 |
|
|
Joshua June
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as all get out, IS, IS, IS, silent, fast, efficient.
|
|
Cons:
|
vignetting, Canon's marketing policy.
|
|
|
I will own every Canon lens before I die! That being said after reading all the reviews on this lens I made sure I bought a REFURBISHED piece, and have not been disappointed. I have not had any specks of dust after a month of use but apparently they correct that problem with refurbished pieces (membrane seal???) I dunno.
Positives: 2.8, IS, sharpness, the rumors are all correct, this lens does exactly what others have said. This is a leave on your camera lens for almost anything anytime lens.
Negatives: The flare issue is sadly true, buy the hood it makes it worth while and worth the money.Vignetting, it is very average in this regard, no better, no worse for comparable lengths.
Comments: All do respect to all the other fine photographers on this site, however, It did not say L on the box, there is no red stripe on it, so... Quite you, it is not an L, stop complaining like it is an L. The glass just happens to be better then the 2 pieces of L I have/had (17-40, 70-200), as a matter of fact this little guy is better then my 50mm MK I prime, however it cannot macro like my 50 mm macro. The price was also clearly marked for the quality of the elements and the fine IS system loaded in it. However, like many point out its body is not an L build.
My major complaints are thus: for the price and the "glaring" weakness, Canon you should have included a hood, its a 50 cent premium don't be cheap when you really should be working for loyalty. I hear non-refurbished builds suck in dust which means that the plastic friction builds up a static charge, or they did not put in a membrane or sweep baffle in the original lots, Canon should reward, not punish loyalist willing to drop a grand on their products.
Buy this lens, but get a refurbished or one of the newest lots out of Japan.
|
|
 Apr 15, 2008
|
|
alan328
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Location: China
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! Good Color! Very helpful IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Dust problem
|
|
I have this lens for 1.5 year already.
I like this lens more than any other lens.
But one thing really bad, dust keep going in....
so, one day, I disambled it and remove the dust by myself.
Hope it is useful for other owners too
http://alan328.com/17_55_Dust.aspx
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2008
|
|
slyb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2008
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, extremely sharp, UD glass
|
|
Cons:
|
flare, cheap build, overpriced
|
|
|
Too much flare (with hood). Had to return it.
Make sure you try it before buying it!
Very sharp and fast otherwise. IS is wonderful.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2008
|
|
mmari
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
end to end sharpness even wide open | f/2.8 | IS | no zoom creap
|
|
Cons:
|
price | weight | size | looks
|
|
|
perfect combo with 40D.
no complain about performance.
but its pricy, heavy, & big.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2008
|
|
jfwoodman
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3822
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fast lens, terrific natural light performance, especially with IS
|
|
Cons:
|
worrying about dust (enough already!), no zoom lock
|
|
|
I've been very pleased with results achieved with the 17-55 on my 40d. Indoor, natural light shots are no problem with this fast lens, especially with the help of IS. Some question need for IS for focal length this short, but it really is an asset.
No problem with dust (yet), but I'm surprised I haven't heard any comments on the lack of a barrel zoom lock. Maybe I'm missing something and this is a feature not to be expected on a $900 lens, but I find it slightly annoying that the lens extends out if I have the camera over my shoulder...
But, all in all, I definitely recommend this lens as the primary lens for your 40D.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2008
|
|
Max10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 227
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Dust
|
|
|
Before purchasing EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, I have gone through various other standard zoom lenses on crop sensor body. And I can say without hesitation that this lens lives up to my expectations in terms of image quality. In last three weeks of use, I have not noticed any flaw in optical quality. The IS paired with usable f/2.8 is capable of handling almost all situations. The USM enables fast and accurate AF. The FTM is very useful in focusing small subjects, when AF fails occasionally.
