Review on Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens - Compatible with Canon DSLR Cameras (Lens Only) by Adithep Saengdern
A good product, I advise you to try it.
Used analogs include the Canon 18-135 STM and the 24-105 f4 L. The same FR is being used here. I tested it against an alternate staffer CANON 24-105 f4 L in sunny weather, but with clouds, then in drizzling rain, and then inside an apartment with and without a flash at aperture 5.6, which turned out to be the most optimal setting for both lenses. The following are the deductions I made: For my own purposes, I find that hue 24-105 is a touch cozier, more vivacious, and more fascinating. This one appeared to have a bit more contrast, seemingly as a result of the less evident warmth. The center of the photograph has the same level of sharpness throughout. The two lenses in the camera were brought into proper alignment. I chose to bring it along as a second staffer in addition to the 24-105 f4 L because I wanted a wide angle lens that was also renowned for its sharpness, picture quality, and aperture. It was only possible as a result of the wide angle and aperture ratio of one stop that it turned out this way. All of this is in contrast to the 24-105 f4 L, whose focal lengths are more suited to my shooting style. The difference is readily apparent when compared to the EF-S 18-135 STM that I previously owned or the whale 18-55 that I currently have. Because of this, it is a fantastic crop staff member for you if these particular FRs fit your playstyle. Yet, it is abundantly clear that the price is excessively expensive, allegedly as a result of the absence of a suitable alternative; it is, after all, the best EF-S lens. It won't work to sell something that's virtually brand new, even if it's in wonderful condition, if you don't cut the price by a third. Just being pricey led to a reduction in the ranking. HURRAH. Sold for a loss that was just 15% of the original buying price. I have resolved never to shop again. It does not provide excellent quality, but the price is comparable to gold plating.
- f2.8 all the time. And other times, when it is working, the sharpness is practically indistinguishable from what it would be at f4; other times, of course, it is clearly worse. Even in extremely dim lighting situations, the autofocus is quite good; nevertheless, it refocuses with every half-press of the button, even if there was no change in the distance at which the subject should be focused. In comparison to the Canon ef-s 18-135 STM, the image is significantly more interesting (and probably other whale ones too). First of all, there is a stabilizer present, and the sharpness is really good. and to wrap things up.
- Overpriced. Distortion when shot at 17 millimeters, but this might be viewed as an asset when photographing landscapes. Absence of protection against dust and moisture, which, given the price, should be present. When compared to EF lenses (such as the 24–105 f4 L and the EF 40 STM), there is a discernible decrease in the level of detail towards the frame's outer corners. And speaking for myself, I don't think that will be enough in the long run.
