the best I've ever received. I'm looking at the Tamron now and trying to decide which one to go with. I'm a little concerned about distortion, as Bob mentioned, but hopefully that will not be too much of a problem considering I shoot mainly children (thus far).

Allyn, thank you for the suggestion although I already own that lens. I love it for the most part. I just need something a little wider.

 

[DueyDooDah]

From Canon's press release:


I believe this is the case with all of the newer Canon IS lenses. This does not apply to the older IS lenses like the 28-135 and the 75-300.

Oh, someone that reads the manual. That's just not fair!

No, really. Thanks, Mark! I have my first IS in the mail. This is good to know.

 

[allyn]

btw, i have the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC. would also be a good choice.