 |
|
|
joeyseager
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is the best lens Canon knows how to make. Pinsharp even wide open, no discernible Chromatic Aberration, very little linear distortion and vignetting only when wide open. Very effective IS and well-built too - what more could you want? Well...
|
|
Cons:
|
It's a big and heavy lens and costs a fortune in rip-off Britain. And Canon see fit to make you pay £45 (about $75) for a lens hood that they then can't supply! That is profiteering, and wicked. Shame on you, Canon!
|
|
|
This lens is not an 'L' series lens. I can't explain why and Canon aren't saying. Their own documentation describes it as having 'L' series optical quality and I can confirm this. It's as sharp and aberration-free as any of the 'L' lenses in this focal length range - and its edge-to-edge sharpness is appreciably better than its 'L' stablemates. So why isn't it an 'L' lens? There's more plastic in the construction than in some 'L' lenses, and it doesn't have the environmental sealing that some 'L' lenses do - but apart from these minor issues it is in every way except the label and redline an 'L' of a lens...!
I am absolutely delighted with this lens - I've taken photos with it that I didn't think I was capable of. Image quality is so good it leaps out at you. Fine detail is resolved in a way that I would not have credited from an 8Mp sensor - my camera is better than I thought!
Do I have any gripes? It's big and heavy - but then it's f/2.8 throughout the zoom range which is as wide as any Canon zoom, so I shouldn't complain.
It's expensive but you get what you pay for. So neither of these are real gripes. My only real gripe is not with the lens but Canon's lens hood policy. At this price the lens hood ought to be in the box with the lens. Not only is it not in the box but Canon want £45 (about $75!) for it - not far off the price of the 'kit' 18-55mm lens just for a plastic moulding! And to add insult to injury they're not shipping them. I ordered and paid for mine two months ago and I'm still waiting. I'm really angry about that and feel entitled to be.
This lens is my favourite lens of all time. It's the one that lives on the camera and with which I take about 90% of my pictures. So it's getting plenty of use - It's worth getting the best when it's your main tool - and this is the best, L or no L.
|
|
 Jun 16, 2006
|
|
cocci
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 13, 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Focal length, f/2.8, image stabilizer, great sharpness even wide open and corner to corner, contrast and colour.
|
|
Cons:
|
"L" price, "L" quality lenses, but consumer grade build, pincushion distortion at the long end (35-55mm), flare and aperture ghosting if used without hood, hood not included.
|
|
|
It's really the ultimate APS-C lens: after getting this lens i'm not using anymore my 35L and my 50 1.4.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
Blurmore
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,099.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome resolving power, good color and saturation, near precognative autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price...Crop only compatability, nice build but not metal, weight (for a composite body) wide distortion of 2% may be on par with everything else but for 1100 dollars you expect more than everything else.
|
|
|
I'm a social photographer and this was an upgrade from the EF-S 17-85 IS USM. I was first on the list at my local shop for this lens.
With the 17-85 shooting large family groups I had to stop down to f8 to feel comfortable with edge sharpness, with the 17-55 I'm more than sharp enough at f4. I expected a lot from this lens at purchase after reading the European bench reviews. For 1100 dollars I expected 24-70 L sharpness, saturation, and color. I am not disappointed. Bokeh wise I don't feel like this lens is on par with the 24-70 L which exhibits nice smooth bokeh through the range. Bokeh with the 17-55 is nice at all fstops at 55mm but it gets a little "crunchy" stopped down from 17-35. I never thought I'd miss the 30mm at the long end of the 17-85 but in fact I have longed for it a few times over the last few weeks, but not enough to even consider going back. CA and flare I found to be minimal with the former only rearing its head in severely over exposed white shirts next to black tuxes in test exposures. At this pricepoint and lacking the red ring I'm not sure this is going to be a barn burner for Canon in sales. But for those who need a fast sharp standard zoom and have made a commitment to the crop body the lens is a must have and the IS just icing on the cake. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
borderlight
Offline
Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1693
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,179.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sensible focal length, IS, excellent sharpness & color, f2.8, and a lens hood that is just the right size.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, but that's really not a negative - just the way it is.
|
|
|
Here it is: the ultimate 1.6x body/camera lens that meandered it's way to the spotlight after being dangled before the public at the PMA show in February. This was, I hoped, the lens that would replace my slightly deficient 17-40 f4L. It turned out that I guessed right.
