Any experience with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM

Reading a lot of positive reviews on this lens but don't trust reviewers as much as I trust folks here. Primarily for use with Canon C200 but also hoping it will work well with BMCC 6K P and UMB G2.

Reading a lot of positive reviews on this lens but don't trust reviewers as much as I trust folks here. Primarily for use with Canon C200 but also hoping it will work well with BMCC 6K P and UMB G2.

I had from many years, I can tell you it s a good lens, work very well.
At 2.8 is a bit soft against a sigma 18-35 1.8 but I love it (I had both).
I used it from Bmpc4k to Ursa Mini Pro g1 and pocket6k g1.

His stabiliser give me freedom to do run and gun with ursa and with smaller cameras and it’s quality is very good for my needing.

For its price I think is a great lens, when I need different solution I had different lenses.
I think work very well in Blackmagic Design environment, and not only be cause often I use it with Fuji x-t4 with fringed adapter.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I've been looking at this as well. Need a short zoom that stabilizes. Also thinking over the Canon 16-35mm F4 as well. Anyone have thoughts on why one over the other?

I am a long-time user of this lens and it has lived on my Pocket 6k Pro since I bought the camera. (Aside from a few narrative projects)

Its light, sharp, covers a great focal length, and had really good IS.
Took it on a doc in Africa and it was flawless.

Can’t recommend it enough as an aps-c sized sensor

Reading a lot of positive reviews on this lens but don't trust reviewers as much as I trust folks here. Primarily for use with Canon C200 but also hoping it will work well with BMCC 6K P and UMB G2.

I had from many years, I can tell you it s a good lens, work very well.
At 2.8 is a bit soft against a sigma 18-35 1.8 but I love it (I had both).
I used it from Bmpc4k to Ursa Mini Pro g1 and pocket6k g1.

His stabiliser give me freedom to do run and gun with ursa and with smaller cameras and it’s quality is very good for my needing.

For its price I think is a great lens, when I need different solution I had different lenses.
I think work very well in Blackmagic Design environment, and not only be cause often I use it with Fuji x-t4 with fringed adapter.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I am a long-time user of this lens and it has lived on my Pocket 6k Pro since I bought the camera. (Aside from a few narrative projects)

Its light, sharp, covers a great focal length, and had really good IS.
Took it on a doc in Africa and it was flawless.

Can’t recommend it enough as an aps-c sized sensor

Thank you both of you. It is on it's way!!! This will be my first actual Canon glass. Pretty excited about putting it through some paces.

I had used this lens before and it is a sharp lens. However at full aperture, it is soft so I ended up giving it to my son and got me the Sigma equivalent, which is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 IS. The Sigma is sharper and had paired well with my 18-35 f1.8 ART, when I need to shoot with handheld movements. The Sigma is also a EF mount and works with the electronics of the BM cameras. Both are nice walk-about lenses. I noticed my son borrows my Sigma 17-50mm often even after I gave him the Canon. I think it is because he also has a pocket 4K with the Metabones SB which does not work with EF-S lenses. I’m surprise they are still being sold in retailers.

I had used this lens before and it is a sharp lens. However at full aperture, it is soft so I ended up giving it to my son and got me the Sigma equivalent, which is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 IS. The Sigma is sharper and had paired well with my 18-35 f1.8 ART, when I need to shoot with handheld movements. The Sigma is also a EF mount and works with the electronics of the BM cameras. Both are nice walk-about lenses. I noticed my son borrows my Sigma 17-50mm often even after I gave him the Canon. I think it is because he has a pocket 4K with the Metabones SB which does not work with EF-S lenses. I’m surprise they are still being sold in retailers.

Thank you Ellory, I got it used. I've always got good used products from B&H and never been disappointed. The will most often claim minor signs of use in appearance but I usually can't find any.

I've been looking at this as well. Need a short zoom that stabilizes. Also thinking over the Canon 16-35mm F4 as well. Anyone have thoughts on why one over the other?

