 |
|
|
tell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1409
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great handheld shots, excellent sharpness, color, contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
FLARE!
|
|
|
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.
|
|
 Jun 15, 2007
|
|
Binh Ly
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3158
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
I have previously posted a review of this excellent lens. I have another set of pics that further demonstrate the IS, low-light, and wide-end/landscape capabilities of this lens.
http://flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157600285172822/detail/
If you take a look close look at the EXIF information on each pic, you'll see that it is either taken on its 17-end, or at ISO 1600, or using slow shutter (~1/15 sec).
Note that all these pics were taken handheld so I had to make aperture setting compromises in some cases.
|
|
|
May 30, 2007
|
|
b van der veld
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $942.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, fast focus, silent, 2.8 over whole range, compact
|
|
Cons:
|
large filter size ($$), limited range (would like 17-70 2.8 IS), compared to sigma 18-125 4.5-5.6 not big difference in daylight conditions (!!)
|
|
Recently purchased a canon 17-55 2.8IS to replace my sigma 18-125 4.5-5.6 zoomlens on my EOS30D.
Frankly speaking I am a bit disappointed when comparing the 17-55 2.8 to my older sigma lens. Aside from low light IS advantage I really do not see much improvement in sharpness and richer contrast/colors as you would expect from the canon 'close to L-glass' EF-S lense. Also I would expect the canon lens with limited zoom range to the sigma 18-125 to easy outcompete the sigma in every optical area due to the much bigger zoom of the sigma (always a compromise you would say) . ...
I released several comparison photographs on my website:
http://home.planet.nl/~veld2419/lenses/
I will post some more low light conditions soon to compare.
Consider to keep my sigma as walkaround for convienient zoom range and get rid of new canon lense. Would expect more from this lense regarding price tag.
|
|
|
May 21, 2007
|
|
Binh Ly
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3158
|
|
|
May 21, 2007
|
|
KyTom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 230
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $945.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp.....Sharp....Sharp....Sharp. FAST focus. Easy to handle.....Did I mention Sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
None thus far.
|
|
|
I used the lens for the first time at a wedding today. Unbelievable. It was tack sharp, quick to focus. When I downloaded the images, the color and contrast was fantastic. I had very little postprocessing. I was using the Canon 24-105L as my general carry around lens. Looks like the 24-105 is gonna get a much needed rest. As for the price, yep a bit steep, but if you like the images then it is worth it.
|
|
|
May 19, 2007
|
|
Jonathan Wong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 448
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, f/2.8, IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, dust resistance.
|
|
I bought this lens to replace the kit lens of my 400D. I have not been disappointed.
This is an excellent lens. It is fast and sharp. IS is a godsend at low light conditions where a flash is not appropriate.
The build quality exceeded my expectation of a non L lens. It feels sturdy and well built. Although I have found some dust behind the frond element as it is not dust or humidity proof.
I love it!
Jon
www.thewrongun.com
|
|
|
May 10, 2007
|
|
Troy Fawke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $857.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 - Nice bokeh, quality build, IS comes in handy
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic, not much else
|
|
|
I've had this lens for about 7 months now and I've had not a problem with it. I am a professional photographer and this lens handles, portraits, nudes, glamour, landscape, sex act, and erotica with expert care. Its wide angle is perfect for landscape and its 2.8 aperture finds all the curves and crevasses for nudes.
I bought this first hand at an auction and somehow got this amazing deal on it. The auctioneer said that it was previously owned by a Canon dealership that had gone out of business due to financial reasons (bankruptcy).
My primary use for this lens is shooting nudes in my studio. It works great with a master and slave flash and I can't shoot enough nudes with this thing. It is great. The pictures are very sharp. I can zoom in on my nude pictures and find every body part in complete sharpness. That is very crucial in nude photography. I wouldn't be the primary nude photographer in my city if I didn't have the sharpness in my pictures that this lens can accomplish.
Nude photography is all about class and erotica forced together, this lens can really achieve the photographical aspects needed to meet those nude requirements.
I will never switch back to the Tamron AF 19-35MM F/3.5-4.5 I used previously on a different camera body. For those on the fence between these two lenses, put the extra money and get the Canon, its a world of difference.
I don't know why Mlade had to sully this lens' reputation by giving it a "1", what *ocks**k*r.
|
|
|
May 7, 2007
|
|
D.A.Hansen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $999.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, IS, Solid, Silent
|
|
Cons:
|
A Little CA wide open at 17mm,
|
|
So, I've had this lens for all of 45 minutes, and I think it's great. I got it for a walk around lens for my trip to Italy at the end of the month, and I need (wanted really badly) the IS.
