 |
|
|
twistedlim
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3175
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast accurate focus. Good center sharpness and contrast at 2.8. Solid enough build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Edges don't really get good until F8. Not to beat a dead horse but this lens should come with a stupid hood!
|
|
|
The lens performs as reviewed by most. Sharp at 2.8 in the center and good contrast. It is somewhat weak compared to the tamron 17-50 on the edges until f8 where they equal out. IS works well. Build is solid enough. Not quite "L" quality but close. I think if they added a rubber gasket in the zoom mechanism they could get rid of any dust complaints. It is large but their is no free ride when you want an image stabilized lens.
|
|
 Oct 9, 2008
|
|
jayceooi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $854.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, f/2.8, no dust
|
|
Cons:
|
no hood
|
|
After using this lens for one year. No dust issue found. I am happy with this lens on my 400D. It is a recommended lens for 1.6x crop body.
Check out my wedding shot with this lens
wedding photo samples
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2008
|
|
eunaja
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, Sharp. 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, not an L lens and no hood
|
|
|
Lens is very good for an EFS Lens and it is absolutely a fast lens with 2.8 and it has an IS where in some condition it will help you take a very sharp images. Highly recommended
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2008
|
|
mique
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2008
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Range - Very sharp - Fast - IS is OK
|
|
Cons:
|
Bad, really bad build quality for the price (this glass deserves better housing), Dust sucker
|
|
Bought this lens in Bangkok after two days deciding between 17-55 and 17-40 4L while drinking good old Singha 
2.8 and IS convinced me, although 17-40 is soooo much better built.
My sample is quite sharp, but after only two days of using the lens I saw dust on front elements.
I think I'll just clean the lens myself and put b+w mrc UV filter as I'm almost 100% sure that dust is coming in where the screws are...
|
|
|
Aug 6, 2008
|
|
klosz007
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very high IQ - very sharp, little or no CA; very fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Large, heavy and pricey. For this price I would expect at least lens hood included and higher build quality. Flaring when shooting against the sun.
|
|
|
I've got this lens for some time. I've bought it as as replacement for 40D kit 17-85 IS USM (now is only backup walkround lens).
Although this lens is large and heavy, it is worth having it in your photo bag. Image quality is simply superb - pictures are very sharp, have little or no chromatic aberration, also very little distortion, even at wide angle end (these faults were common for 17-85 at wide end). Simply L lens in terms in IQ.
Also very fast lens (when compared to 17-85) - constant f/2.8 across all focal lengths.
Weak point - susceptible to flaring then shooting agains the sun. At least more flaring than in 17-85.
Build quality is good but not as high as with L lenses. Made of plastic, no weather sealing. We might expect more in this area as this lens is more expensive than some L lenses ! (e.g. 17-40 or 24-105) However Canon saves L marking for EF lenses and since it is EF-S, Canon probably purposely gave it more "classic" build quality.
Strongly recommended walkround EF-S lens for everybody that can afford buying it !
|
|
|
Aug 5, 2008
|
|
slamdesign
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, 2.8 throughout all zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
price, not quite as well built as L, no hood.
|
|
|
I bought this to replace my 17-40 F4 L, the main reason was for my low light wedding work.
I intially got sucked into the 'gotta have L lenses', but the proof really is in the pudding so to speak. This lens kicks the 17-40 L in the arse! Its more money yes, but image quality is superb (i have test shots with both lenses if you want to see, email me). F2.8 which I dont think is that fast, creates nice creamy background, which 17-40 isnt great at at all, also has greater zoom range and the bonus IS. I wasnt sure about IS but having used it, its fantastic. Cant really demonstrate it working, but switch it on the head down to 8th or 15th sec and it just works, dont as me how, it just does.
Works that well infact that i will be upgrading my 135 F2L (best lens i ever owned) to a 70-200 f2.8 IS very soon.
Downside, not as smooth as L series with focus rings and build quality, but you soon forget about that when you see the pics it produces.
I hope this helps someone out in their decision, alot of money but buy one asap.
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2008
|
|
Access
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1872
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, reasonably light for a f/2.8, fast, quiet focus
|
|
Cons:
|
IS isn't really needed, cost
|
|
|
Pictures taken with this lens look very good. No major complaints. For general shooting, the IS seems useless but still adds to the cost and weight.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008
|
|
mredden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 8, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $925.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Useful in so many situations
On my camera most of the time
|
|
Cons:
|
Almost as heavy as the 70-200L F4
|
|
|
I keep this fantastic lens on my camera 95% of the time only taking it off when I want to go wide (10-22 EFS), long (70-200L) or light (50 1.8).
Covers most shooting situations . While the IS is a big bonus but it is the IQ is what makes me keep this lens on my camera most of the time.
