Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

I am thinking of purchasing the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM, from everything I have read it seems to be the majority of people love this lens. The only worry I have is dust, it seems to be the major complaint if any. My Body is a 40d, is this the lens for me or should I go with a L for the price.

thanks

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

I've had mine for quite some time and have not seen any dust problems with it. It is a little pricey but it is worth it. The alternative is the 16-35mm L and it is really pricey!!

Edit: I had the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens before I got the Canon and while the image quality was very good on the Tamron it was just so slow to focus in low light. I shoot a lot of concerts and plays so shooting in low light is a priority for me and a lens that 'hunts' is not a good thing. So I sold the Tamron and got the Canon 17-55.

I recently picked up a used copy of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens for shooting portraits and it is a marvelous lens but it is not a lens I wantwalk around with. It's way too heavy for that. So I still have my 17-55 for low light events and I'll use the 24-70 strictly for portraits.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

The 17-55 is my only lens, so I have nothing to compare it to....but I really like it a lot. It is super sharp, except at the edges at 17mm and f/2.8. It's hefty, feels solid, zooms smoothly. The MF ring is a little narrow and sometimes hard to find, but I'll get used to it. The IS is phenomenal, incredibly handy.

I got the lens hood with mine (recommended), but it stinks that it doesn't come with the lens. It's extra, and not very cheap.

From all the things I've read, you should consider the 17-55 an 'L' lens, it just isn't called that because it's not full-frame compatible.

In short, if you can afford it, I highly recommend this lens.

alex

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

I have a 50D, and two lenses--the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. I can tell you that the 17-55 stays on my camera about 90% of the time. It's a fantastic lens, and an extremely useful focal range on a 1.6x body. I would suggest a lens hood as well, however, I bought a 3rd party lens hood for it and it works perfectly (the 3rd party lens hood costs about half as much as the Canon<span id="btAsinTitle"] EW-83J). It is a fantastic lens, and although it's expensive, I've never heard someone regret buying it. I certainly don't.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

One thing you should consider is whether or not you think you will upgrade to a full-frame camera in the future. If you think you will, look at lenses that can be used with both 1.6x and full-frame sensors (the 24-105L is around the same price). If not, then the 17-55 is a great lens to have.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metakephotos

I am thinking of purchasing the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

This lens just made its way to my wishlist. I use a 50D and my current utility lens is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. I absolutely love it, but I do feel a little bit limited when shooting indoors with low light. What I am really looking for is the 2.8 aperture but I also feel that having a little more room at the wide end will come in handy too. I have been going back and forth between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L because I do aspire to own a full frame body at some point. Until then I feel that I would be better off with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and just sell/trade it on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L when I do make the switch to full frame.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Boy, I hemmed and hawwed over this one for a long time myself. In the end, the combination of fast glass, IS, ideal "walk around" range and excellent IQ on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 won out over my desire to stay with full frame compatible lenses. It was the best lens for the job on the camera body I have now (40D); the future will have to worry about itself [:)] I don't regret it a bit and have even added the EF-S 10-22 to my kit for much the same conclusion; best lens for the job.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Great timing as today I just received my new 50D and 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM lens. Although I only got to play with it for an hour or so, I am simply amazed and would seriously recommend it. Unless you plan on shooting in very dusty environments, I would not worry too much about dust...

Go for it...

[;)]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

I use the EF-S 17-55 on a 40D for group wedding shots. No problem with dust but I always have a UV filter on the lens for extra care.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

This lens is officially OFF my shopping list. In shopping for a second wide-angle lens since my girlfriend and I are both photogs, this was a high consideration. I've rented it twice and seen IS troubles twice. First time, IS would "rock" in one axis each time the shutter was half-pressed, and sometimes again when the IS would stop. Second rental, with 40D in AI SERVO, focus couldn't lock at one point, and the whole time that focus was hunting, the IS was rocking. On our big shoot that weekend, it kept jumping.

Perhaps those issues will never plague each of you, but I for one don't want a lens that has such a high rate of plaguing me.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

maybe the "rental" was the issue?

[;)]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

No one else ever has problems with their 17-55 because all the bad ones go the peety3! ;-)

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

A very similar issue with a used lens I purchased. Luckily Adorama was great and let me return it since it's rating didn't match the performance. Knowing others have have experienced the same symptoms makes me a little more cautious about purchasing one in the future. In the end I'll still buy one, no lens beats it for low light performance on a 1.6x body. For the less than a week I had it it was amazing. The price was the only hard thing to swallow.

