 |
|
|
J-Hellmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 8, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 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 9, 2007
|
|
J. Hellmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 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 8, 2007
|
|
Lance Couture
Offline
Image Upload: On
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
froggynaan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14726
|
|
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
|
|
Klaas de Lint
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 17, 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 17, 2007
|
|
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
|
|
tell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1409
|
|
Review Date: Jul 1, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
Cons:
|
update: IS broke after less than three months of use "error 01" and crazy shaking. Having TWO IS lenses in the shop at the same time, the other being the 70-200 2.8 IS, really sucks. It gives me very little confidence in the durability of Canon's IS system. Particullarly when Canon only has a one year warranty.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens after returning a Tamron 17-50 2.8 because of it's very loud focusing mechanism. I wish I would have kept both lenses for at least one party shoot to compare quality.
90 percent of the time this lens earns a "10". But when it comes to reception shots or night shots with DJ lights and/or street lamps and car lights, this lens becomes a gamble. Sometimes a flare adds artistic qualities to a photo, but when it's a big green dot accross Grandpa Joe's face durning the Daddy Daughter dance, it's a big pain in the rear. I'm learning to either shoot around (or chimp a lot) the deficiencies of this lens. But for close to a grand, I would think I wouldn't have to do that. Prior to this lens, I used the 17-85 IS at receptions. I had no flare issues. I guess it might be the nature of a fast lens.
|
|
|
Jul 1, 2007
|
|
cftofu2k
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 248
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Color, sharpness, IQ, f/2.8, IS works, nice zoom for crop body
|
|
Cons:
|
Flaring despite big hood for it, zoom creep (no lock) while carrying around
|
|
|
IS did not work on my first copy (error messages), and images appeared blurry. Exchanged it for a new one and you can tell that IS works from the viewfinder and LCD. I was also impressed with image quality. Better than my 50mm f/1.8. Did some shooting over the weekend, and flaring was a small issue, when it shouldn't be for $1k glass and $50 hood that doubles the size of the lens.
Canon focusing, IQ, f/2.8, and IS make it worthwhile though.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2007
|
|
Allan Gobin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, sharp, sharp! Good weight not too heavy. Quick, accurate focus even in low light. IS/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey but what would you expect for L class image quality.
|
|
I will keep this short. This lens is without question L class image quality. Actually its about 10% sharper than ALL of our L lens. The Ls has a slight edge in color in my opinion but not much. The beauty of this lens is its ability to work in a small area on a 1.6 camera e.g. 20D. Add IS and 2.8 for shallow DOF and you have a very interesting little lens. Some people complain about the build quality and yes, its not as solid as an L but that also makes it much lighter.
But you don't have to take my word...look for yourself. An image from our L class comparison....
http://allang.smugmug.com/gallery/1178544#163913373-O-LB
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
215
|
514691
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