Unfortunately, my EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a DUST MAGNET. It has been sucking dust since the first week of INDOOR use. I put a UV filter, the moment I took it out of the box. However, it appears that the dust enters through barrel seal. Extending barrel design is not the limiting parameter for Canon to build a dust resistant lens. In overview of EF 24-105mm f/4L IS (extending barrel design), Canon confirms its “dust- and moisture-resistant construction” (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=11924 ). To the best of my knowledge, Canon never confirmed dust resistant construction for EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Another interesting fact is that my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (extending barrel design, $350) does not have a single dust speck in it after two years of extensive use. It’s true that dust (in a reasonable quantity) has no effect on image quality, but very disappointing for a lens of this price. I do not know how much dust it will collect in the future. Anyway, lenses are not for every year’s purchase.
I recommend this lens, if internal dust is not important for yo
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $920.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Consistently produces sharp vivid captures throughout its entire zoom range.
|
|
Cons:
|
The zoom ring was stiff at about 30mm when I first bought it but now it's smooth throughout the zoom range. I wish the bokeh was a little more OOF at 55mm and f/2.8.
|
|
I bought this lens about 5 months ago and it has been a rock-solid performer. I've heard a lot about dust issues, but so far there isn't a spec of dust visible inside the lens. I mostly like this lens for candid family shots (indoors at home) and landscape/architecture shots.
I took this HDR shot hand-held (3 AEB exposures) and placed first for HDR over at texasphotoforums: http://www.motleypixel.com/public/hdr_missouri_shed.jpg
You can see a good handful of other shots taken with this lens and my 30D here:
Sample Photos
-Roy
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2008
|
|
Chip Payet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 527
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight (much less than 24-70), fixed 2.8, very crisp images, rich color. Can't say I've seen any noticeable distortion at the edges for practical purposes.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I've only had the lens for a couple weeks, and while I do wish it had a bit more range, I've been very pleased. So far I've used it: snow-covered landscapes from mountaintops in Whistler, Canada; banquet and lecture halls with poor lighting, close-ups of family at home, and at my daughter's 13th birthday in a low-light ballroom dance studio. It performed quite well in all these difficult conditions. I rate it equal to my 70-200 2.8L in image quality, and it will be my primary lens for some time, I imagine.
No dust after a couple weeks. Mine is a used factory refurb copy, and I put a filter on the moment it came out of the box. Price-wise it was great -- from B&H for $850 with warranty and all, lens hood, and clear digital filter it was still $25 less than a brand new one.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008
|
|
Alb. de Wilde
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice looking.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor sharpness, pricey
|
|
|
I own this lens since May 2006 and had no problems with dust at all. The problem with this lens is its poor image quality. Not as sharp as I like it and on the wide-angle side much distortion. A pricey lens like this should do much better.
I don't see much difference with the kitlens.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2008
|
|
Cipi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, 77mm filter, IS + 2.8, great colors, contrast, the built quality is not so bad
|
|
Cons:
|
no hood and need special order
|
|
|
It was difficult to decide which lens to get. I was narrowing it down to 3 lenses 16-35 F2.8, 17-40 F4 and the 17-55 F2.8. I decided to go for the 17-55 F2.8 because of image stableliser and extra rich 55mm. This was more important to me than the weather sealing and the way it was built. I dont need a strong lens as Im not breaking nuts!!! The F2.8 + image stabaliser means 3 stops down from F 2.8 to F1.4. In general I am happy with the lens including the way its built (after reading reviews about it being poorly built and that it was very fragile). I believe it has a strong construction. 77mm filter size suits most of the lenses and dont need only 1 size filter.
After using the lens for more than 1 1/2 years in freezing conditions in Romania and high humidiy in Malayasian jungle to the very dry and dusty south Australia I have no dust on the lens (might be luck or a good made product). I have used filters all the time from first minute of use.
Concluding I am pleased with the lens and in the future it may get some dust but wont affect the image quality as its not in the focus, but would recommend it if you are looking for a fast lens with no weather sealing then this is the one for you.
Canon perhaps should make all lenses as standard dust sealed and weather sealed.