Its an amazing lens.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_filelist.xml" />
<link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_themedata.thmx" />
<link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_colorschememapping.xml" />

<style></style>


<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_filelist.xml" />
<link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_themedata.thmx" />
<link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_colorschememapping.xml" />

<style>

</style>

<p class="MsoNormal"]I HIGHLY recommend this lens. My issues paralleled Mark
Elberson’s, a tight area indoors. I wanted to take pictures of my daughter at
basketball games in her school gym. I have a 50D and the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
IS USM kit lens was not wide enough to get the shots I wanted. The EF-S 17-55mm
IS USM lens impressed me from the first night. I tried it in the sports mode on
the 50D and wow; I have a slide show of an end to end rush to the basket with
most of the images clear focused keepers. I now use this lens most of the time
as my walk around lens. As far as dust, so far no issues. As to the EF-S issue,
I plan to have this camera for a while and even if I were to upgrade to a full
frame I would most likely keep the 50D as a second, that being the case, having
a quality dedicated lens for it does not concern me at all. The only thing I
added was a B+W UV filter.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

<p class="MsoNormal"]I do not know how the above got in my first post, I unsuccessfully tried to edit it out.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Oh, that....it's the result of impure thoughts. [6]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Didn't know It showed. Lens lust???

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]

<st1:personname w:st="on"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]</st1:personname><span style="font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]

<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Gilley

A very similar issue with a used lens I purchased. Luckily Adorama was great and let me return it since it's rating didn't match the performance.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Thank you for taking the time to leave your comments about returning a faulty item to Adorama Camera.

I do hope we can continue to offer you great service - but do let me know if there is anything we at Adorama Camera - or at AdoramaPix - could do to make your shopping experience even better.

Sincerely

Helen Oster

Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

helen.oster@adoramacamera.com

www.adorama.com

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

never had any of those faults :-) this lens is sharp and chrisp and can shoot in the dark without a flash !!!

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

would this be a better choice than the 24-70 in a cropped frame body? i find its range short but having f2.8 and IS is very nice but then again you'll be hearing & reading of the dust issue with this lens and you'll think twice whether to go for this or the sealed L lens. what are your thoughts?

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

I boguht the 17-55 and a friend of mine bought the 24-70 at the same time and I must say I'm more happy with mine than he is with his 24-70 [:D]

It depends on the use, but IS is definitely a nice feature. Also the IQ from the 17-55 is awesome. Can really compete to L-lenses. Also his 24-70 suffered from chromatic abberation more then I've ever noticed on my lens. Never had any problems with it. Also the 24-70 is pretty heavy...that makes the 17-55 a lot more userfriendly.

Dust is a horror-myth if you ask me. Also a little dust in the lens doesn't affect the image much. You should be more aware of duch on your sensor. I wouldn't let the so called "dustproblem" scare you. I believe that most users are pretty much super satisfied mith this lens and I haven't heard any complaints yet.

The 17-55 is a really great lens!! Unless you're planning on going Fullframe any time soon...

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

cxr,

As I mentioned in your "canon 24-70 f2.8 IS USM" forum, I own both and like both. I have had the 17-55 for a year and it has been a workhorse, being on my 50D @90% of the time. I have not had any issue with dust. If I could only have one with my "crop" camera, it would be the 17-55. I find the 17mm much better in my house than the 24mm. My main purpose for the 24-70 was to gain the extra reach which leads to less cropping and better end results for my indoor sports photos. Having said that, I have no plans to get rid of my 17-55, it is still an outstanding lens. All charts aside, when the processed pictures are placed side by side the quality is equal.
<h1 class="CommonTitle"]
</h1>

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

anyone had any problem with this lens with regards to dust sucking issue? i've read about DYING IS as well. any thoughts on this especially for those who have it or had use the lens.

Re: Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

almost 3 Yrs, no dust, no IS problems, sharp as a tack. I hadFive 24-70 lenses and sold them all. They are not very easy to use on a crop camera. The 17-55mm IS is lighter and feels better balanced.

Unfortunately, I've sold my 40D and now use a 5D MK II and a 1D MK II, so I guess I'll sell the lens. I really hate to see it go.