 |
|
|
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: Off
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3777
|
|
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
|
|
bakerwi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 106
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $854.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8, IS, Picture Quality. A delight to use. I haven't experienced any dust yet and hopefully I will not.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand some of the past reviewers of the lens. I think is comical when reviewers rate the following as CONS and give the lens a lesser rating because of it. BUILD QUALITY. Did you not know the build quality of this lens prior to purchasing. The build quality has been discussed on many forums so it shoudn't be a surprise to you. NOT WEATHER SEALED and NO LENS HOOD. Again, did you not know this before you purchased the lens. You talk as though these things were in the specs and yours came without. PRICE. Since when price is a CON. If you can't afford the lens, then common sense dictates that you don't purchase it. FILTER SIZE. I must have missed this one from earlier reviews. When is filter size a CON. The complexity and the design of the lens greatly influence filter size. Since this lens' image quality is on par with most f/2.8 L zooms; why I makes since that it would be 77mm. People read the specs and what's included with the lens. This reminds me of some of the reviews I would read about the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM not being f/2.8. From what I remember the specs stated that it was f/4. We should be limiting our comments to our experience of the product not our imagination or what we wished the lens was.
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2007
|
|
sven rose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
fast and reliable AF and much more
|
|
Cons:
|
price, lack of dust-sealing
|
|
|
Wit the 40D it's a pleasure to use this lens. It's fast enough to take full advantage of the capability of the camera (6.5fps). This was not the case with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 DI, this lens seems to slow and the lack of IS makes it difficult to froze action like it is possible with the EF-S 17-55.
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2007
|
|
Erwin Foo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Focus very fast and quitely, IS, Sharp, High Image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, Dark corner at f/2.8
|
|
The focus is very fast and quiet! You will be amazed by the image quality that produced by this lens.
I owned a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as well, I still prefer to use this lens.
However, please beware of the dark corner when you shoot at f/2.8. Especially when the blue sky is your photo's background.
This is an excellent lens and I highly recommend it.
Some sample for your reference:
http://www.pbase.com/erwinfoo/image/87605693
http://www.pbase.com/erwinfoo/image/88069347
http://www.pbase.com/erwinfoo/image/88345178
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2007
|
|
MagicNikon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2114
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast. IS!
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality only so-so for a $1k lens. Flares more than I would like.
|
|
|
This was my first zoom when I switched to Canon a few months ago. I had previously used Nikon's 17-55mm 2.8, and I have to say the Canon smokes it in every way except build quality.
IS is a dream. Nikon shooters often wail about not needing IS/VR on a wide lens, but I find it very useful. I have been happier with the shots from this lens vs. shots I took with the same focal length Nikon offering.
It does seem to flare kind of badly. I haven't tested that though. Maybe I just notice it flaring because I'm using it so much...much more than I used ym Nikon 17-55.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2007
|
|
sven rose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, color rendition, fast AF, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
not weather sealed, Distorsion, expensive, no lens hood included
|
|
|
As upgrade from a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 the result is much more keepers, I think thanks to IS and faster AF. Before buying this lens I prefer by far to use the EF-70-200 F/4 IS then the Tamron 17-50, because of the better results. Now this lens is quite as good as the 70-200 zoom, which is truly excellent. Both lens with a 40D (+ Kenko TC 1.4x, Polfilters and Extension tubes) makes a very nice and compact set for a lot of situations and I don't use the cheaper primes as much (EF 50 f/1.8 II, Sigma 30 f/1.4).
Because the EF 70-200 Zoom has another filter diameter as the EF-S 17-55 (67 versus 77cm), I have to bought also a new Filter set (PLC+UV). Also the Kenko Extensions tube didn't fit to the lens and I need to buy a canon Typ II Extension tube too. This with the extra lens hood makes the 17-55 finaly a very expensive lens. With the Tamron I could use the same filters and Extensions tube as with the 70-200 f/4 IS.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2007
|
|
bri775
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Oct 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,015.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp at all focal lengths. 'L' quality pictures without a question. Doesn't feel cheap at all - feels solid. IS is top-notch
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive. No hood included for a lens this expensive.
|
|
|
This is without a doubt an 'L' quality lens as far as image quality goes. It surpasses my EF 28-70 f/2.8 L lens in sharpness, contrast and color rendition. This lens lives up to the hype it has received. I took it to the OC auto show the day after I got it to test the IS. I took about 300 pictures total, all with IS on as the lighting inside the venue required it for apertures past 2.8. Every single one with the exception of maybe 10 were very sharp. I was shooting at f/8 all the way to f/16 to get all of the car in focus and I was getting keepers all the way down to 1/3 sec. Very happy with this lens
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2007
|
|
Anjo Francke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, dust appearing after a few days
|
|
|
Well known phenomenon, have read all the other reviews. I actually thought Canon would have solved the problem, but mine showed dust in just a few days, while I was wating for my protection filter to arrive.