Overall I have got good results and very little post processing in Photoshop.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008
|
|
jayceooi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $854.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8, fast, silent, IS, sharp...
|
|
Cons:
|
Price? :P
|
|
It is a great lens. Much better than the kit lens 18-55 II. You have f/2.8 for all the range from 17mm to 55mm. Addition with IS, you can get a sharp photo even in low light condition. This makes it a great general lens. It stays on my 400D most of the time. Only change it when prime lens or longer focal length is needed.
I still did not see any dust after 3 months usage. Canon must have done something on new release. :D
Here are some samples with 400D, 580 EX II, WhaleTail Flash Diffuser (clone)
Lantern Festival 2007 at Auto-City (night)
Christmas Caroling (night)
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2008
|
|
sven rose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, good IQ, high keeper-rate
|
|
Cons:
|
dust (very littel dust, but only 3 month old, with UV-Filter mounted)
|
|
IS works great and allows special effects in low-light and longer exposures (al handheld):
http://svenrose.smugmug.com/gallery/4113114
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2008
|
|
Helmetfire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, Sharp, IS works very well. No dust as of yet, so fingers crossed!
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I love this lens. It's on my 40D 99.9% of the time, and only comes off when I need to change to a long prime. As I said, I have had no dust problems, but I am very careful about where I use and change this lens.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2007
|
|
Art Wheelan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $999.99
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast 2.8 throughout zoom range, IS, light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Dust is inescapable and a deal breaker.
|
|
|
I bought this to shoot weddings and it got the nod over the 17-40 L because of the fast 2.8 and the IS. But the widely discussed dust problem is real and inescapable. I placed a UV filter on the lens the moment I took it out of the box and it still collects dust internally. Mine is still under warranty, so I'm taking it to Canon service to get it cleaned, then I'm selling it for the 17-40 L.
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2007
|
|
Husien Jahja
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8 could be use for low light. range is much better than L lens such as 17-40 and 16-35. Colour, contrast and IQ are almost as good as L lens... Image Stabilizer is really a plus on this lens...
|
|
Cons:
|
Expansive, but in exchange for all you get, well not too bad.... Not protected from dust and water. Build quality is solid but not as well as he L lens... No hood... Can't be use in full frame body.
|
|
|
For the first time I chose the EFS, I never quite like the EFS lens, however this lens stuck me with the image, IS and its range.
Image quality is much sharper than my 17-40L, which I now sold.
The IS is useful and all the L do not have it, I could be worth it when use for travelling with less weigh on tripod.
Range is definitely a big plus... I could bring 17-55 and 70-200 f4IS, rather than to worry about the section in the middle such as 40-70, but now 55-70 and only small step to the front I could cover between 55-70.
Canon is now making more and more EFS lens to suit the crop 1.6x body and it is really great to know that these lenses are now build up to its standard with great image quality...
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2007
|
|
David Israel
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3755
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,058.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fabulous picture Quality (what else do you buy a lens for?), IS, fast enough to use indoors (church, school plays, etc.)
|
|
Cons:
|
For me...none.
|
|
|
I absolutely LOVE this lens. This is the lens that sits on my 40D, routinely. My EF 24-105 f4 L IS is usually sitting in my bag collecting dust, ever since I purchased this lens (~ 6 months ago).
The sharpness across it's focal range is every bit as good as I was getting from my EF 24-105 L in the equivalent range. Color and contrast are excellent. Though this is an individual thing, I even like the size and weight of this lens.
I added a B&W UV MRC filter and a lens hood to mine. I have not had any issues with flare, even in direct lighting situations.
The lack of weather sealing is not a major issue for me, though it might be for others. As far as I am concerned, this lens is an L class lens without the red stripe. Next to my EF 70-200 2.8 L IS, this would be my next favorite lens. I couldn't be happier with this lens (unless I had purchased it used for even less money).
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
215
|
515969
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
