Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 USM

[metakephotos]

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

[markcoons]

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.

[alex]

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

[Sean Setters]

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.

[nimo956]

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.

[Mark Elberson]

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.

[pkChileHead]

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.

[quattrophinia]

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...





[]

[Tom Wertman]

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.

[peety3]

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.