 |
|
|
andyjaggy82
Offline
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 721
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Good Filter Size. Good Range With IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lousy Build Quality. No Lens Hood.
|
|
|
I just got this lens to replace my 17-40 on my 7D.
The lens is just as sharp as my 17-40 was, perhaps even a bit sharper. IS seems to work fine.
However I am pretty disappointed in the build quality. I didn't think it would bother me as much as it does, but after using Tokina lenses, and my only Canon lens being the 17-40, I had forgotten what plastic lenses felt like. The focus ring seems okay, but the zoom ring has quite a bit of 'give' to it, and does not zoom smoothly, it's quite chunky actually.
This is acceptable in a cheaper lens, but in a lens that run over a thousand dollars and costs more than several L lenses, I think it's unacceptable. On top of that Canon does not even include a lens hood with your 1,000 lens.
Frankly this just confirms to me why I usually opt for 3rd party lenses these days, but the Canon lens was the only one that fit the bill for my needs.
|
|
 Feb 19, 2013
|
|
walter23
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2685
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautifully sharp, great bokeh, nice IS, good zoom range, solidly built
|
|
Cons:
|
Not quite smooth zoom action. Slightly more prone to flare with bright lights in frame than the 17-40L.
|
|
|
You pay a lot for the high image quality, IS, and aperture of this lens. As often remarked, the build isn't quite up to the standards you'd expect from a lens of this caliber. I have no complaints about it from a functional point of view, and it is a very solid feeling lens, I just wish it was a bit smoother (like the 17-40L).
The image quality is superb, and that's really the bottom line. It's truly top notch. Just be a little careful in situations where flare can be a problem; it's a little more prone than the 17-40L.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2013
|
|
wayneng
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Sep 16, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, versatility, bokeh, fast and sharp at f 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
crop only, not weather sealed
|
|
|
This lens has been a work horse for me as I've used it in all sorts of places and events, but as I now upgrade to FF, it saddens me greatly to have to see this lens go. The glass is definitely L quality trapped in an EF-S body and would not hesitate for a second to pick up this lens if you plan on staying with crop.
The colors are good, though maybe it was just my copy, could have used a bit more contrast. AF is lightning fast but accuracy on the T2i could be a bit better. The bokeh is creamy, the lens is fast and the only thing I could possibly wish for is Canon making an equivalent for FF. The IS is key as I shoot a lot of video and that's about the only thing the 24-70 can't offer me on FF. Build quality is not as great as I would like it, but I've put my 17-55 in some harsher than I would have liked conditions and is still dust free and works like a charm.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2012
|
|
Capeachy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 18, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 8, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, really sharp. Great colours & contrast, almost no CA, light(er) weight, good bokeh, versatile.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheaper build, Crop only.
|
|
|
Uses: Street, landscape, indoor lowlight, candids, children, portraits, group shots.
If you want a fast zoom lens and don't need anything longer or wider, and you don't want to upgrade to FF, this is the last lens you'll ever need to buy. This zoom range covers basically 90%+ of what I take. Take this into consideration when considering how much to spend. If you are planning on going FF, then skip this and go 24-70L or wait for the rumoured V2. Compared to the 24-70L though, I don't think I could live without the extra 7mm or the IS for what I take.
IQ: Why didn't I buy this before? Oh right, the price, and the wife. The IQ on this is really really good. It is super sharp wide open, no more stepping down like a some of the primes or cheaper zooms. Colour and contrast makes all of my photos pop. Forget a better camera, this will make your current one look good. Honey, I can make you look GOOD with this one! Promise!
Bokeh: Bokeh is good and acceptable. But after using my friend's 70-200 f2.8 IS II, I've been corrupted. If you want better bokeh for portrait work and for cheaper, then go for something like 100L macro. Although secretly, we all know the 85L is really what we want for the ultimate bokehliciousness.
Colors & Contrast: Not sure how to describe it, but they just look eye popping. Reminds me why I went Canon in the first place.
AF & IS: Both are what we expect as with other Canon USM and IS lenses. Fast, accurate, quiet and extra few stops of stability. Moving children are no problem, but then again I only have a XTi, I would only imagine what this thing could really do on a 7D.
