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 536052 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:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14  next
      
mfurman
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2849
Review Date: Jul 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very (!) sharp. Good contrast and colour. Very good range on crop cameras
Cons:
Build

My copy of this lens is very sharp. It is sharper than 50 f/1.8 mkI at 50 mm (f/2.8), comparable with Carl Zeiss 28 f/2.8 Distagon T* and sharper than 17-40 f/4.0L (I am not mentioning 24-70 f/2.8L - no contest at < 40). I like the range very much (I have to be realistic to expect it longer than 55mm), f/2.8 is a must for me and IS allowed me to take very sharp pictures at 1/15 s and 55 mm. The focus speed and precision are very good.
I did not see any excessive CA and did not notice flare problem (although I always remember to avoid conditions inducing it). I would prefer to pay more to get "L build" and dust sealing - this is my main complain about the lens (apart from the fact that I would prefer it not to change the length when zooming). The maximum magnification is good but not outstanding.


Jul 2, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mfurman to your Buddy List  
Glassbottle
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 567
Review Date: Jun 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Stunning sharpness at all apertures and focal lengths, excellent colour, IS
Cons:
Flare, build quality, EF-S mount, expensive

This fantastic lens finally pushed me into going full-frame and buying a 5D. I'm sure that sounds odd, so let me explain.

The image quality from the 17-55 is wonderful, about the best you could hope for in a zoom. However, the lens is expensive and the build quality, though fair enough, is well below L standards.

I bought the 17-55 out of crop-factor frustration: we've all been salivating waiting for a lens like this. Previously, there was no APS-C option with high image quality: not the kit lens, not the 17-85. Canon's quality standard zooms (I have the 24-70L) are just the wrong damn length for the 1.6x crop.

So I was going to think about selling the 24-70L to fund the 17-55, and I did trade in my 17-40L on the new lens. Got the 17-55 home, played with it and was stunned by virtually every image. It really is that good -- it's a pixel-peeper's wet dream.

But -- and this was a big but -- as buyer's remorse set in that evening, I realised that I was now so heavily invested in crop-factor gear that I would probably never be able to extract myself from the small format. I also realised that the price of the 17-55 plus the 30D was only a shade less than the cost of a 5D body, and I already had the 24-70L (picked up cheap second-hand a while ago) to use on the 5D.

A restless night followed. In the morning, though, my thoughts were clear -- get the hell out of this stop-gap midget format and move up to full-frame, especially since the cost premium would not be huge.

A further factor in this decision was the build quality of the 17-55. It's far from being horrible, but it's plastic and a little flimsy feeling when you've got used to handling Ls.

So back to the shop the 17-55 went, and also the month-old 30D (on which I was kindly given a trade-in at 90% of its new value). Another $500 or so and out I walked into the sunlight armed with a 5D, much happier in the knowledge that the cycle of upgrades had finally come to an end for a good long time.

Oh, and I also bought my 17-40L back at the trade-in price, so I'm in the ultrawide business now too.

I thought this tale might be helpful to those who are dithering about committing themselves to the crop-factor format with the purchase of a lens as expensive as the 17-55.

If you can honestly say you will never hanker after full-frame, then I reckon you can't possibly do better than this fine lens (although Canon could have built it better). But if full-frame is in your tea leaves, then leave it alone, do your sums, and maybe make the jump to the 5D now, as I did.

One last thing about the 17-55. Many reviews lament its flare problem, but I think they're somewhat overstated. Yes, it does flare, and you have to be careful, but I was quite surprised at how negligible the problem was in normal use and at how manageable it was even in adverse lighting conditions. I think flare has come to the fore as a criticism by default because the lens is so very good in most other respects.


Jun 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Glassbottle to your Buddy List  
MeanGreeny
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Review Date: Jun 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Convenience [see below] IQ IS
Cons:
No lens hood included for the cost

This lens has probably caused more soul searching and cost justification than any other in recent Canon history. Can I justify spending this much on a lens whose range I can duplicate with lenses by 3rd party manufacturers I asked myself.

To that end I sought out a vendor who specifically said that 7 days approval was fine by them and so I ordered it. I didn't need the 7 days - after the first day I knew it was a keeper. I spent the day giving it hard jobs at a Triathlon which was being swum/cycled and run on a dull, overcast day which needed a fast-ish lens which focussed first time, every time.

Towards the end of the day the sun broke through and I was able to shoot directly into it [without the much sought after, scarce and infamous 83J hood] for some West Coast beach scene sunsets [lots of glare and reflections].