Marshall, both lenses are good for the BM cameras but my friend who has the C200 said there are issues with the 17-55mm EF-S so he opted for the 16-35 EF. One of the issue is slight vignetting with EF-S lenses when it’s wide open. There are similar complaints on dvxuser forum as well.

If you’re looking at the Canon 16-35, I suggest going for the 18-35mm F1.8 Sigma ART. That’s a sharp and excellent lens. I’ve been using it more often than any others except on well budgeted production. It just doesn’t have IS.

I've had mine for years, and I bought it for my Canon C100 Mark II but I also use it on my 6K Pro and swap it out with the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 as although the Sigma is sharper, it does not have IS so for more hand-held shots then I'll go for the Canon and I'm not that fussed on the slight soft image it can produce against the Sigma as that's not everything.

This may help

Doesn't mention the 17-55 but explains why the 18-35 and 16-35 combo are not either or on S35 / P6k

Thanks again for the two above responses. I tried the two Canon fit zoom lenses I had with IS and one was fair and the other dismal. On the one that was dismal I had to turn off both autofucus and IS to get anything reasonable hand held. Tomorrow the Canon EF-S 17-55 should arrive so I will know soon how that works out. In the mean time have high hopes.

Thanks again for the two above responses. I tried the two Canon fit zoom lenses I had with IS and one was fair and the other dismal. On the one that was dismal I had to turn off both autofucus and IS to get anything reasonable hand held. Tomorrow the Canon EF-S 17-55 should arrive so I will know soon how that works out. In the mean time have high hopes.

you will be happy, i did tons of shooting with it, video and photo and i like its look. ;-D

Thanks again for the two above responses. I tried the two Canon fit zoom lenses I had with IS and one was fair and the other dismal. On the one that was dismal I had to turn off both autofucus and IS to get anything reasonable hand held. Tomorrow the Canon EF-S 17-55 should arrive so I will know soon how that works out. In the mean time have high hopes.

you will be happy, i did tons of shooting with it, video and photo and i like its look. ;-D

Thank you Carlo. As you may have guessed, I'm excited about trying it out. Hand holding is the bug-a-boo I am working on right now. As I was hoping, the C200 is the best handheld so far. Between the side grip that I can rotate and how the bottom of the camera fits in my left hand it is just as good as the UMB G2 on my shoulder. There's something about the DSLR form factor that just doesn't work for me when trying to hand hold. I still like the braw look more than the Canon raw light but they are close and they cut together good enough regarding color.

Only the reds need some attention at times, but other than that they match pretty well.
Please note that lenses contribute to color too. Some extreme cases can shift from cool to warm when changing aperture.

Only the reds need some attention at times, but other than that they match pretty well.
Please note that lenses contribute to color too. Some extreme cases can shift from cool to warm when changing aperture.

Thank you Uli. I'm still just doing a lot of experimenting with the camera. So far I do like braw better. The colors to me just look richer. Maybe as time goes by I can get better with grading the raw lite but for now it's more about where the noise starts, how it handles the highlights, and simple things like that. I watch the news lens closely with what I have learned here. One thing I did notice right away was a shift between the two raws from about 40 to 70 ire. There's a pretty significant difference on how those mid tones are spread out.

That’s part of the fact that every manufacturer makes their own log.

That’s part of the fact that every manufacturer makes their own log.

Hand holding is the bug-a-boo I am working on right now. As I was hoping, the C200 is the best handheld so far. Between the side grip that I can rotate and how the bottom of the camera fits in my left hand it is just as good as the UMB G2 on my shoulder.

When I bought the Pocket 6K Pro with the EVF I thought that was finally something I could hand hold like a C100. The Canon 55-250 IS is also something I've found to work hand held at times with both the Canon and the Pocket 6K Pro.

Hand holding is the bug-a-boo I am working on right now. As I was hoping, the C200 is the best handheld so far. Between the side grip that I can rotate and how the bottom of the camera fits in my left hand it is just as good as the UMB G2 on my shoulder.