Never regretted buying this lens which is the truest test of all.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008
|
|
mmari
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $950.00
|
|
Pros:
|
good normal zoom range, IQ, 2.8, IS, USM
|
|
Cons:
|
price, weight, hood not included
|
|
|
almost perfect fast normal zoom for my 40D.
heaviest on its league.
many times that 2.8 & IS save the day, i mean night.
i'm inlove with this lens since i got it from day 1, this is my 2nd longest running lens after 50/1.8 which seldomly seen in action.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008
|
|
oncoming
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $930.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Near perfect zoom range, Silent focus/IS
|
|
Cons:
|
No distance markings, No IS with tripod mode, Overpriced
|
|
|
A great lens for closeup event work and portraiture.
Nice zoom and low aperture, although slightly lacking in build for the asking price. My zoom ring sticks(is not smooth) going from 28 to 17 [hopefully something that resolves with time and usage].
Would have liked to see more weather-proofing or a 2.5/2.2 max aperture at this price. Overall I am still very pleased with my 17-55.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008
|
|
Dan Pick
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $960.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing image quality. Very sharp wide open. IS is da' bomb. Very good color. Quiet, accurate focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
None I really care about.
|
|
|
I finally decided that I needed new glass more than I needed to upgrade to my 20D. My first purchase--after much thought and research--has been the 17-55 IS. It has not disappointed. The sharpness is amazing. Also, there is simply no better lowlight zoom lens on the market. I love to shoot with natural light whenever possible, and this lens makes it much more possible than when using my older 18-50 2.8 Sigma.
Excellent lens.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008
|
|
sadghost
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 154
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Update*
Also The Image stabilization actualy degrades the images on both copys of this lens.And The IS also increses the CA that this lens produces do to lens elememts movement when IS
|
|
|
May 26, 2008
|
|
historism
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
ultra sharp, fully correctable CA, very low distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
dust sucker, size, doesn't fit my Nodal Ninja 3
|
|
|
I use this lens as my main lens. I mainly shoot architecture where I use it at 17mm.
I love this lens for it's superb sharpness even in the corners. If you need a standard zoom I think there is no better alternative.
At 17mm there is some colour aberration. But when you shoot RAW and apply a correction of -25 in Adobe Camera Raw you won't see any left. Contre jour performance is good too. Both the Tokina 12-24 and the TS-E 24 have worse performance regarding CA.
After two years now you see dust particles behind the front lens. However I couldn't find an influence on image quality probably because the front lens is very big. I assume the dust enters where the zoom moves in and out.
It would be a good lens for making panoramics. Therefore it's sad this lens doesn't fit Nodal Ninja 3 because the nodal point is too far away from the sensor. Have fun with Nodal Ninja 5 or any bigger nodal adapter.
|
|
|
May 19, 2008
|
|
sadghost
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 154
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,030.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at 2.8/fast/silent/IS is sweet
|
|
Cons:
|
C-H-R-O-M-A-T-I-C A-B-O-R-A-T-I-O-N...You hsve been warned
|
|
|
This lens is a good lens has good features such as IS/F2.8/Fast Focus/17 mm wide is good enough for alot of situations.
But the killer for me is that F#@%ing CHROMATIC ABORATION ..jesus christ I wish this lens wasn't so bad with it !!
I also have a $300 TOKINA 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 that I wanted this lens to replace.My TOKINA creates almost no chromatic aberation, by almost I mean it creates at least 90 percent less Chromatic ABORATION then the canon 17-55 at over $1,000 why ?
I have no other lens in my bag that produce that much Chromatic A. I'ved had those other lens for over 5 years, so I was used to not having to deal with them...but now finding workarounds to remove those CA is impacting my worflow and speed way too much.
I will mostlikly return or call canon on monday and ask if they could fix that problem if not... I'm getting my money back to get something else.
So other then that the Chromatic Aberation and oh..also flares like hell..this lens would be perfect!!
And about this dust issue ..Not a problem for me at all.Eevn if this lens had no CA problem..the Dust problem would not be a problem for me.
|
|
|
May 17, 2008
|
|
Ulan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 236
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, fast, very good IS and AF
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive (no hood included), moderate build quality
|
|
|
So far, I haven't had dust problems. Optic is very good, no complaint about it, except distortion at lower focal. Didn't experience flare nuisance up to now. IS works well and helps at lower speeds (yes, you gain 3 stops). f2.8 helps you isolate your subject from the background while quality is very good at the centre (and good at the edges). Really harp pictures at closed apertures (f5.6). AF is fast and accurate.
Build quality is not up to the price, it could have been a L construction even if it meant a little more weight. And you have to pay an extra money for a hood (which, by the way, is not very resistant, mine split too easily in two in one of my luggages...).
|
|
|
May 14, 2008
|
|
drongo92
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8, IS, light, sharp even wide open
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy IS
|
|
|
No dust so far. Noisy IS imo. Overpriced.
|
|
|
May 10, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
217
|
584363
|
Nov 6, 2015
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
87% of reviewers
|
$1,021.05
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.89
|
7.42
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
