 |
|
|
martsmith42
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: Mar 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
focal range, IS, Sharp, well balanced - did I mention sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
no hood
|
|
|
I've had this lens for a month and used it for portraits, landscapes and a lot of indoor work. Yesterday I had to photograph children rehearsing for and Easter service in a 300 year old church. The light was poor in the extreme, but this lens was brilliant. Hand held shots down to 1/10th are pin sharp. This lens is perfect on my 30d. Just get one!
|
|
 Mar 27, 2007
|
|
BillBrowning
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: Mar 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
I am thinking of buying this lens and would like to thank every one for their posts.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
A message to mlade10. If you buy any product you are very dissatisfied with, take it back if possible. I wish you would go into more detail with what you disliked about the lens. As a potential buyer your opinion is important to me. Canon lenses like other products have varying quality as shown by the people with the focus problems.
Thanks,
Bill
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2007
|
|
saji
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp! L-level glass. 3rd-generation IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I also would like to add my praise for this lens. I've used a variety of L lenses in the past (my favorites are the 85mm and 135mm primes), and this lens stacks up as equal or superior to the 16-35mm L. Images are preternaturally sharp -- I stopped taking pictures of my room because it kept showing how much dust there was on everything! I haven't had much chance to test out the color yet but initial pictures look promising.
I also have to plug the new and improved IS on this lens. I previously used the EF-S 17-85 as my primary lens, but this lens has vastly improved image stabilization -- I was able to get sharp shots at 0.8 sec shutter speed! Combined with the large aperture and wide focal length, this is a great indoor/night lens.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2007
|
|
Thumb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2007
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Perfect range. sharpness. IS. Gr8 balance on 20d. weight. USM is ultra fast. Color and bokeh. Large zoom ring. L glass. Price paid.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic filter mount
|
|
|
Sold the 24-70mm to get this one and it was a nice trade off.
My 17-55mm is sharper, bokeh and color is in the same quality (L glass), and itīs much much lighter and smaller.
Itīs nice to have a Canon L glass with f2,8 that coverīs the normal range, has IS, USM, and only have to pay $1000.
There is no EF lens that beats that! or even comes close to that on a crop body
Image quality I get from this lens is amazing. I have used canon 70-200mm f2.8L, canon 28-70mm f2,8L and canon 24-70mm f2,8L and 17-55mm is my favorite regarding image quality.
I think build quality is very nice except that it has plastic filter mount. If it had L build quality it would have been much much more expensive probably around $1400 and 200gr heavier.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2007
|
|
Mick Dooley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, colour&contrast, IS, focal range
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, EFs, no hood
|
|
|
I considered quite a few other lens before buying this. The focal range was the deciding factor. This covers 80% of my work. Build quality is OK for me - I'm very carefull with gear. f2.8 + IS + 17/55 is perfect. The 55 range is a useful bonus over 35 or 40 and the IS is much more usefull than I expected. IQ is up to L standards. EFS was a concern but the IQ is so good I'll keep a body for this lens in the longterm.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2007
|
|
Jordan Liesdek
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, IS usefull for any focal length, USM (fast focus on my 30D), good contrast and colour, f/2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really. Little dust. The hood could be included. Sometimes flare issues. I would like internal zooming. But hey, you can't have it all.
|
|
|
I bought this lens from the start for my 30D. I skipped the kit lens. I'm using it mostly in low light and this lens never fails me! It stays on the camera 90% of the time and it delivers.
It is sharp wide open and I really thought I would miss the tele end, but the range is so useful! I will get a 70-200 2.8L IS or 4.0L IS soon, but i doubt it will be much more used then the 17-55/2.8.
The size of the lens is perfect on the 30D. it balances perfect and I find it not heavy at all. I got the 100/2.0 later and it's way too small for my liking (great lens too though) but I wish it was the size of the 17-55.
The IS is so useful. Shooting at 1/10 or lower is possible with a few missers. 1/15 gives sharp pictures.
I used it for a wedding and it was great. using it for portraits as well. Actually I use it for everything!
The build quality is by all means fine! Ofcourse it's no L lens etc. but saying the build is bad is simply not true.
For examples you can e-mail me.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2007
|
|
chinks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 266
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Can be really sharp... sometimes. Nice color & contrast. Fast USM & focussing. f/2.8. Covers a very useful range. Very rarely, but IS can be useful at 55mm.
|
|
Cons:
|
Quite a few 'miss' shots on sharpness. Bokeh not as good as expected. High price. Big size. No hood. Could be better built.
|
|
|
I've heard and continue to hear a lot of raves about this lens. Not sure if I've got a dud version of it but the most annoying thing about it is that the focus is hit & miss. A lot of my pictures are not as crisp and sharp as I like or expect. Perhaps I just expect the IS to be more wonderful than it actually is, but it's not the first IS I've had, also owning the 17-85 IS and using the 28-135 IS before it.