When I bought the Pocket 6K Pro with the EVF I thought that was finally something I could hand hold like a C100. The Canon 55-250 IS is also something I've found to work hand held at times with both the Canon and the Pocket 6K Pro.

I can do fairly well with the BMPCC 4k and BMPCC 6kP but not as well as with the C200. Just that little difference in hand position, weight, balance, makes a difference for me. Appreciate the advice on the 55-250. I'm gonna practice with 50mm and under for awhile before attempting anything longer. Great to have recommendation however.

It came and WoW! Thank you all again for steering me in the right direction. What a difference! That is a lens for hand holding! Like a rock all the way out to 50mm. Never before with other lenses.

Only the reds need some attention at times, but other than that they match pretty well.
Please note that lenses contribute to color too. Some extreme cases can shift from cool to warm when changing aperture.

As always, you nailed it my friend. It's the reds. I really appreciate you pointing this out. It would have taken me forever to find it on my own.

Guys who can share sample shoots with Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM and Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM on Blackmagic cameras?

Guys who can share sample shoots with Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM and Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM on Blackmagic cameras?

This is the video that sold me on the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM.

Notice the slight vignetting on the video. If you’re good with that it’s a good lens. The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 IS does not have that artifact and about 40% less in cost.

The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 IS does not have that artifact and about 40% less in cost.

Sigma 17-50mm is more sharper than Canon EF-S 17-55mm?
Which lens stabilization works better on bmpcc6k pro by your opinion?

Guys who can share sample shoots with Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM and Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM on Blackmagic cameras?

After the first 3 shots, it's the Sigma 17-50mm with the Viltrox speedbooster:

I also own the Canon 17-55mm and the Tamron 17-50mm.

I honestly dislike all 3 lenses: Tamron's VC and Sigma's stabilization are abysmal, and while Canon fairs better, it has a very annoying mechanical design flaw: if you move the camera downwards, the zoom lens will zoom-in all by itself (essentially, the zooming mechanism responds to gravity). Very annoying. Other zoom lenses, even heavier lenses, don't do that.

Also note, the Canon 17-55mm does not fit speedboosters, because it's an EF-S lens, not a plain EF.

As for Tamron: I have two of these same 17-50mm lenses and BOTH have the same problem: the front filter ring becomes loose after a couple of years. And while this is not an issue for photography, it's a pain for video, because the filter ring does a clang-clang noise when moving the camera around, that the camera's microphone picks up.

If you're looking into good-enough stabilization with an EF lens, then you're going to have a bad time. Canon developed a version that works well-enough with video only in 2015 onwards, so apart from the EF-M 15-45mm (for EOS-M) and a couple of EF lenses around that time, you won't find good video EF stabilization lenses. And it's not about USM support either: it's about being specifically optimized for video, and not just for motor noise. That EOS-M kit lens for example, is probably the best stabilized EF lens ever released (the EF-M is not mount-compatible, but it's the same underlying architecture as EF).

You'll have to go mirrorless to find good implementations (e.g. the Sony 18-105, 28-70, some M4/3 lenses, and all stabilized R lenses). You won't get the same stabilization performance with EF lenses, particularly with third party lenses. Tamron has micro-vibrations, and Sigma does weird things at times: steady, steady, steady, jerk, steady, steady, jerk... (all by itself).

Bottomline: get the Sigma, disable its stabilization, and use it with a gimbal.

I guess from both lenses I will definitely choose Sigma 17-50, because the image looks closer to Sigma 18-35 which I prefer the most than any Canon lenses.

Only the reds need some attention at times, but other than that they match pretty well.
Please note that lenses contribute to color too. Some extreme cases can shift from cool to warm when changing aperture.

I think I found a good method for the reds. I go to the curves, pick hue vs hue and select red. The adjustment is fine enough to get a good match in a hurry.

