about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
216 539755 Jun 1, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
87% of reviewers $1,019.18
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.89
7.41
9.1
l217_efs1755

Specifications:
To meet user demands for a fast EF-S zoom lens, Canon has specially designed a new lens with a large aperture of f/2.8 for select Canon Digital SLR cameras.* The large circular aperture produces a shallow depth-of-field, creating background blur that draws attention to the photographic subject. The lens construction includes UD and aspherical elements, which deliver impressive image quality throughout the entire zoom range. Image Stabilizer lens groups shift to compensate for camera movement so that the image appears steady on the image plane, ensuring clear, crisp images, even in dim light. With a Ring-type USM, inner focusing and new AF algorithms, this lens achieves autofocus quickly and quietly, and with full-time mechanical manual focusing, manually adjusting the focus is possible even in AF mode.

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 17-55mm 1:2.8
Lens Construction: 19 elements in 12 groups
Diagonal Angle of View: 7830' - 2750'
Focus Adjustment: AF with full-time manual
Closest Focusing Distance: 1.15 ft. / 0.35m
Zoom System: 5-group helical zoom (front group moves: 27mm)
Filter Size: 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.3 in. x 4.4 in., 22.8 oz. / 83.5mm x 110.6mm, 645g (lens only)


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
      
Breach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 3
Review Date: Aug 23, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:
Cons:

Well, 6 months later I have to revoke my previous 10 and give an 8 instead... Why? Because of DUST!

EF-S 17-55 is my primary lens these days. I've owned it for about 9 months now. Dust has slowly been building up, but since it has never appeared in photos so far it was good. Not until a tiny piece of lint somehow made it and stuck onto the back of the front element. Guess what? I now have to use the healing brush on every landscape shot above f/5.6 9 (those clear skies.. not). Absolutely unacceptable. Since this is obviously a design flaw I really think Canon should do a recall or at least offer some kind of free of charge (unlikely Sad) Just because this lens is not weather sealed doesn't mean it should suck in dust like that in a way which is out of control for the user. In addition the IS started to produce image jumps in the viewfinder, though it still works properly. I haven't abused the lens in any way either... This may be just me though. Don't get me wrong -- it's still a great lens wrt to image quality, but the dust issues makes me sad.


Aug 23, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Breach to your Buddy List  
William Austin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 14, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Sharp, IS
Cons:
wish it was a bit wider

This is my second review, my first copy aquired dust inside the fron and read optics after just over an hours use, alos I would note that it had a filter fitted from first use.

any way I took back my first copy and had it replaced,
I've used the new copy for just over a week and there are no signs of dust inside at all

on another plus my second copy seems even sharper than the first at F2.8

over all this lens is almost as sharp as my 24-70L, plus it has IS


Aug 14, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add William Austin to your Buddy List  
rsensors
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 13, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $995.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: 2.8, focal range (for my use) focus speed, sharpness, color contrast
Cons:
A bit steep in price

Purchased this lens as a replacement for my Tamron 28-75 2.8. The only advantage the Tamron has over this lens is size & weight (smaller & lighter) The Canon however is superior in every category related to producing great quality photos. Used it recently on a trip to Colorado & never removed it from my 20D.
Highly recommended.


Aug 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rsensors to your Buddy List  
J-Hellmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 8, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 8, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Excellent picture quality
Cons:
Dust !

A great lens, if you can live with the dust inside.



Aug 8, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add J-Hellmann to your Buddy List  
J. Hellmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 6, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 7, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Excellent picture quality
Cons:
Dust Dust Dust

A great lens - if you can live with the dust inside

Aug 7, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add J. Hellmann to your Buddy List  
Lance Couture
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2159
Review Date: Aug 7, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Stunning IQ, smooth bokeh, wonderful contrast and colour, IS, wonderful low-light performance, 77m filters, L-quality glass
Cons:
COST!! No lens hood, non-L

I bought a 30D a few weeks back - my first dSLR.

I have had high-end PnS's for a few years, and was into film a bit when I was in high-school (about 20 years ago).

I originally bought a Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro as my walk-around lens for my 30D. After a couple of weeks frustrated with soft, barrel-distorted images on two different Sigmas, I took them back and test-drove the 17-55 around the camera store and the building in which it was located.