I wonder if there is anyone who can confirm that putting on a filter will do to prevend further dust to appear ?? And if Canon cleans it, can they solve the problem ?
It annoys me, but I have to be honest that it may not be visible on photos. But I just cannot understand this flaw appearing in a lens in this price class.
Canon told me they're familiar with the problem, but it has not reached the 'status' of a construction error at this point. It guess it hurts to admit this (with financial consequences).
Perhaps someone can give me advice how to address the
dust problem....
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2007
|
|
Rasy Ran
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $924.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
The fast f/2.8, coupled with IS. The quality of the images are sharp, but I'd have to say the 24-70 is sharper since I use both at work.
|
|
Cons:
|
The cheap build, dust, IS system messing up after 9 months.
|
|
|
As in another review, 9 months into owning it, the IS system vibrating violent. I mean violently as in non-stop when I tried to focus. The lens is as of now is being repaired. As for the dust issue, I mean honestly, when has dust completely RUINED an image for you? I pick out only a handful of images out of the hundreds I take on an average shoot anyways.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
Ansel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 12, 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a tack, 2.8, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Ghosts in the moonlight. Too much money not enough fun.
|
|
|
The Sigma 15-30 is a fine lens and it is so much more fun than the EF-S17-55. I'm happy to own both of course but really I often take the Canon because it's reported to be such a crack lens. When in reality the
Sigma takes much more interesting photos.
Street shots or Moonlight landscapes, portraits... can all be straight or playfully distorted with the Sigma when required or if you just need to frame everything you can.
The Canon has the quickness but it's 2 weak points are it only goes down to 17mm and night shots with moon ghost terribly.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2007
|
|
misanthropic a
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 459
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $899.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a tack, great color/contrast, IS, FAST focus speeds, F2.8, fairly light (about the same weight as a 28-75 Tamron, sharper too)
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit steep for a non-L, dust, 77mm filter size can be a bit annoying.
|
|
|
Got this lens as a replacement for the 28-75 Tamron. Was finding that for weddings, on a crop camera the tammy was just too long and I would be constantly swapping down to my UW lens'.
This lens was the only option that had a faster focusing motor, as the 17-50 like the tamron is a bit too slow for catching running flower girls.
Cost is a bit steep, but its features are great. The IS is stunning, can shoot at 1 second exposures zoomed all the way in with no blur.
The dust issue can really be one if you are doing landscapes, I've had it for about a month and it has quite a coating inside already. I've read that putting a filter on the end and never taking it off prevents the dust from entering, as it seems it comes in from behind the ring around the front element.
Overall, a fantastic lens marred only by a propensity to consume copious amounts of dust.
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2007
|
|
poodlelvr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 516
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,059.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, excellent picture quality, Image Stabilization. A great walk-around lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Does not come with hood
|
|
|
I bought this lens I was hoping it wasn't a mistake - definitely not. A top quality lens well suited to my XTi & 30D, it lives on the XTi. While not light, it also is not too heavy and the quality of my photos is outstanding. Very sharp. The IS has saved me numerous times. I own several L Lens, including the 17-40 but I have to admit that I use this one
over the 17-40 - speed, extra reach and the IS make it worth the price difference. Canon got this one right.
Con: I think it's ridiculous that there is no hood included. I went online and bought a generic for for about $18 including shipping. Works just fine, thank you. Canon, I love your products but selling the hood separately is pretty darn cheap and it is not going to make you any extra $ as most of us will just go generic.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2007
|
|
Peter Daniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, would be nice it were a bit longer
|
|
|
After much thought I chose this lens as a standard zoom for my 400D. It can produce great images but occasionally doesn't focus correctly, I haven't been able to decide if this is the lens or my technique.
This lens is not weather sealed - on one occasion some grains of sand got underneath the manual focus ring.
I have read a lot about dust problems, but this hasn't been an issue yet, I have taken about 3000 shots, mostly outdoors, since April this year.
On the downside, it is heavy if you are walking around a lot, in these situations I sometimes prefer the 50mm prime. I wish it were a bit longer, but this will be rectified with the addition of a 70-200 at some point.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