I loved this lens, had the smoothest IS of any lens I ever used and was my go-to for my RED Scarlet back then. Bummed I sold it years ago.

I loved this lens, had the smoothest IS of any lens I ever used and was my go-to for my RED Scarlet back then. Bummed I sold it years ago.

I'm right with you. I don't have tons of lenses to compare it to but I think it's my favorite lens. I'm thinking about buying a second one. One for the C200 and one for the UMBG2. Those are the two cameras I use off tripod. The C200 handheld and the UMBG2 on my shoulder.

Also note, the Canon 17-55mm does not fit speedboosters, because it's an EF-S lens, not a plain EF

There's an easy hack for the Canon 17-55 to fit speed boosters. I used it on the original BMPCC with a 0.45x SB, I took the back part off and put it back on later several times without issues or damage.

The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 IS does not have that artifact and about 40% less in cost.

Sigma 17-50mm is more sharper than Canon EF-S 17-55mm?
Which lens stabilization works better on bmpcc6k pro by your opinion?

I had both lenses and the there's a world of difference between both IS.

Canon 17-55 has the best IS I ever had on a lens. Smooth, organic. As if you're holding a very large and heavy camera.

The Sigma will introduce ugly 'chops' to your image - when it thinks it has to readjust the frame, it will do so in a sharp, fast move and then freeze again. I find it impossible to avoid it.

The C200 handheld and the UMBG2 on my shoulder.

I never had a better lens for handheld work. Loved the way the IS smoothly adapted to my movements.

The C200 handheld and the UMBG2 on my shoulder.

I never had a better lens for handheld work. Loved the way the IS smoothly adapted to my movements.

I have a sigma and some Nikons with IS but they are all calibrated to photography. They do the lock and release thing making video jump around. Great for getting a hand held still of a bird at 600mm but not so great for video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRus-5vit9s

I had both lenses and the there's a world of difference between both IS.

Canon 17-55 has the best IS I ever had on a lens. Smooth, organic. As if you're holding a very large and heavy camera.

The Sigma will introduce ugly 'chops' to your image - when it thinks it has to readjust the frame, it will do so in a sharp, fast move and then freeze again. I find it impossible to avoid it.

Ok, so for stabilization you would recommend canon 17-55 vs sigma 17-50.
But when it comes to the sharpness, modern look I guess sigma wins?
As for my opinion canon have oldish color rendering which I don't like at all.

I had both lenses and the there's a world of difference between both IS.

Canon 17-55 has the best IS I ever had on a lens. Smooth, organic. As if you're holding a very large and heavy camera.

The Sigma will introduce ugly 'chops' to your image - when it thinks it has to readjust the frame, it will do so in a sharp, fast move and then freeze again. I find it impossible to avoid it.

Ok, so for stabilization you would recommend canon 17-55 vs sigma 17-50.
But when it comes to the sharpness, modern look I guess sigma wins?
As for my opinion canon have oldish color rendering which I don't like at all.

That's an interesting perspective. The trend today in cinema when recording people is perfectly smooth skin achieved through blurring. Personally, I don't care for it. I prefer some character in faces.

As an a additional comparison video.

Also note, the Canon 17-55mm does not fit speedboosters, because it's an EF-S lens, not a plain EF

There's an easy hack for the Canon 17-55 to fit speed boosters. I used it on the original BMPCC with a 0.45x SB, I took the back part off and put it back on later several times without issues or damage.

mmm ok i will be a bit feared to put a clamp in the lenses like him... if i would do it i prefer to try to disassemble mount and extract with dismounted mount, better to risk to do some soldering than replace a lenses scratched :-O

mmm ok i will be a bit feared to put a clamp in the lenses like him... if i would do it i prefer to try to disassemble mount and extract with dismounted mount, better to risk to do some soldering than replace a lenses scratched :-O

You don't need a clamp like that. It goes off pretty easy, you just need something to create a decent pull. Way less risk than disassembling anything!

mmm ok i will be a bit feared to put a clamp in the lenses like him... if i would do it i prefer to try to disassemble mount and extract with dismounted mount, better to risk to do some soldering than replace a lenses scratched :-O

You don't need a clamp like that. It goes off pretty easy, you just need something to create a decent pull. Way less risk than disassembling anything!