It behaved impeccably on my 30D and replaces my 30mm f1.4 and my 60mm f2.8 [both very sharp] which were my walk round lenses. All the usual parameters - sharpness, bokeh etc etc - have been previously described and I won't bore you by repeating their various merits. One thing I shall point out though, and which has been missing from previous posts, will amuse the Full Frame users reading this.

It's the sheer convenience of having a sharp [equivalent] 27-88mm f2.8 zoom for the first time since I went digital. All the 28-70 f2.8L full frame users will know what I'm talking about if they think about it for a moment. Having the above with IS is just sheer luxury.

If you have doubts about the cost of the lens then that's your prerogative. If you have doubts about the value of the lens then go get one on 7 days approval. But be careful - it might make up your mind.


Jun 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add MeanGreeny to your Buddy List  
cprofit
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 570
Review Date: Jun 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,099.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Speed, Weight, Focal Length on an APS-C, IS, Bokeh, Saturation, Size
Cons:
Extendable Barrel, Not L Build Quality (But not the weight either - can't have both!), Cost, No Hood/Pouch

I guess it's best to explain how/why I got here, so here is my lens progression:

1. EF 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS - Too slow, and image quality was why I switched to a DSLR and I didn't feel this lens gave me much more IQ than a nice P&S. This lens did have nice range though.
2. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - Great IQ, fast, but I tired of the loud/slow focus and 28mm just isn't wide enough on an APS-C.
3. EF 24-70 f/2.8L - Great IQ, fast, excellent focusing, and just a great overall build. This lens was a treat to use, but as a walkaround it was just so big/heavy that I wanted to leave it at home.
4. 17-55 f/2.8 IS - Great IQ, fast, fast focus, lighter, and perfect focal length for a APS-C. This lens is the PERFECT walkaround for the APS-C. Oh, and can I say how nice it is to have IS so I can actually use a standard zoom indoors? Also, the saturation is better than the 24-70, but the bokeh on the two is just too close to call.

I wish the lens came with a hood, and the front element didn't protrude to allow dust to enter. I find the build quality is good enough for my needs, so no complaints there. In fact, I would rather have this lens with it's build quality than the extra weight, and cost, of the same lens with weather sealing and more solid construction. After the 17-55 arrived the 24-70L was sold immediately.

If I decide to go full frame one day, I <i>think</i> this lens will hold it's value enough that I can just trade back for a 24-70 (or equivalent) in the future.


Jun 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add cprofit to your Buddy List  
kazunori
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4
Review Date: Jun 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,179.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharpness, convenience of zoom (especially for 1.6 crop cameras), weight (compared to full frame equivalent), IS, near lack of CA
Cons:
Bokeh is a little distracting, color is not 100% vibrant, and it doesn't come with hood

This is the lens I've been waiting for. An f2.8 maximum aperture zoom with a good focal length range for a walk around. It's significantly lighter and smaller than the full-frame equivalent lens (24-70mm f2.8L), and as the latest generation IS, which works very well.

It's amazingly sharp. Mine is sharper from literally corner to corner at 55mm than my 50mm f1.4 prime, and is sharper from corner to corner at 17mm than the 17-40 f4L that I upgraded from.

People mention build isn't like L quality, which is true, but I find that it's good enough. I'm not a pro who needs ruggedness, so image quality comes first for me.

Drawbacks are that I occasionally get surprised by some ghosting or flaring, even with the lens hood. For such an expensive lens, Canon should really include the lens hood. Paying for it isn't what irked me, but it was a pain to find its hood (often out of stock and listed as "special order") and pay shipping (since I bought it from a different store).

Although I'm really happy with this purchase, there are some "image quality" issues that I'm sensing (hard to describe) from the pictures I take. There's a subtle rusty look to the colors and the bokeh isn't as pleasing when I compare it to the pictures I take with my EF-S 60mm macro.

Despite its shortcomings, I feel that this is still the ultimate walk-around lens for 1.6 crop cameras.


Jun 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kazunori to your Buddy List  
DavidWEGS
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3796
Review Date: Jun 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,099.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Lightweight (compared to the 24-70 or the 24-105), crisp images, good distortion control (not as good as the new Tamron 17-50/2.8, but close), IS is an obvious +++.
Cons:
Cost, EF-S.

I am all about the image at the end of the day. With that in mind, I find this to be close to perfect on the 30d. One of my assistants won't let me play with it anymore ;-).

It is fast in low light. Clean and accurate focus, is coupled with sharp glass. I found this to be at least as sharp as the L Zooms and better than the 16-35 which I tested against directly. The contrast is also great for the type of lens.

