Dust in the 17-55 lens, really affects

[1kerry]

Hi guys, as many people here, I´m planning on buying a new lens, and the 2 lens that caught my attention are the 17-55 and the 24-105 but afetr reading alot of reviews, I found that if you get a good 24-105 copy its because you were really lucky (most of the time you need to exchange the copy or send it to recalibrate), but if you are lucky to get a good copy thats a really gem...and well, the 17-55 seems to be a an "L" queality in sharp-contrast , but the built-in isnt that good, since every single review I have read says it gets DUST very easy even if you dont use it alot..

So my question is, do dust really affects the PICTURE QUALITY OVERALL???

Because many people says it gets dust very easy and fast, in a month or so....so I dont want to imagine how it will turn in a year....

I shoot mostly wedding indoor, and have a 30d and only a 17-85 (planning to sell) and a 50 mm, and this lens (17-55) will help me alot with the 2.8 IS.

thanks!

[GyRob]

lots of dust will reduce contrast ? iv not come across this dust problem in the forum guess i mist it , but i would not get one if it gets dust in it as it will only get worse as time goes by.
Rob.

[cdifoto]

While it may be a valid concern, people tend to exaggerate.

[Tsmith]

I found that if you get a good 24-105 copy its because you were really lucky (most of the time you need to exchange the copy or send it to recalibrate), but if you are lucky to get a good copy thats a really gem.

I find the above statement kinda misleading as I've often seen way more users satisfied with this lens than most others ... :confused:

[ed rader]

I find the above statement kinda misleading as I've often seen way more users satisfied with this lens than most others ... :confused:


except for the early models with the flare problem this hasn't been a particularly problematic lens.

ed rader

[CountryBoy]

Might be better to go with the Tamron 17-50. I would avoid any lens with a dust problem.

[nburwell]

I shoot mostly wedding indoor, and have a 30d and only a 17-85 (planning to sell) and a 50 mm, and this lens (17-55) will help me alot with the 2.8 IS.

thanks!

I think you answered your own question there. If you're primarily shooting weddings the 24-105 is not going to be sufficient since it's only an f/4 aperature compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 which also has IS as well. Although the 24-105 does have more reach on the telephoto end, the IS is not going to sufficient for stopping action at a wedding. Also remember that the 30D is a 1.6x sensor, so in essence, the 17-55 is really 27-88.

What you are describing with the 24-105 lens, I think, is overexaggerating like others have said. I have the 24-105 and have experienced no problems whatsoever.

[nicksan]

For indoor shooting the 17-55 might be a better option.

Wider aperture PLUS 3-stop IS...can't be beat.

[Photolistic]

For indoor shooting the 17-55 might be a better option.

Wider aperture PLUS 3-stop IS...can't be beat.

could not have said it better myself.

I have heard that using a filter helps keep the dust out.

[asabet]

I believe the 17-55 dust reports because I tend to believe folks when they say they have dust, bad copies, etc. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping all over them to defend my gear and my ego. With that said, I am convinced the 17-55 IS is the best lens available for most people who have an EFS-capable body, and I would not let the reports of dust prevent me from buying one if I had the budget to do so. Even though I bought a Tamron 17-50, my dad bought the 17-55 IS on my recommendation since he has a better budget. That said, the 24-105 is a fantastic lens, and I have seen very little to convince me that it has significant QC issues. Three factors to consider here: 1) Range (subjective), 2) Speed (17-55 IS), Build (24-105). The rest is details (IMO).

[Croasdail]

Dust is highly over rated as a problem. Scratches even usually don't show up. So unless it is really really bad, it likely will not be an issue.

[CountryBoy]

I've been looking for something to replace the lens kit. The 17-55 would fit what I'm looking for. It would fit my budget, if it's what I wanted. But the dust problem would stop me from even considering it. I would like to know if there really is a problem, and how bad it is. Would it work back into the camera ? How long before it affected IQ.

[poah]

where did you read that getting a good copy of the 24-105 makes you lucky


Hi guys, as many people here, I´m planning on buying a new lens, and the 2 lens that caught my attention are the 17-55 and the 24-105 but afetr reading alot of reviews, I found that if you get a good 24-105 copy its because you were really lucky (most of the time you need to exchange the copy or send it to recalibrate), but if you are lucky to get a good copy thats a really gem...and well, the 17-55 seems to be a an "L" queality in sharp-contrast , but the built-in isnt that good, since every single review I have read says it gets DUST very easy even if you dont use it alot..

So my question is, do dust really affects the PICTURE QUALITY OVERALL???

Because many people says it gets dust very easy and fast, in a month or so....so I dont want to imagine how it will turn in a year....

I shoot mostly wedding indoor, and have a 30d and only a 17-85 (planning to sell) and a 50 mm, and this lens (17-55) will help me alot with the 2.8 IS.

thanks!