Weight: Well it's not the lightest thing around, but it's no 24-70L. Feels a little off balance on the lighter Rebel cameras but it's acceptable. The zoom ring has just enough tension to make it feel right.
Build Quality: It's no 24-70L, but hey, it doesn't weigh as much either. It is made out of plastic but it doesn't feel as cheap, it's still quite solid on the hands. Lack of weather sealing isn't a problem: Let's face it, there's only one Canon cropper with weather sealing anyways. If you're always in rough environments, then look elsewhere.
Price: Well, I hope I've convinced you that it's worth its high price.
|
|
|
Oct 8, 2011
|
|
bigbill25
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 140
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, weight, IS, focal range, sharpness, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
It is not weather sealed
|
|
|
I doubt anyone will read this far down in the reviews, but just can't help seeing the 24-70 f/2.8L rated higher than this lens. I sold my 24-70 to buy this lens about two years ago and could not be happier. Small, lighter, sharper and with IS, it is such a fantastic lens.
If you are going to invest in crop-sensor cameras, this lens should be in your bag.
--Bill
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2011
|
|
furqanfazal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 61
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $866.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Useful focal-length range for a standard zoom, fast (f/2.8), 3 stop image stabilization, sharp wide open, good bokeh and colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Flaring
|
|
|
The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a fantastic piece of glass, very sharp wide open with good bokeh (for a zoom), great image stabilization, good color and contrast. Good for general walk-around, low-light and portrait photography.
The build quality is decent though my copy does collect some dust behind the front element (though I obviously see no effect on the pictures). For the price I do wish it had the build quality of an L lens.
My biggest complain with this lens is flaring under bright conditions and direct sunlight. I sometimes switch to my 10-22mm (which is very flare resistant) to capture images when the lighting gets bright.
Otherwise I love this lens. I previously briefly owned a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 but after acquiring this lens I decided to return the Sigma lens as I found the colors, contrast, sharpness and bokeh to be indistinguishable from f/2.8 onwards. I reckon there are subtle differences when viewing images at 100% but I didn't see any obvious ones from cursory viewing.
I wish this lens were slightly longer at the wide and telephoto ends (15-60mm would have been perfect). Also while the bokeh is good, it is inferior to my 100mm f/2.8L and 200mm f/2.8L II that both produce delicious bokeh.
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011
|
|
nirajphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 15, 2010
Location: India
Posts: 13
|
|
|
Aug 7, 2011
|
|
DLP
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2430
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality
IS
Fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Price! Price! Price!
Lens hood not included
|
|
|
I've been using the 17-55 for over four years now. It remains one of my favorite pieces of glass. It's fast, light and the IQ is excellent. Contrary to many reports I have not had any issues with dust. I do keep a B+W UV filter on this lens most of the time. The price is obscene but it is vastly better wide open than many of the third party options (IMO). It's hard to over look the value of IS and USM at any focal length. What I really like about this lens is that it allows me to get great indoor shots while traveling in areas that may not allow flash photography with out cranking up the ISO as many variable aperture lenses would require. The USM is silent (unlike the Tammy) and IQ is fantastic wide open. The only down side is the price.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2011
|
|
40Driggs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 440
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
wide open sharpness, colors, contrast, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
mediocre build quality
|
|
|
The only fault I have found with this lens is the build quality. Feels more robust than the 28-135 I used to have, but is basically the same build quality with less zoom creep.
Other than that, I love everything about this lens. It has an excellent ability to capture detail from corner to corner, especially for a zoom lens. I can always count on this lens for great images. I also really enjoy having the IS system. This puts this lens in a league of it's own and comes in very handy when shooting indoors or when I need to stop down and don't feel like using the tripod.