Highly recommend if you can splurge for this one and don't care about it being an EF-S lens.


Jun 26, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add DavidWEGS to your Buddy List  
Mark1st
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 116
Review Date: Jun 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: f/2.8! Image Stabilization! very sharp, light weight, very usable range on a crop camera. My new favorite lens that spends 90% off the time on my 20D. I am getting a much higher percentage of keepers.
Cons:
Vignetting at wider apertures. Not the end of the world, but it is there. Color and contrast seems not as good as my 24-70L, but it is sharper.

If full frame is not in your future, this is an excellent lens. The combonation of f/2.8 & IS opens up many creative possibilities.

I have no gripes about the build quality, but I do not plan on dropping it. It feels solid. If you move it around or shake it, nothing moves or rattles.

Image quality is great, especially in the middle of the aperture range. f/2.8 is usable though.

I am very pleased with this lens and it really is L image quality IMHO.


Jun 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Mark1st to your Buddy List  
daring
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 29, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13
Review Date: Jun 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,049.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Silent IS, fast and accurate autofocus, great sharpness and contrast, relatively small and lightweight
Cons:
Price, no hood, extending zoom

A few years ago I wouldn't have considered paying this much for a lens. I balked at the price of the 17-40L but bought and used it for two years on a 10D. When I upgraded to a 30D, I replaced it with the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 becuase 40mm was just too short.

A few weeks ago I purchased 17-55 for a wedding and have to say it's definitely worth the money. I'll miss the 70mm of the Sigma, but 55mm is so much better than 40mm. I do prefer the internal zooming of the 17-40L, but having f2.8 and IS makes this a much more useable lens indoors. Overall it feels real nice on my 30D, not too big and the zoom and focus rings have a good solid feel to them also.

I just shot a wedding with this lens and it performed beautifully. I considered using the Sigma initially, but after some indoor focus testings I never felt confident in it's low light performance and it tended to backfocus at a couple of focus lengths. The 17-55 focussed spot on all my shots at the wedding at f2.8. I was also able to reduce the use of flash and get some great natural light portraits, something I doubt the 17-40L or Sigma could have done without bumping the ISO way up. I'm very pleased with this lens and now that I have made the purchase I don't have any regrets. It's a keeper!


Jun 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add daring to your Buddy List  
Grant Oakes
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 15
Review Date: Jun 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Great color
Cons:
Not as sharp wide open as I would expect froma Canon L zoom

I bought this lens to replace my Tamron 28-105 f2.8 and it isn't much better in sharpness wide open as I would expect from a pro lens. I did about 50 test shots in varing light conditions and shutter speeds from 1/8th to 1/125 and the IS works fine but on still objects (flowers in a bowl) at 1/30th and f2.8 I was a bit surprised to see that it didn't look much better than the Tamron. Given the fact this lens was nearly 1/2 again the price it is going back and I think I will bite the bullet and go with a stable of primes from 28mm to 200mm to get the image quality I need for shooting weddings.

Jun 24, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Grant Oakes to your Buddy List  
scooterapd
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14
Review Date: Jun 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,180.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Wide Angle Zoom with IS and f/2.8. There is nothing else on the market with these specs.
Cons:
Wished it went to 85mm, but realistically, that's just a few steps forward anyway. Lens hoods next to impossible to find and had to pay a premium for it. For that price, can't they just include a hood?

This lens in nothing short of outstanding. It is not only a low-light wonder for indoor weddings, but it makes terrific portraits as well. I've never owned an L lens (first one is on the way this weekend) and am eager to compare. This is the EF-S version of an "L". I don't think you can make an EF-S "L", officially, simply by definition of what an EF-S lens is.

Focus is dead on and fast and the EF-S makes it much lighter than I am certain it would be as an L. Yeah, the skin suffers in quality but again, you can't have everything!

This gallery was shot entirely with this lens, proving its worth for portraits, if you ask me, since the 1.6x factor makes it a portrait length:

http://charlotte-nc-photography.smugmug.com/gallery/1560399

I also shot a wedding in St. John, USVI last weekend and this lens was a ready and willing workhorse. I have one shot posted as of the time of this review...more will be posted in the next month:

http://charlotte-nc-photography.smugmug.com/gallery/1575994

By this lens without fear. If by some reason you don't like it, I think it will hold its value quite nicely.


Jun 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add scooterapd to your Buddy List  
metalhead9
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 2, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 196
Review Date: Jun 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,179.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Likely the best walkaround EFS lens Canon makes...Super sharp, great IQ, nice and wide, IS is a shot saver, 2.8f is great for sooo many reasons!!
Cons:
Cost...but you get what you pay for...and this case its a bargin. Build quality could be slightly better if I was being picky...