[asabet]

I've been looking for something to replace the lens kit. The 17-55 would fit what I'm looking for. It would fit my budget, if it's what I wanted. But the dust problem would stop me from even considering it.

Too bad for Canon, and you are missing out on the best kit lens replacement, so even more bad for you!

I would like to know if there really is a problem, and how bad it is. Would it work back into the camera ?

No one knows the answer to your first question. We don't know how many copies do this, or at what point it might affect IQ. As for whether it would work back into the camera, that is inconsequential. Plenty of dust will get into your camera regardless of whether you use this lens or not, unless you take extraordinary measures to prevent it.

How long before it affected IQ.
No one knows that.

[AiGTs]

I chose the 17-55 over 24-105L. If the 17-55 is the range and speed you want, get it, you won't be disappointed. Internet doesn't represent the whole world! I'm sure there are a lot of people who are very satisfied with their 17-55 but doesn't share their opinions online.

[ed rader]

I chose the 17-55 over 24-105L. If the 17-55 is the range and speed you want, get it, you won't be disappointed. Internet doesn't represent the whole world! I'm sure there are a lot of people who are very satisfied with their 17-55 but doesn't share their opinions online.

while i'm sure you are correct i'm also sure that those who share on the internet mirror the silent majority.

you can say complainers are more vocal than praisers but i won't buy that one either.

now i do believe that most people who don't frequent the net have fewer issues with bad copies and never check for dust in their lenses ;) .

ed rader

[Rellik]

My 17-55 has dust in it, but this lens is so wonderful, I would buy another one in an instant. I tried the tamron 17-50 before and it just pales in comparison. Dust to a certain extent will affect IQ, but I use it mainly wide open so dust would affect it less so. (The opposite idea with using f/22 to check for sensor dust)

[CountryBoy]

No one knows the answer to your first question. We don't know how many copies do this, or at what point it might affect IQ. As for whether it would work back into the camera, that is inconsequential. Plenty of dust will get into your camera regardless of whether you use this lens or not, unless you take extraordinary measures to prevent it..


Ever since I had to send my camera in for cleaning, I take extra care in trying to keeping dust out. I know I won't keep it all out, but I don't need a lens helping it in. So it is a big deal to me.

But i am in no hurry. I can wait and watch to see how wide spread a problem it is. Right know i'm looking at the tamron, or the 17-40L or maybe the (soon to be) new tokina 16-50.

[foghorn]

I bought one a few months ago. No dust yet.
My 85mm I bought at the same time, yeah that one was shipped with a huge speck. I am dropping it off at Canon next week.

[nicksan]

Checked mine last night. No dust.
I use my camera pretty often and switch changes occasionally.

I have a UV filter on...

Have my fingers crossed!

[aparmley]

Post #6 -
Might be better to go with the Tamron 17-50. I would avoid any lens with a dust problem.

Post #12 -
I've been looking for something to replace the lens kit. . . . But the dust problem would stop me from even considering it. I would like to know if there really is a problem, and how bad it is. Would it work back into the camera ? How long before it affected IQ.

Man its just really hard to believe anything you read online. Especially after reading something like this. . . Its more rare to catch someone contradicting themselves in the exact same thread, but none-the-less here it is. Here we have someone giving the OP advice on a purchase who poses as someone who knows what he is talking about. then just 6 posts later he states he doesn't have a clue.

This problem reminds me of the XT's focus problem when the XT came out. You had a few genuine problems where focus was off - camera in need of calibration - but then you had anywhere between 10-50 people for each one that had a legit focus problem claiming they had focus problems too (Cause they read about it online!) - but in reality it was their first (D)SLR, they didn't understand DOF or how the focus points on their camera worked. I'm not saying that this problem isn't real for some people - but I really wonder how often we'd read about it if people who never owned the lens would stop going on about the "dust problem."

IMHO The Tamron 17-50 would be an excellent replacement for the kit lens. The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM lens would be an excellent upgrade.

[rklepper]

I find the above statement kinda misleading as I've often seen way more users satisfied with this lens than most others ... :confused:

I would agree. We have a copy of this lens and other than the slow aperture it is very good lens.

[1kerry]

where did you read that getting a good copy of the 24-105 makes you lucky

at fredmiranda.com and somewhere else, dont remember now.

[1kerry]

GUYS THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR ANSWERS!!

I think i will go with the 24=105, it will give me a better quality in the long term, and since i use a 4 - 5.6 lens now, i think getting a f4 now will help me a lot...and also because maybe in 6 months i will be getting a 5d...

thanks again! and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

[Mark_Cohran]

The 24-105 f4L is, IMHO, one of the sharpest and best lenses Canon offers. Yes, it is an f4, but if you know how to work within the limitations of the aperture, you'll find it's a great lens, indoors and out.