I was blown away by the quality of the images. The colours/contrast/sharpness/bokeh reminded me of my 70-200 f/2.8L - they were that good.

I have noticed a very slight barrel distortion at 17mm, 2.8, but it only requires a very minor correction in <insert your fav PP application here>. I have not noticed the vignetting which many people see, but I have not taken any shots where I have a very uniform, bright background.

I'm not concerned about this being an EF-S mount lens. If I decide to go to a FF or 1.3 crop, I will buy an EF mount L lens, and leave this one on my 30D and keep both - its that good.

The cost of this lens is ludicrous. For this price, it really should be an L lens, considering its glass is pretty much L quality. The only things that this lens is missing to make it an L, are the metal body, weather sealing, and a hood.

Yes, the non-included hood is a rip-off at this lens' price, but honestly, big deal. I hopped on eBay and bought one for $24 + $8 shipping. For anyone who's buying the $80 over-the-counter hoods at their local shop, check your head, and buy it on-line.

I have not noticed any dust collecting in the lens yet, and I'm hoping that I will not come across that issue.

The IS has been a boon for low-light shooting, and also for my wife. I can hand-hold shots up to a second long, sometimes longer, and have them turn out - something which should not be possible. My wife on the other hand, has a terrible time HH'ing shots even in good light. With IS, she is happily able to use the camera now under most normal conditions.

I would like a bit more reach, but if I really wanted it, I would have bought something else.

All-in-all, imnsho, this is the best walk-around lens you can get for your EF-S mount camera, although, it might be a bit big for the Rebel series, depending on one's taste. The cost though, will be a deterring factor for many.


Aug 7, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Lance Couture to your Buddy List  
J. Hellmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 6, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 6, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Excellent picture quality
Cons:
A lot of dust inside

A great lens, if you can live with the dust inside

Aug 6, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add J. Hellmann to your Buddy List  
J. Hellmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 6, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 6, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Excellent picture quality and IS
Cons:
A lot of dust inside - inadmissible at this price

If you can live with dust, a great lens !!

Aug 6, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add J. Hellmann to your Buddy List  
William Austin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 6, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharp, nice build but not great, fast focusing, IS
Cons:
Dust

I bought this lens 2 days ago, I checked in store before buying it that there was no dust inside, I used it for around an hour on my 30D and then again the following day for around 30 minutes, I then noticed that there were several dust specks inside the front optic and a large speck inside the rear optic, I phoned Jacobs (camera store in the UK) wheer I bought it from and requested a swap, they didn't have one instock and refused a refund

Aug 6, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add William Austin to your Buddy List  
Amy Klaver
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 31, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Review Date: Jul 31, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: Nice focal range, f/2.8, smooth bokeh, IS, light and easy to carry around, fast AF, sharp.
Cons:
It's been said a thousand times but...DUST. Price. Plastic build. No weather sealing (!). EF-S.

Overall, this was a really great lens to use: as my Pros state, it's sharp, lovely wide aperture, smooth and creamy bokeh, fast, has Image Stabilizer etc. It has served me well over the past few months and I honestly love it to pieces. However, due to the dust issues alone, I'm inclined to say that I'm going to have to give this lens up.

The definitive moment I decided this was only over the weekend when I went up to Warnambool, Vic, Australia. The weather was atrocious - blistering winds, lots of seaspray and rain. I never took my camera down to any beaches, nor did I take it out in the rain. I merely stood on the viewing platforms of the look-outs to take my shots. However, when I went back to the car, just before going to the 12 Apostles, I was horrified to see such a large amount of specks of dust under the glass. Looking back, I can't think of what else I could have done to prevent the dust/sand getting into the lens. There is absolutely no weather sealing on this lens so when you zoom out, the lens is completely vulnerable to the elements.

I bought this lens to replace my 17-85 f/4-5.6 and, natually, the quality in comparison is prestine. I came here to decide whether or not to buy this lens and I got some great advice to consider. However, I mst admit that I didn't really take a lot of notice when people called this lens a 'vacuum' as not everybody experienced dust issues, so I took my chances and hoped that I'd be one of the luckier ones.