I have a bit of experience on disasseble lenses (vintage) and some modern, less with clamp and i ever fear to scratch lens.
Did you tried with yours? i had pocket 6k and ursa and not give me problem with speebooster, but with ursa (which had a little bigger sensor) the 17-55 in a some position give me a bit of vignette, and i dont' know if could be a plastic problems or is lens problems.

The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 IS does not have that artifact and about 40% less in cost.

Sigma 17-50mm is more sharper than Canon EF-S 17-55mm?
Which lens stabilization works better on bmpcc6k pro by your opinion?

@haik, sorry for the late response. I have not been following this thread. To answer your question, the Canon 17-55mm EF-S has better stabilization but if I turn off the AF on the Sigma 17-50mm, the choppiness Michael mentioned is abysmal good enough for me, at least IMO. Definitely the Sigma is much sharper, less organic. It’s a good match if you have the 18-35mm Art lens. If you are on the BMPCC 4K with a speed booster, then the Canon won’t work unless you do some kind of a mod which I personally don’t attempt to do. On a C200, the Canon slightly vignette at the 17-18, but the Sigma will not.

Did you tried with yours?

Yes, several times. No issues getting it off and back on but you need a bit of pull to get it off.

On bigger sensors the lens might vignette as it's an APS-C lens.

To answer your question, the Canon 17-55mm EF-S has better stabilization but if I turn off the AF on the Sigma 17-50mm, the choppiness Michael mentioned is abysmal good enough for me, at least IMO.

Ellory by your opinion sigma's image stabilization will be the same as canon's if I will turn off AF and use it on BMPCC6K Pro?
Some users already told me that sigma's IS is not constant as it's periodically chops, but I don't understand will that chops gone If I will turn of the AF on sigma?
As for me is important at first IS.

Who can make a short video test with both these lenses turned off AF and turned on IS and shooting handheld 30 seconds some clips, like video portraits on a BMPCC6K/Pro cameras?

I had both lenses and the there's a world of difference between both IS.

The Sigma will introduce ugly 'chops' to your image - when it thinks it has to readjust the frame, it will do so in a sharp, fast move and then freeze again. I find it impossible to avoid it.

1. Michel did you noticed any changer into better sigma's IS if you turned off it's AF?
Would it fix weird chops on sigma?

2. Can you make a video test for both lenses with turned on IS and turned off AF?

Ellory by your opinion sigma's image stabilization will be the same as canon's if I will turn off AF and use it on BMPCC6K Pro?
Some users already told me that sigma's IS is not constant as it's periodically chops, but I don't understand will that chops gone If I will turn of the AF on sigma?
As for me is important at first IS.

In fairness, the Canon will have a slightly better IS that the Sigma. However I have not encountered the choppiness from the Sigma with AF turned off. In fact, I wouldn’t call it choppy. It’s more like a fast jerky change because the AF will respond rather quickly. Turning it off seems to heal that IME. Now, when I do handheld, I also have some experience with ninja walking so that too cooperates with my operation.

If you want smoothness, you’ll likely want a gimbal. But that too have its own problems when you marry it with the lens IS as they can be contradictory.

However I have not encountered the choppiness from the Sigma with AF turned off. In fact, I wouldn’t call it choppy. It’s more like a fast jerky change because the AF will respond rather quickly.

Thanks Ellory that's an interesting comment.

Did you tried with yours?

Yes, several times. No issues getting it off and back on but you need a bit of pull to get it off.

On bigger sensors the lens might vignette as it's an APS-C lens.

Thanks a lot
it's a very mild vignetting, but if is so simple i will try to do it. to protect electronics a can 3d print a new and smaller cap