The IS is excellent. Sharp shots at 55mm 1/5s, f/4 I usually have trouble getting sharp shots at 1/focal-length, so this is a BOON for me. (Too much caffeine I guess.)
It's heavy, but solid. For me the heavyness is a positive as it helps with steadiness.
So far there's no dust in it! 
|
|
|
May 1, 2007
|
|
Rixu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
the only standard 2.8 with IS! 17mm, overall its sharp nice contrast and colors.
|
|
Cons:
|
the lens with hood on 55mm is quite large. wish it was 70mm on the long end, and internal zooming.
|
|
|
there is a pricecard to this baby, but im very happy i have a 2.8 IS standard lens.. nothing to complain about the image quality.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2007
|
|
mlade10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: Serbia & Montenegro
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Well, I am a certain whack (as stated by the individual named Penia Mon) and idiot to join and post anything on this site where the significant number of members excercises insults as the way of thier primitive existance and where the web-master, most importantly, does nothing and allows this orgy to continue.
With this I will be closing my activity at this redicilous web site.
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007
|
|
Penia Mon
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
clear, sharp, IS, great for wide angle low light situations
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive, plastic, should be upgraded to L
|
|
|
I should have bought this online, but I bought it a local shop and got screwed on tax. But this is a great lens. 17mm is a nice wide angle shot, it surprised me but still it is in no way an extreme wide angle.
It gives great results, I have had no problems with it at all. AF is quick, IS helps in low light. I am deeply pleasured with it.
I think Canon should lower the price a little just because it isn't an L lens and its EFS, but for my 30d, it is perfect. Perfect solution to get a wide angle avoiding the 1.6 crop factor.
I can't believe mlade10 gave this a "1", that guy is whack
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2007
|
|
DmitriM
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1780
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp,IS(very useful)and wide angle.I am happy with my purchase(had to sell 24-70 for this one)
|
|
Cons:
|
There's no dust seal and it sucks dust much more than any other lens I have.
No hood was included,while it IMHO it should,based on price.
EFS mount,means I can't use it on a non crop body.
70-200L 2.8 focuses better in low light than this lens.
|
|
|
I hope Canon will introduce IS on their new EF 16-35 2.8...
I am happy with the lens overall. It stays on my camera mostly. Very good focus range. I had 24-70 before,but sold it to get this lens. I tested it at the store and found no difference in sharpness.
It's still not as good as the L,but maybe Canon will hear us and update it with a better version of it,with a dust seal and other extras
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2007
|
|
TJ Toedebusch
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, super fast AF, IS works great, beautiful colors
|
|
Cons:
|
My one complaint and it's not really a complaint, is the size of the Lens... it's rather large.
|
|
|
What can I say... Slap an L on this lens and it's Canon's best lens. It's very fast, sharp and a darn near perfect lens.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2007
|
|
fintax
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 121
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I love this lens! Great color, sharpness, contrast, balance and focal range on my 30D! A real keeper!
|
|
Cons:
|
It's not an "L", but sure is priced like one!
|
|
|
After reviewing many of my photos I realized that 90% of my shots were within the focal range of this lens, and as I was lacking in low-light capabilities, I decided to try out the 17-55. Very happy with it! Great colors, and man, is this thing sharp!
It now replaces my 24-105 as my walk-around. Of course, I'll hang onto it for the day I move to FF.
Some complain that it doesn't come with a hood, but the hood of my 24-105 fits just fine for me! The build is not "L", but it seems sturdy enough, like the 10-22.
A good macro/portrait lens and a tripod, & I'll be done (really??).
The 17-55 is a really great & useful lens, as you'll see if you give it a try.
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2007
|
|
ReneMurea
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1312
|
|
Review Date: Apr 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
I was one of the few bashing this lens. Never thought that I would pay $900 for an EF-S lens. I gave it a try and I'm more than happy that I did it. The 24-105mm is a good lens, but this is better. Color, contrast and sharpness are amazing. I have to mention that the lens was sent to Canon for softness at 17mm wide open. I was told that it has some focusing problems.
Give it a try! The most that you can lose, if you don't like it, is the shipping. Even if you rent a lens you pay more per day that the shipping would cost you.
|
|
|
Apr 8, 2007
|
|
CountryBob
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, good focal range, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
No hood and the price!
|
|
|
Once you get over the price for this non L lens you can relax. I have had this lens for about six weeks and it is becoming my walk around lens. The build quality is fine. Great for portraits or lanscapes. The IS works well and being a f/2.8 I've used it indoors without flash with good results. This is a great lens which is really sharp. No dust problems with mine.
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
215
|
514461
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
