Can anyone give a report on using the EF-S 17-55 with the C300?

[Stuart OSteen]

Hello all.

I noted in a different thread that people are planning to use the excellent EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens with the C300. I called Canon support yesterday, though, and was told that the 17-55 would vignette, as would my less-useful-for-video EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 lens.

Does anyone have any hands-on experience with either of these lenses on the C300? If so, would you please share it with me? I'm trying to determine my budget for buying the thing (including lenses and peripherals).

Many thanks!

[Chris Hurd]

I have both of those lenses as well -- but I do not have a C300 in hand. So, count me in as also interested in this topic.

[Graham King]

Vignetting is not a problem with the 17-55. I have peripheral illumination turned on of course and it looks great all the way through the zoom range. But I do prefer the 24-105. That's my main workhorse and I use the 17-55 if I need a little more light or a wider shot. But overall I'm happy with the 17-55 on the C300.

[Thierry Humeau]

The 17-55 is a lightweight and great all-around, fast zoom for handheld work. I wish there would be a bit more travel range on the focus ring but basically, this is a must have wide zoom for every C300 user who is looking a good compromise between price, versatility and quality.

[Stuart OSteen]

Thank you Graham. It's great to know that my lovely EF-S 17-55 will work, after all. And I agree, Thierry, that this lens will serve me well, as it has in the past. Also, thanks to you, Graham, for suggesting the 24-105mm lens. I had my eye on the 24-70mm f2.8 because of the speed, and because I have everything above 70mm covered, but now that I think about it, an f4 lens with a longer zoom range may be just the ticket if I have the 17-55 for that extra stop or wider angle in case I need it.

[Graham King]

I'm selling my 24-70 because I just don't use it anymore. Having IS for handheld work is great so I definitely prefer the 24-105. And with the C300's crazy ISO ability, f/4 is not a problem even in low light situations.

I wish they would do an L quality version of the 17-55 but from what I understand Canon doesn't do L glass for EF-S lenses. Too bad because I'd love to have a longer throw on the focus ring like Thierry said, smoother zoom travel, and a more rugged body.

[Menno Mennes]

What about the Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Canon on the C300?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Graham King

I wish they would do an L quality version of the 17-55 but from what I understand Canon doesn't do L glass for EF-S lenses.

The EF-S 17-55mm IS has a secret which I'm happy to share with you. The secret is that this
lens, for all practical purposes, is just as good as any L-series lens... in fact, as far as optical
quality is concerned, it's even better than some L-series lenses. The only thing that keeps it
from having a red ring and that L designation is its incompatibility with a 1D series body (by
virtue of its short backfocus, hence the EF-S nomenclature).

Basically, there won't be an an "L quality version" of the 17-55 IS because it's already built to
L-quality standards. The better question is, will Canon ever add IS to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 or
the EF 17-40mm f/4, but I don't think that's likely either.

[David A. Fisher]

Not exactly the lenses y'all are talking about, but today I decided to pull out an EFS that I haven't touched in three years, the efs 18-55. I slapped it on the c300 and gave it a whirl. Kept it at a 5.6 to be able to zoom through the range without having to adjust the iris, so the ISO is at 1400. Here's the sample:

efs_18-55_test on Vimeo

[Chris Hurd]

I'd like to see the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 on a C300... heh.

[David A. Fisher]

Ok. But for the record, I paid $75 for my Plastic Fantastic:

Plastic Fantastic on Vimeo

[Robert Sanders]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The EF-S 17-55mm IS has a secret which I'm happy to share with you. The secret is that this
lens, for all practical purposes, is just as good as any L-series lens... in fact, as far as optical
quality is concerned, it's even better than some L-series lenses. The only thing that keeps it
from having a red ring and that L designation is its incompatibility with a 1D series body (by
virtue of its short backfocus, hence the EF-S nomenclature).

Basically, there won't be an an "L quality version" of the 17-55 IS because it's already built to
L-quality standards. The better question is, will Canon ever add IS to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 or
the EF 17-40mm f/4, but I don't think that's likely either.

Yup. I've heard that too. Which is why it's in my Amazon queue waiting for a spare grand to appear in my checking account. ;)

[Robert Sanders]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I'd like to see the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 on a C300... heh.

Ha! That little guy sat on my 7D for a very long time 'til I bought it's more expensive brother.

[Graham King]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The EF-S 17-55mm IS has a secret which I'm happy to share with you. The secret is that this
lens, for all practical purposes, is just as good as any L-series lens... in fact, as far as optical
quality is concerned, it's even better than some L-series lenses. The only thing that keeps it
from having a red ring and that L designation is its incompatibility with a 1D series body (by
virtue of its short backfocus, hence the EF-S nomenclature).

I hear you on the optical quality but I have to disagree with you that the only thing keeping it from being L series is its EF-S designation. It is definitely not built like an L lens. It's plasticy, lightweight, focus ring is fiddly and has a very short throw, and the zoom ring is not nearly as buttery smooth as the 24-70, 24-105, 16-35, 70-200. But again, I agree with the bit on optical quality. It is a great lens and my complaints about it are definitely not enough to stop me from using it. I have used it a lot and I will continue to do so. But I would happily pay several hundred dollars more for an L quality build. And yes, I understand this probably isn't going to happen.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Graham King

It's plasticy, lightweight...

Ah so... however, it certainly isn't as plasticy and lightweight as the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, and that's an L-series lens.

And talk about a fiddly focus ring, the "fly by wire" focus ring on the EF 85mm F/1.2L II gives some people fits. So there!