I'd recommend this lens to anybody who doesn't do much nature photography and would use it more for indoor use such as studio work, weddings etc. It works wonders in low-light situations due to the combination of a wide aperture and IS (I could handhold the camera at 1/4 sec), portraits, still life and practically anything where dust or moisture won't be of great concern.

I don't want to give up this lens, I really don't, but I honestly don't think I have a choice. When I'm out and about in the unpredictable Melbourne weather, I need to know that my equipment can stand up to the job. Should Canon ever release this lens with L series build quality, I'd have no hesitations to buy it again.


Jul 31, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Amy Klaver to your Buddy List  
froggynaan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
Review Date: Jul 31, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,130.00

Pros: Great useful focal length range, F/2.8 constant, fast autofocus
Cons:
Image Stabilizer broke twice and has been repaired once... Still waiting for it to return for the second time.

Updated:


About 9 months into owning it, the image stabilizer crapped out and started acting very unstable. The image would jump around in the view finder. I sent it to Canon and they repaired it under warranty by replacing the IS and USM assemblies.

2 months after the first successful repair, the IS began malfunctioning again. It's currently out again for replacement. I wish there were some equivalent lens with the same great aspects but without Image Stabilizer.


Jul 31, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add froggynaan to your Buddy List  
BenLee
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 648
Review Date: Jul 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $999.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharp, fast af, light weight, IS, SHARP, constant f/2.8
Cons:
plastic body, not metal

I loved the way this lens performed at the last wedding I just shot, and this was the first time I used it. I loved it even more once I started processing. Very, very sharp. Very fast AF. The IS is a nice add on. The image quality is easily comparable to an L and exceeds the 24-70 IMO

My biggest complaint is the cost for a plastic body lens. It's nice that it's light weight, but not for $1000 bucks. I only rented this lens, so now I have to decide whether I will buy it. Overall, it's probably worth the money for the zoom range, sharpness, f/2.8 and IS.


Jul 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add BenLee to your Buddy List  
sdl68
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 13, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 53
Review Date: Jul 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Excellent image quality, IS works well. Can hand hold with great results at 1/8s. Very Sharp lens with good contrast and colour.
Cons:
Dust. Within less than two months I had virtually hundreds of dust specs on the main element.
Jul 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sdl68 to your Buddy List  
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14843
Review Date: Jul 23, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $874.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Fast, IS, color, sharp did I mention sharp??
Cons:
Not an L lens but who cares when I can get these results

What a lens I love it I was very hesitant to buy. I had the 24-70 but sold it to buy this lens and I am not sorry one bit.



Jul 23, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add tanglefoot47 to your Buddy List  
Klaas de Lint
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 13, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 16, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:
Cons:
Front focussing...

The focus of the first copy of this lens I had had severe focussing problems (front focus), I brought it back and the copy I have now has less front-focussing, but still enough to notice at smaller apertures. I compared it to my kit lens (18-55mm f3.5-5.6) at the same focal lengths and apertures, and the kit lens focusses correctly. So I'm sending this lens back as well, I hope my third one will work correctly...

Jul 16, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Klaas de Lint to your Buddy List  
f_o_t_o
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,000.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: sharpness, contrast, color
Cons:
telescope desing--not a fan of those

Hard decision between this lens and the 16-35L (II), price was the main factor (around $600 cheaper), and all claimed the image quality is the same.

I have some L lenses and primes and this lens competes well agains them. I'm very satisfied with overall performance (sharpness, color, contrast, etc.). The build quality is great, not L standards, but definately better than say the 28-135. Telescope design is my only negative comment--hence the close call with the 16-35L. Although I'll guess it was needed with the focal range and attempts to keep the lens compact.

Perfect focal length for general walk around use a bit longer on the high side would be a plus, but 55 on a 1.6 body is OK for my needs--same with 17mm. 2.8 is fast and IS help in low light static image shots.

I would definatley buy this lens again. It's on my camera most of the time.


Jul 8, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add f_o_t_o to your Buddy List  




Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
216 539755 Jun 1, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
87% of reviewers $1,019.18
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.89
7.41
9.1
l217_efs1755


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next