I think that another weakness of the lens is IS and autofocus failure. I had to have my autofocus system fixed on mine. It was frustrating, but I was willing to deal with it because I enjoy using the lens so much. Only better zoom lens I've used is the 70-200 II and this one comes close.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2011
|
|
kkroeker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 115
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp... very sharp! Nice colors and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Previous to this lens I used the Tamron (non VC) 17-50 2.8 for 2 years. The Tamron was sharp and had great colors. I bought it because I didn't want to spend the $1000+ on the canon version. Over the past year I've found myself booking a lot of family portrait sessions so I started upgrading my gear and one of my lens upgrades was in this focal range. So, I sold the Tamron and bought the Canon 17-55 2.8.
I thought the Tamron was great but after using the Canon I don't know why I waited so long to buy it. My wife told me 2 years ago to just buy the Canon but I hesitated and bought the Tamron. The Canon 17-55 is just so sharp! I may actually have to wear band-aids while handling it... lol 
If you're on the fence on which lens to purchase I highly recommend the Canon. It's worth the price!
Kevin
www.ontherockphotography.com
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2011
|
|
IllegalFun
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
F/2.8. Image Stabilisation. Image Quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
No Lenshood Included. Weight (feels too light!)
|
|
|
I bought this lens recently, and the quality of the images is great...
great contrast, bokeh, saturation, sharpness... no real faults!
the focussing is quick and accurate
the IS (image stabilising) is great, and works well
however I have a few gripes!
1. the lens hood comes separately, which is the case with non-L lenses...
2. it feels lightweight... the 24-70L feels mich nicer in weight and build quality (the zoom ring is a little too light)
overall:
image quality gets 10/10
build quality gets 8/10
pricing gets 8/10
AF accuracy and speed gets 10/10
Overall 9/10
for APS-C cameras there is no other choice in this price range!
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011
|
|
dtolios
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,025.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice focal range, very positive AF, bright 2.8 + IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Mediocre sealing = dust sucking. I guess building quality could be addressed to fix that with a lens in this price range
|
|
|
Overall the lens is very good. Nearly no other lens in the market had the features offered (2.8 throw-out the focal range + IS) when the lens was bought 2years ago, and it’s still way better than the 3rd party offerings.
I have used the lens with 20D, 50D and 7D bodies and the superiority to the Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD is evident.
The non VC (IS) version of the above lens is arguably one of the best offerings out there for cropped bodies, but the Canon tops it even in sharpness where Tamron is very good (at least both the copies I had experience with).
Color rendition with the EF-S 17-55 IS is good, better than the Tamron’s and close to the EF 17-40L I was using before. Unfortunately the 17-40L wasn’t even mounted on a cropped body after the 17-55 IS was part of my kit.
What really is impressive is how better bodies like the 50D and the 7D focus with the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS. In low light situations, where both the 17-40L and the Tamron 17-50 would hunt a bit, the 17-55 positively locks the subject – and that’s not only with the center AF point. Also the USM motors are a vast improvement over the mechanic noises the Tamron produces, but I think that’s a given already.
Bokeh is also better rendered through the 17-55 IS than the Tamron’s offering.
The build quality of the EF-S 17-55 IS is pretty good, identical to most prosumer grade Canon lenses like the 28-135 IS which is fine, forgetting the fact that this lens retails for more than $1000, where most comparably built EF/EF-Ss retail for less than $600, and examples like the 17-40L or the 70-200 f/4 L boost far more in this department for just $650 or less…I guess canon was being snob at the point of designing this lens, and all of its semi-pro/pro bodies were heading away from the APS-C. Should a 7D model was present at that point, I believe the 17-55 IS would be better made (and probably a bit more expensive).
In practice, the lens is more than rigid enough, but dust is steadily sucked into the body because of the vacuum created by the zooming action, and trapped behind the front glass element(s). This has more of a psychological than visual impact, as though it doesn’t look pretty, has no visible degradation effect to the final image as all those dust particles are too small to obstruct enough light to create a shadow, and too far from the lens’s focal / focusing point to be visible.
The lens uses 77mm filters, which are not cheap, yet not uncommon for the average photo-kit in its target group.