I was nearly ready to make a move on several other 'L' lens, when this one was introduced..glad I decided to wait..in a word Awesome! I can't say enough about this little lens...it just stays on my camera all the time. My image quality has gone up considerably..be it the IS or the 'L' optics or 2.8f...its all good.
I have since sold my efs 10-22(which in spite of the hype, I wasn't impressed by it much) as I find the 17-55 is wide enough and more importantly the image quality is much much better. I also sold a Tamron 28-75 2.8f macro, as the AF was too slow for my needs and the 17-55is easily replaced it in both image quality, AF speed and the added feature of IS...if I were to ask of anything a bit more lenght would be grand..
This lens has made me reconsider getting a 5d..simply cause I could not use this lens.
I have also gone to a 2 lens system which works great...this one 17-55is and the 70-200 2.8f IS.
If your on the fence about a lens in this range...Do this one! you won't be sorry you did!


Jun 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add metalhead9 to your Buddy List  
Allen Ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 59
Review Date: Jun 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,069.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Extremely sharp and high optical quality. F2.8 and IS combination is great. The best general walk around lens for a 1.6 crop.
Cons:
Some flaring when shooting at a very bright light such as spot light or the sun

Optically speaking, this lens beats or matches all the L's and primes that Canon made. I think is is the sharpest zoom lens Canon has. Based on my testing, it is one step sharper than all of these lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 IS, 50 f/1.4. It is two steps sharper than my 17-40L. Comparing to the ef-s 60mm macro, in my opinion the sharpest prime that Canon makes , it is very close in optical quality. When I use my 17-40L, I need to do some moderate sharpening with Photoshop CS2. With this lens, minimal sharpening is needed. My tests are confirmed by numerous other users, the Digital-Picture.com and Photozone. As a matter of fact, this zoom lens has better resolution than almost all of Canon primes according to Photozone. After using this lens for one week, it has displaced my 17-40L as the general walk around on my Rebel XT. Before I bought this lens, I thought of buying a FF and 24-105 F/4l one day. This lens postpones that decision indefinitely. One weakness of this lens is there is some flaring when shooting at a very bright light such as a spot light or the sun. CA is minimal on this lens.
Is this lens too expensive? The Nikon 17-55mm has a better build, a lens hood but no IS at about $1,150. I bought mine at Badgers Graphics for $1,069 plus $44 for a lens hood, for a total of $1,113. If you consider IS should worth the same as the better build plus a lens hood, then the Canon is priced close to the market. I personally like the IS feature better. This lens weighs at 22.8 oz, certainly not light, but the Nikon weighs almost 25.6 oz. I don't think you will regret buying this lens.


Jun 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Allen Ko to your Buddy List  
sym5
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 21
Review Date: Jun 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: amazingly sharp, fairly accurate color, good contrast, useful focal range, image stabilization
Cons:
serious flare issues, noticeable light falloff (vignetting), average build, sucks in dust, pricy, hood not included

I got this lens hoping to replace my 17-40 as the walkaround lens of choice. On paper, it looked like it would be no contest: one stop faster, IS, and an extra 15mm on the long end. I also wasn't budget-constrained, so the price difference wasn't an issue. However, what I discovered was that things weren't so straightforward. Right off the bat, the 17-55 was significantly heftier, and it didn't handle as smoothly as the 17-40. I missed the internal zooming and weather sealing of the 17-40, because I started noticing a little bit of dust gathering inside the 17-55 after a couple of days of extended use. The 55mm long end (~90mm equiv.) was definitely handy, but it was still pretty short. My neck felt the difference in weight after hours of toting the 17-55 around. And although I can't claim this conclusively, it felt like the AF worked faster but tended to get confused more easily on the 17-55. I once tried focusing both lenses on a perforated metal panel, and it consistently took more tries for the 17-55 to lock on. As for image quality, the 17-55 produced far sharper images, comparable to my primes, and I was quite pleased by the color, contrast, and bokeh it produced. However, there were also numerous flare issues, not only with the sun but also with artificial light sources (e.g., street lights). A hood (not included!) would have helped somewhat with the sun, but not with shooting nighttime photos, when shooting into light bulbs is often unavoidable. Light falloff was also quite prominent at wide apertures. In short, the 17-40 won on build and light handling, while the 17-55 won on functionality and image rendition. The 17-55 produced some truly amazing photos under reasonable conditions, in some cases far exceeding what the 17-40 was capable of producing (e.g., shooting razor-sharp photos at 1/3 sec hand-held). However, I found the 17-40 to be a more reliable performer under trickier situations. Thus, one should consider one's needs and intended usage carefully when choosing between these two lenses. Both are fine choices, and both have their shortcomings. If Canon just improved the flare control a little bit, like they did with the early batch of the 24-105, that would be a huge boost to the 17-55. But even as it stands now, the 17-55 is a fine lens and a reasonable choice for people looking for a high-quality single lens solution.


