maybe the "rental" was the issue?
[]
maybe the "rental" was the issue?
[
No one else ever has problems with their 17-55 because all the bad ones go the peety3! ;-)
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.
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]
<st1ersonname w:st="on"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]</st1
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]
Originally Posted by Matthew Gilley
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
never had any of those faults :-) this lens is sharp and chrisp and can shoot in the dark without a flash !!!
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?
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 []
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...
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>
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote