Printable View
I bought the 17-55mm IS f2.8 based largely on careful consideration of reviews on this site. One thing mentioned on other forums, but not this one, is the dust problem inherent with this lens, that is: it has a propensity to collect dust internally. Never-the-less I purchased this lens and sure enough itarrived withhalf a dozen large specks of dust inside. Is it possible to comment on this within your review? There must be a serious design fault if the lens atracts dust like this.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]Did you buy this lens new? I would send it back. Although not in Bryan's review, there have been several comments within the forums about dust in this lens. As far as I can remember, peety3was the only one here who actually had problems with dust and that was on a rented lens. I own this lens and have had no problems what-so-ever. Sorry to hear about your experience though. Make sure to let us know if your problem is resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liamisnowon
I, too, own this lens and use it for the majority of my work. While it's beensome timesince I've actually looked closely at the front element, I never noticed a dust problem and it sure as hell hasn't affected the picture quality even if it is there.
It's a fact, but not a problem. Even on the fixed-size zooms (70-200), Canon can't seal the lens completely without risk of lens smashing at altitude. On a telescoping lens, air must move in and out.
I've had problems with the 17-55, but not dust problems. I had issues with the IS unit acting up, particularly in combination with AI Servo AF, but also merely with a "rocking" viewfinder upon shutter half-press. See [View:http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/cano...-is/for-canon] for specifics.
What to do? Stick a filter on it. LensRentals.com is anti-filter in general, but puts a UV filter on every 17-55 lens. See [View:http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/filter-uv] for specifics.
In the end, don't worry about the dust. It's not going to affect your pictures. See [View:http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ent-scratches] for specifics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Well, I have had a UV filter on my 17-55 f/2.8 from the get-go, so that could explain why I never noticed any dust inside the lens. Regardless, as you showed, dust won't degrade picture quality to any noticable degree.
Yeah, I've had mine since January, it didn't come with any dust inside that I could see, but now I have a few small flecks in there.
It's not something I'm worried about, I did know about it ahead of time also. I'm sure it hasn't affected any of my shots.
I also have experienced the VF jumping sometimes when the IS kicks in. I guess it happens more in AI Servo mode. Hasn't bugged me at all, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
On at least one instance, evaluating a newly-arrived rental up in our "studio", with AI Servo active, I had continued issues. I was focusing on a dark gray, opaque window covering. It had folds in it, and was lit by a nearby ceiling fan/light, so it had contrast to work with. However, focus (on a 40D) didn't want to lock in, and IS was jerking left/right in conjunction with focus hunting in/out. LensRentals replaced the lens lickety-split.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
I agree. If this lens was bought new it's gotta go.
I've hadmy 17-55 2.8 exactly for 2 years and 2 months, use it indoors and out, no dust/AF/IS issues so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piiooo
Wow. Half dozen dust specks that won't affect the images, and it's a reject? If that's what you want to do, go for it, but I think your expectations may be a bit higher than necessary.
With all due respect, this reminds me of a thread on POTN a while back where somebody (in Canada) bought an L lens from B&H, shipped to a friend on the US (he'd drive across the border, grab the lens, and cross back to Canada). The corner of the lens carton was crumpled less than 1/4", if I remember correctly. Not only was he worried that the lens was damaged (an L lens...), but he wanted a pristine carton for his carton collection. His US-based friend sent him pictures of the carton, and he was debating whether to send it back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
I agree that those specks are not likely to affect the IQ, but my point is, if you shell out a G for a new lens it better be in good condition.
I had this lens for quite sometime but I have never encountered this problem although this is widely known that the 17-55 is a vaccum cleaner. Maybe this is applicable to those who tend to do a lot of pumping action with their zooms :P
But the point is that it came to you brand new but with dust already. I agree with the previous posts that you should return it and get a new one. It's one thing to get dust after you use it rather than when you just opened it in the box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liamisnowon
I disagree. Dust in the 17-55 has absolutely no effect on image quality. At the very worst, the only negative affect it can have is reducing resale value. And even then it is only because buyers have an uninformed fear of dust in the lens. That is not the fault of the manufacturer.
I suggest this for reading:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches
Liamisnowon,
Sorry to hear that your lens arrived with dust in it. Regarding your request - the review already mentions a reported dust issue. Here is the textfrom the review:
"I am getting some email asking about dust issues with this lens. Some are seeing a noticeable amount of dust collect under the front element. Dust seldom makes a noticeable difference in image quality - No one has indicated to me that their dust has affected the image quality of their 17-55. But it is not normal for this amount of dust to accumulate inside the lens. My 17-55 came with one small speck of dust in it (a genuine Canon factory dust speck I suppose) and has not accumulated any additional dust. I've shot thousands of mostly outdoor pictures with this lens."
I have not heard of problems with this lens arriving with dust already in it before.
Regards,
Bryan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Prettyinteresting read. I too thinkit's safe to saythat the front element can takequiteserious beating without affecting picture quality. But here is one section that I humbly disagree with.
"As you can see, scratches and lots of dust in a lens may cause loss of contrast, loss of light gathering, and lens flare, but even so, will not be visible on the image. (In fact, our guess is most of the lost sharpness is because the optical element shifted when it broke, rather than from the cracks themselves.)"
I know, they say they're only guessing, but considering that thereare more variables here (lens focal length, aperture, direction and strength of light and so forth), I think that the amount of damage (showed on the photograph in the article)itself, without the front element being displaced, has potential to decrease IQ.
Back in the day, I used to make my own poor man's soft effect filters, out of net curtain, threads, thin wires etc.,including similar pattern to the pattern of damage and I did get some softening effect.
I'm just being picky here. Other than that one paragraph, I think the rest of the article is pretty accurate.
I still stand by what I said before: 17-55 2.8 IS is not exactly a cheapo lens and even if its sealing is not perfect, when you buy a new one it should be speckless, or at least near speckless.
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Thank you everyone for your reply. Your comments are most helpful.<o:p></o:p>
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Just some background on me: Married with kids and photographing their lives on a budget. Mykit to this point has consisted of 350D SLR 18-55 & 75-300 kit lenses plus 50mm 1.8 (the 50mm almost never leaves my camera body). A lens such as the 17-55 2.8 has been on my wish list for nearly 5 yrs. I live in <st1:country-region w:st="on"]<st1:place w:st="on"]Australia</st1:place></st1:country-region> and when a 17-55 lens was finally tracked down the store retail price was AU$2,000. They ordered it interstate and it is a new lenswith a Canon warranty.<o:p></o:p>
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Honestly I wouldn't really care if it was painted pink and had a little mouse running around inside, just as long as it delivered on image quality and reliability. It seems that most of your replies indicate that the lens will do just that, so I'm happy. The storehas also offered to have the lens cleaned by an approved technician or replace the lens according to whatever option I prefer.<o:p></o:p>
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]In the future I will probably refer to the 17-55 2.8 as Canon's Navel Lens, not because it is good for ship photography (naval), but for its love-affair with lint.<o:p></o:p>
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]This site has provided a valuable resource to me in my hunt for the right kit and I have not been disappointed with my purchase of the ‘Navel Lens’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] It does after all perform according to the review.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Cheers!<o:p></o:p>
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]P.S. I will use a B+W UV filter and I will let you know what option, if any, I take with the store.<o:p></o:p>
I'm glad your happy with the situation! As a fellow Navel Lens owner, I'll just tell you that you can look forward to getting some excellent shots with this glass. It's a great piece of equipment. Enjoy!
alex
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
I bought this lens new and it sucked in a lot of dust on multiple
occasions. I had it sent in for service more then once where I
requested them to clean out the duct. I'm even had a UV filter on it
and it still did it. In my opinion this lens is junk if can suck in
dust so I sold it. I agree that small amounts of dust won't affect
image quality but its very disheartening to see your 1150 dollar lens
including the extra 50 dollars for the freaking lens hood. I am a
photo-journalist and freelance guy so my equipment see's a lot of
extreme situations like surrounding air full of dust and some rain
use when a shot has to be taken. I ended up buying the 16-35mm
series II lens and it blows away my copy of the 17-55mm IS lens plus
it feels 1000 times better when zooming, focusing, and just holding
it in your hand. In my opinion the images shot with my 16-35mm
lens are considerably better then with my 17-55mm IS. One cool thing
that I found while browsing the Internet on 17-55 lens was a post
where a guy opened up his own lens and cleaned out the dust himself.
I tried it before I sold it where it was scary at first but then I
was very glad that I did it. I cannot remember the web page that I
saw this on but I can tell you just as easily how to do it. Instead
of sending it in to canon and being without it for a month try this.
If you need to clean it once then you will have to clean it again and
again as the dust never stops.
-First, lay out a soft cloth and get some of those little
sliver/metal screwdrivers that come in the very common little kit
from any hardware store/radioshack.
-Second, the portion of the lens that you will be dealing with is
right there by the front element. Take a little screwdriver and
just wiggle up the panel/sticker/ring that surrounds the lens
element. Just be careful, work slow and it will not be damaged. don't
touch the sticky side as the oil from your finger will make it less
sticky.
-Third. once you have this off, you will then have access to three
or four small screws. Before you do this, set the lens back on the
end that fit onto the camera and work on it as it sits there. This
way once you loosen the screws the element won't fall out. It
is bigger and heavier then one would think and avoid touching it as
much as possible. Tip it into a soft cloth to get it out of the lens
body.
-Fourth, I tried to remember exactly how the element was seated in
the lens plus I put each screws back into its original place just to
make sure there wasn't any alignment issues.
-Fifth, clean behind the lens element with a soft micro-fiber
cloth or use your blower that you use to clean your sensor.
-Sixth, Replace the front lens element and make sure not to leave
any finger prints. Next, tightened the screws and then replace
the panel/sticker that says canon 17-55mm on it. -Major Note Here- I
am a perfectionist and I found this out the hard way. Just set
the panel/sticker/ring back on to the lens and push it down with your
soft part of your finger only(no back of the fingernail run around
the boarders). Don't use anything to push it down or it will leave
depression marks.
It is very easy to do and its free especially if your warranty is
out on the lens. Other then that I've sent in lenses to canon repair
where they have been returned with scratches and tool marks on them.
If you take your time and do this on a table with a soft towel or
matte down with good lighting then any semi skilled person can do it.