The bokeh is not as good as I expected either. No objective tests but I just feel at 50mm f/2.8 the background blur of the EFS 17-55 IS is nowhere close to the EF24-70L's. Perhaps because the lens is EF-S?
My third peeve is of course the price. High. And I'm not sure the extra $$$ for the IS is justifiable.
Minor peeve... it's big, I think bigger than all others in the 17-50 range.
Like the hood though... it's awesome. But it doesn't come with the lens... so really, it's a peeve. For the price please include the humble hood?
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2007
|
|
Valerie S
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 474
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,249.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, color, WA, IS, f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I didn't think I'd enjoy the wide end and miss some length, but I grew into the len's range pretty quickly. I shoot with it wide open most of the time as it's sharp enough to do that with. I've had it since July '06 and take it with me 90% of the time I leave the house and have no dust inside the lens. The build quality is pretty close to my 35L - it's never been a concern. The IS and constant 2.8 have spoiled me. It doesn't "creep" and it feels pretty balanced on a 30D.
If I had to make one criticism of the lens, it would be it's bokeh. It's not bad or harsh by any means, but it's not as creamy as a 24-70/2.8.
It's a utility lens and hasn't let me down.
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2007
|
|
G Ric
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 522
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
mlade10, Let it go......
I read your review and all you did was complain about the price. But you bought the lens and gave it a "1" ! I'd say a rating of "1" would be DOA. my 2 cents.
Borrowed from a friend. Excellence in every aspect. Can't wait to own one.
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2007
|
|
desertracer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small size due to EF-S mount. Color and contrast coming out from my 20D is excellent. IS helps a lot in low light indoor conditions. I've tried handheld 1/6 sec and the result is encouraging.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little dust comes in after 2 weeks of usage. How come the hood is not included?
|
|
|
This lens stays with my camera all the time since I got it two months ago. Focal length is prefect for everyday use. I've done one wedding with it and it serves me very well together with the 70-200 2.8 IS. It's overpriced but I think it's normal from Canon.
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2007
|
|
mlade10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: Serbia & Montenegro
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
It comes to my certain and sad conclusion ( after contacting webmaster via this review and via its contact mail address... and not receiving any and expected respond ) that 'members reviews' are not controled before being allowed on the 'review page' and that is an unpleasant practice and in contrary with 'forum rules'. Consequently it allows the unresponsible and insultive members as 'musicjohn' and his other self-invented member profile 'studiom' to continue with his insultive and primitive practice against me.
We all can have sharply different opinions about products involved, but we should be able to accept and respect other members opinions without getting personal, insultive and offensive, as it would be the case of member 'musicjohn' and his satelite profile 'studiom' against me.
With the hope that 'musicjohn' will be able to stop with his unaccepteble, primitive parctices and sincere hope that reviews will be reviewed before going public in future...
sincerely, mlade10
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2007
|
|
studiom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 20, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super Sharp, Great Contrast & Colour, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I have to agree with musicjohn..re the person who rated this lens a 1?
This is not a cheap lens at all, but you pay for a lens that delivers in sharpness and contrast. I have a 17-40mm L that I no longer use as this is sharper and has IS. Sure the build is not as good but it's not that bad. It's as sharp as my 70-200 f4L IS in fact it's as sharp or sharper than any zoom I've used in this focal range. A joy to use!
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2007
|
|
dog snaps
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast 2.8 with 3 steps of image stabilization. Great specs and optical performance in lab tests. Sharp photos at f/4 when autofucus was accurate.
|
|
Cons:
|
In my case, autofocus was very erratic with Rebel XT and XTi. It was worse at 17 and 20mm, and somewhat better at 35 and 55mm, ranging from about 33% to 60% successful.
|
|
|
I really wanted to like this lens. I bought it to compliment my superb 70-200 IS f/4 L lens, and thought the two would make an excellent combination for travel and low-light shooting. Reviews here, at SLR Gear, and PhotoZone were most promising. I thought the price was almost reasonable if the lens would deliver quality equivalent to my 70-200 IS L.
The build quality was fine - not quite "L" quality, but better than my 10-22 zoom, and similar to my Canon 100mm USM macro. I didn't have the lens long enough to comment on dust problems.