As far as dust goes, because of the physics of light transmission, you would literally need to have have the lens elements coated with dust before you see an appreciable impact to image quality. Most zooms will get dust in them over time, and I don't believe the 17-55 is any worse than most other zoom lenses. I have several FD lenses (over 25 years old) that have dust in them and there is no degradation of image quality whatsoever.

Mark

[CountryBoy]

Man its just really hard to believe anything you read online. Especially after reading something like this. . . Its more rare to catch someone contradicting themselves in the exact same thread, but none-the-less here it is. Here we have someone giving the OP advice on a purchase who poses as someone who knows what he is talking about. then just 6 posts later he states he doesn't have a clue.

This problem reminds me of the XT's focus problem when the XT came out. You had a few genuine problems where focus was off - camera in need of calibration - but then you had anywhere between 10-50 people for each one that had a legit focus problem claiming they had focus problems too (Cause they read about it online!) - but in reality it was their first (D)SLR, they didn't understand DOF or how the focus points on their camera worked. I'm not saying that this problem isn't real for some people - but I really wonder how often we'd read about it if people who never owned the lens would stop going on about the "dust problem."




Maybe you should go back and read the whole thread, before you take things out of context.
The OP alludes to the dust problem in the first post. 2nd the dust problem with this lens has been brought up on this forum and others in the past. 3rd if us " people who never owned the lens" don't ask questions about known problems with a lens, how can we decide if it's a big enough issue to affect our buying the lens.

No I don't feel I contradicted my self at all !

[asabet]

GUYS THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR ANSWERS!!

I think i will go with the 24=105, it will give me a better quality in the long term, and since i use a 4 - 5.6 lens now, i think getting a f4 now will help me a lot...and also because maybe in 6 months i will be getting a 5d...

thanks again! and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

If I were really going FF in 6 mo, then I'd probably stop getting EFS lenses right about now. OTOH, I'd be getting the 24-70L instead of the 24-105.

:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:

[aparmley]

Maybe you should go back and read the whole thread, before you take things out of context.
The OP alludes to the dust problem in the first post. 2nd the dust problem with this lens has been brought up on this forum and others in the past. 3rd if us " people who never owned the lens" don't ask questions about known problems with a lens, how can we decide if it's a big enough issue to affect our buying the lens.

No I don't feel I contradicted my self at all !

I've read the whole thread. Thanks. Maybe you felt I was being a bit harsh. I can see that and you have every right to think that. I'm well aware what OP was asking. Perhaps you should have stated you aren't positive about the dust problem, but you yourself would avoid this based on some of the reports. Instead, the way you worded your first post made it sound like you were well aware this is a legit problem.

I do have one more question for you though. Don't you agree your comments were out of order - what I mean is, don't you think you should have posted either #12 first or at the very least, if you were to combine them, have #12 come first and then lead into your #6 post.

You had already made the conclusion that this lens has a "Dust problem." I'm well aware of the many reports online indicating people's copy of this lens having drawn dust into the lens or had been shipped with a lot. You got me there :rolleyes: . I think you failed to grasp my point. How many people have done what you just did in this thread? How many have eluded to the reports and steered potential owners away from this lens? I''m not saying your advice wasn't well intended - its great that you want to help people avoid buyers remorse. But, I feel that you went about it the wrong way. My larger point was that just how many people are doing this and how many people are listening to those people.

The contradiction, or stating the opposite of what you previously established, is this - First you recommended the OP pursue the Tamron 17-50 to avoid the 17-55 because of the dust problem (you are establishing your knowledge and/or research has supported your conclusion that this lens does infact have a Dust problem):
Might be better to go with the Tamron 17-50. I would avoid any lens with a dust problem.

Then you made a remark later stating you're interested in learning if this dust problem is real or not. Hence, you've have not made any conclusions re: this lens "Dust problems" you've seen it mentioned but you aren't sure if this is real problem or not. You come off as someone who is interested in discovering if the 17-55 is a sound purchase or if it should be avoided. This stance is directly opposed to the previous stance of someone who knows for a fact this lens should be avoided.
...I would like to know if there really is a problem, and how bad it is...

Thats a crystal clear contradiction from where I'm standing. Sorry you didn't see it that way.

Happy new year!

[CountryBoy]

Since I really don't need a lecture,and don't want to continue, I'll just disagree. And I will avoid this lens, along with it's dust problem !

[aparmley]

Since I really don't need a lecture,and don't want to continue, I'll just disagree. And I will avoid this lens, along with it's dust problem !

Splended. "Agree to disagree."

BTW - interesting thread developing which you may or may not care to read -
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=257180

As it stands out of 20 reporting owners, 65% (13/20) are reporting "No dust at all I love this lens!" 20/20 or 100% of those reporting have chosen to NOT select the "Avoid this lens" option.

[constrict]

most of my shots have been with my 17-55 IS and I've never seen dust in any of the pictures...

http://constrict.deviantart.com/gallery/