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2010
|
|
matt the photo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
like L quality, fast focus, 2.8, smooth IS,
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
best lens i have owned and i have owned 4 L lenses.
it is as good performance wise as any l lens. wish they would have given it the l coating but its super sturdy so i have no worries. feels stronger then my 24-105mmL. feels nice and looks purdy. ohh and the image quality is stellar.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2010
|
|
Schuit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 10, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Oct 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great color, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, L-Lens in the wrong coat
|
|
|
It's a stellar lens that has all the elements of L-glass but unfortunately Canon gave it the wrong coat. It's a bit heavy on my 7d but the results are very satisfying. The 17-55mm has the reputation to behave like a Dyson dustcollector but so far I'm still out of the woods
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2010
|
|
lighthawk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 203
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, 2.8+IS= low light performance
|
|
Cons:
|
dust and weak construction = 2 times to Canon repair
|
|
|
I was happy with this lens mostly due to how sharp it is and the ability to perform in low light conditions. But Canon has soured my feelings with lackluster service.
I took the lens to Utah this spring and the 17-55 and my 7D were exposed to blowing sand. It was a brutal environment, but my 70-200 f4 IS and 60mm EF-S lenses did ok, even a borrowed 10-20mm Sigma survived. The 17-55 sucked so much dust that dark spots were visible in the lens and on my images. Also the zoom became quite stiff in one section with a feeling of grit. Uggh.
I sent it in to Irvine and they charged me $90 to clean it and it came back clean but still a sticky zoom. A bit of silicon spray helped the zoom work more smoothly. Then the front trim ring fell off the lens, but I remounted it with some 3M adhesive for mounting prints. Maybe bubble gum and bailing wire next time?
Last week while on a photo road trip the lens stopped working completely and I could hear a loose object rattling around inside. I lost the use of the lens for two more days of travel. Bummer.
I contacted Canon. They agreed to service the lens since it has been less than six months since the factory service. I explained that I have an important event to shoot on 9/19. I paid extra to get it to Irvine by 9/9. As of today (9/14) Canon has only just acknowledged that they even received the lens. Four business days to say you received the shipment???? No business worth it's salt can say that's timely.
The rep I spoke with knew I wanted the lens for the 9/19 event and thought it might happen. Instead they will only begin to think about working on it and won't ship for at least another week.
What could be a rave story about excellent Canon service is instead sour grapes of lousy business practices. No matter how good the gear can be, if the service dept. doesn't do their job, we photographers will find ourselves disappointed.
Andy
pbase.com/lighthawk
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2010
|
|
dkmiles1
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 19, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 503
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Stellar Optical Performance! Ultra fast focus, an absolute must for low-light photography and a must for wedding shooters using a cropped frame camera
|
|
Cons:
|
Help! I'm an L lens trapped in a cheap EFS body!
|
|
|
Hear me out on this one, I just gave up the very well built and excellent Tokina 16-50 2.8, the ONLY reason why I gave it up was because I needed IS in low light situations. Apart from that, I had no desire whatsover to sell it, but I had to given the direction my photography is taken. On to the 17-55 - I can't believe Canon has the gaul to charge this much (Just north of $1,000) for this lens with;
a.) No lens hood - virtually all 3rd party lenses come with the hood, are built better and cost hundreds less.
b.) A mostly plastic body...
Its high time Canon considered making an L series lens with the EF-S designation, especially when the cropped frame cameras outsell the full framers by a wide margin - I'm beside myself when I consider the 70-200mm L f/4 (non-IS) is made of magnesium, has a lens hood, a lens pouch - yet it costs $300 - $400 less than this lens!!
All of that said, and even with all my negative feelings about the build, hood and no pouch - all is forgiven once I see the results of the images.
At the end of the day, optically, this is a stellar lens, killer in low light, the IS is absolute must if you do any sort of event photography, if you're an APS-C user (XXD, 7D, and Rebel series) there really isn't a suitable alternative that gives you the range, the f-stop and the IS in the ef-s (or third party) lineup to suit pros - the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 is a recent possibility - essentially what we have here is an L professional series lens trapped in a consumer body... Optically (and a lack of competition for cropped sensor lenses) the price is justified, but that's about it... Tokina are you listening?
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
215
|
514415
|
Feb 19, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
87% of reviewers
|
$1,022.98
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.89
|
7.41
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