Over about 150 shots, I found the AF to be inaccurate on my Rebel XT. (I have had some issues with the EF-S 10-22, as well, but with no other lenses, including the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Canon 100 f/2. Maybe my Rebels don't like EF-S lenses?) I thought perhaps this f/2.8 lens would benefit from the "precision" focusing system on the XTi, supposedly the same as on the 30D, but results were no better. At wider settings, AF performed worst, being accurate about 1/3 of the time. At 17mm, the lens consistently showed 3m for large objects at infinity, and EXIF data showed 3.27m. These distance data were for larger subjects, with good contrast, in good lighting (although IS was always used). At the longer settings, AF was better, but still not quite good enough to be successful 2/3 of the time.
I quickly lost confidence in this lens on my camera bodies. I then read a review at kenrockwell.com, and he reported AF problems with his copy, too. Because of that, I decided to return the lens for a refund rather than exchange. No matter how sharp a lens may be, it is of little value if it cannot be focused accurately. This is a premium EF-S lens designed for APS-C bodies, so I expect accurate focus at least 90% of the time, and expect AF to be better than my ability to manually focus in most normal situations.
I would have been very disappointed if this had been a $400 lens, but I think thousand dollar lenses should not be shipped unless they are in perfect calibration. I sent it back to B&H Photo, who were very friendly and helpful with the return.
I am resisting giving the lens a very low rating, because so many others are happy with their copies and I don't want to overly skew the average rating. However, I can't give it more than a "6" or "7" due to the erratic AF problems and poor quality control. For $1000, I expected much better.
Like I said, I really wanted to like this lens. It's the first one I have had to return in many years, and the first one I ever returned that cost more than $500.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007
|
|
mlade10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: Serbia & Montenegro
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
...greetings fredmiranda...
...( could not find the link to contact u. )
kind request:
-comment by 'musicjohn' in his review of Canon EF-S 17-55 f.2.8 IS USM concerning and involving myself I do find personal and insulting and in the breach with the ' forum rules '.
kindly asking for deletion or correction of the review involved.
sincerely,
mlade10
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2007
|
|
tjloeb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $949.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A great all in one lens. Fantastic image quality throughout its entire zoom range and the fast and accurate autofocus combine to give you a superb all in one lens.
Add an extension tube and you have a good close up lens as well.
|
|
Cons:
|
Does not include a lens hood
|
|
A wonderful lens. I was looking for a lens that I could use in "no flash" environments and the 17-55 fit the requirement perfectly.
The match up with my 30D is perfect.
The combination of the large aperture along with the 3 stop IS give you a great low light lens.
It also preforms in normal and bright light equally well.
The dust myth seems to be never ending here. I have had no dust problems with this lens.
For a great technical overview of the lens go to:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/f_repo.html
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2007
|
|
vontom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 520
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, f/2.8, sharpness, size/weight (compared to full frame option).
|
|
Cons:
|
Some flare visible with light sources in the picture (eg street lights). It's a con because I would have expected a little better performance in this area for the price.
This lens is stopping me buying the 5D because there's no equivalent performance FF lens!
|
|
|
A very good, almost indispensible lens for me. I have owned the 28-70 f/2.8 L on a 20D and loved that lens for its sharpness, out of focus (OOF) qualities and colour. The 17-55 lens, compared, seems a little less glamorous - the shots just don't seem to have the same OOF impact and flare resistance that the 28-70 did. I will never go back to the 28-70L though because of the IS and wider angle the 17-55 offers.
I do wish for a little more length on the long end - even if it was 70mm - because at times I find I need a tighter shot and have to walk in to the subject or crop later on. To change lenses to a longer focal length would defeat the purpose of this being a walkaround lens.
I have loved using this lens where its utility is best - in low light, static situations like museums and church events, where I use the IS and f/2.8. I have never had any worries using the lens wide open for any shots as far as IQ goes. With flash and f/2.8 I can get great and natural looking shots indoors, definieley better than having only f/4.
The focus is fast, and I don't believe after thousands of shots on my 20D that it has misfocussed once without human error.
Compared to holding an L zoom, this lens is lighter and the focussing/zoom is not as well damped, but the lens still does the job.
There is some flare when I take shots with the light source in the frame - more than I would have expected from the price, however those moments aren't common for me. If the situation didn't require f/2.8 or IS, I would use the 10-22 in overlapping focal lengths for shots with the sun/lights in frame.
If there is some CA or purple fringing then I have not noticed it with my everyday shooting.
This lens is my workhorse. It isn't glamorous, but it is sharp and provides better shooting opportunities at normal focal lengths than anything else Canon offers on an APS-C camera.
I am confident that, barring flare issues (which really are minor and can be somewhat managed by your shooting technique), this lens gives me the best quality and utility a zoom in this range can give.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
215
|
516048
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