Jun 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sym5 to your Buddy List  
mhuebner
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 217
Review Date: Jun 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,179.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: The size is appropriate for the range and feels balanced on a 20D. Very sharp and fast focusing.
Cons:
The lens hood should be included at this price!

I've shot about 1000 shots through this lens and I am very pleased with it. It lives up to the hype about being sharp across the zoom range at all apetures. I have only had a slight problem with CA and that was shooting almost straight into the sun (and of course, there is no lens hood available yet). While the zoom range is fairly normal, it would be nice to have a little more room on the long end. There is gap between this lens and my 70-200 2.8 L IS.

I love the IS in low light situations. It has allowed my take shots previously reserved for my primes but with the luxury of framing with the zoom. I would have liked the IS mode 2 for panning but you can't have everything.

There has been a lot of talk about the build. I'll say it is adequate and will likely not affect the performance during its lifetime. It feels tight and the zoom is precise. On the other hand, it is not nearly as nice as the metal construction of an "L" lens.

Highly recommended for those with a 1.6X body who need sharp images in this range or those looking a fast zoom with IS as a bonus.


Jun 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mhuebner to your Buddy List  
rebelxtnewbie
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 708
Review Date: Jun 19, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Solid build, sharp, good colors
Cons:
dust problem, back focus, price!

I'm new to DSLRs and was looking for a good walk around. I had already bought a 100mm macro (my favorite lens so far) and wanted to replace the kit lens. It was between this, the 17-40 4L, and the 24-70 2.8L.

After reading the reviews on photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com, I decided to check this out. I like the fact that it is faster and has IS. I bought at Penncamera which has a 14 day no question ask return & exchange policy. I figure, if I didn't like it, I could just exchange or return it. Here are my impressions.

The build: Lens is solid like my 100mm macro, but wished that it would have been weather/enviroment sealed. I think there was a QC issue on my first copy. Noticed a few specks inside the lens after the first day, but didn't care since I had 2 weeks to try it out. I figured I could just exchange it later anyways. Good thing I could, cause the lens was full of dust particles at the end of the trial period. I exchanged it for a new copy. But none the less, I wouldn't have mind pay and extra $150 for a red ring and weather sealing and hood even keeping the S designation.

Optics: Centers are very sharp wide open. Corners are real good. Stopped down it's great across the board. Of course, the only thing I can compare it to is the kit lens, so anything would look good. Light fall off is a slight problem & not a deal breaker. This is because it can't take advantage of the "sweet spot" like non S lenses. CA is well controlled. The second copy I got had back focus problems, so I exchanged it again. 3rd times a charm. No dust or back focus after 4 days.

In the end I decided to stay with this lens even with it's downfalls. From what I've read, it still has better preformance on a Crop, than the 17-40 L F4 or 24-70 F2.8 on FF cameras. I think this is the best walk around lens available for canon crops. For those who are hesitant to buy it over the 17-40 f4 L, because it is not full frame compatable, just remember the following:
17-40 on FF does not perform as well compared to the 17-55 on a crop.
The 17-40 is really wide on a FF, and may not be a good range for a walk around lens for your purposes. You would have to trade in for a 24-70 F2.8 for that.
The 24-70 may not be wide enough for you on a crop.


Jun 19, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rebelxtnewbie to your Buddy List  
tkoet
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 12, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 1503
Review Date: Jun 19, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,179.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: It's difficult to image better overall image quality for this price.
Cons:
Feels a bit cheap. Stiff zoom ring and strong cat urine smell out of the box. Wicked flare issue, particularly with indoor spot lights of any size.

My copy arrived with a very stiff zoom ring and powerful odor. After several days of airing out and exercising the zoom ring, it was ready for action. The image quality is exactly was I was hoping for, with the exception of nasty flair spots when shooting around indoor spot lights (stages, DJ set-up, etc). I also had flair issues with the Nikkor 17-55's I've used in the past.

On the positive side, it's very sharp and focuses very quickly. The f2.8 and IS have obvious advantages. Do not regret the purchase.


Jun 19, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tkoet 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 536052 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:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14  next