The 17-55 f2.8 IS is really one of a kind. There is nothing out there that can match it, not even those 3rd party hit or miss lenses with the endless abbreviations tacked on.... and of course Nikon doesn't count. It's a 27-88mm gem that is sharp at f2.8, produces color/contrast just slightly below an L-series lens (more natural), focuses fast, and allows 3 shutter speeds of slack in low light. Build quality is a slight notch below an L, but nothing close to what you would find on, say, a 70-300 IS. The front extends when zooming, but not as long as the extension of a 24-105L. It's smooth, but not L-smooth. I think it is just right, but of course there will be people out there who will wait 10 more years until lens company can fine tune this version. Until then the review will always include: 'wish it was an f1.8'; 'too bad it only fits a few 1.6X cameras'; 'it's really just a Tamron/Sigma/Quantray 17-55 f4.5 without the IS that I can get for $750'.
A word of caution though, don't sell your 17-40L because you will need it in the future for reasonably priced full-frame DSLRs. Think of the 17-55 f2.8 IS as a excellent lens, a fantastic backup for a 1.6X body, and something that understands you completely.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
backfocus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
combination of focal range+IS+f=2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
price,wide open soft corners at 17-20 mm and blue color fringes at high contrast edges
|
|
|
First and most important: optical quality in the 17-40 mm at f=4.0 is at least on par with the 17-40/4.0L. Everything else is an addon.
Wide open in the range from 40-55 mm pictures are almost tremendous.
At the short end (17-20) corners are a little bit soft (f=2.8) and obviously benefit from stopping down. CA is less than with the 17-40/4L
My copy is currently at the Canon service center due to a strong backfocus on my 20D ( was working perfectly on my wifes 350D). The neverending story .....
Final words of wisdom: optical quality ist excellent ( some weakness wide open at 17mm in the corners). The combination of focal range, F=2.8 and IS is even better then excellent. It is a high quality workhorse.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
dyregod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very nice color and sharpness. IS make it possible to handhold in very dim light. AF is very fast and quiet.
|
|
Cons:
|
77 mm filters are expensive but as 77 mm is more or less standard on most high end zooms it's not that bad. Build quality is not quite what should be expected at such a price (similar to 17-40 in my opinion). EF-s lens..
|
|
|
Got this lens as I got tired of the kit lens. On my 300D the kit lens was rather ok but the kit lens I got with my 30D was much worse so I decided to buy this lens.
I have considered many other lenses before like the sigma 18-50, tamron 19-35, canon 17-40, 17-85 etc etc. but none of them really got me excited. The sigma/tamron etc mostly because of the noisy autofocus and the 17-40 because of it's limited range and 17-85 because it didn't offer that much of an improvement over my old kit lens. The sigma was the clear winner in build quality though..
I have a sigma 70-200 as well and don't really miss anything in the 55-70 range. But the sigma is much better built.
All in all though I'm very satified with the features and image quality of this lens .. so highly recommended if you're not too worried about ef-s..
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2006
|
|
DanC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 56
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,179.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens, images are clear without stopping down, I picked it up mid May, has not been off my 20D.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, should be a 'L' lens, paid $54.00 for lens hood. Is a EF-S lens, can't use it on my EOS3.
|
|
I was leery about buying a non 'L' lens at that price,but I love the lens. It performs up to the reviews I have read so far and would highly recommend it to anyone using 20D etc
http://www.pbase.com/danconnors/image/60691441
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
215
|
516067
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
