17 - 55 2.8 IS

[Harleypugs]

I would love to hear some real world experience with this lens.

I think wedding pro's are probably clicking off more frames on a regualr basis than any other group on this board so I thought I would ask here.

As a casual lurker, who would love to get into wedding photography, I have read several accounts of this lens acting up.

Please post your findings if you are a working pro using this lens.

Thanks,

Jon

[Toogy]

Absolute Crap!! and by absolute crap I mean simply the best lens you can use for a crop sensor camera.

[arch1tect]

Absolute Crap!! and by absolute crap I mean simply the best lens you can use for a crop sensor camera.I concur! It is my workhorse lens. I do love the 70-200 2.8IS too.

[Rebel without a cause]

I agree, I LOVE this lens and use it for 95% of my wedding photography. I would suggest renting it first if you're still a little iffy. I use lensrentals.com and they are great!

[Harleypugs]

I agree with all..it is a wonderful lens.

But is it holding up to the amout of shooting you do?

It was my understanding that AF motors etc we crapping out?

Thanks all!

[sblais]

I love mine, but it's been acting up recently. Sometimes, when I look through the viewfinder, I see the image "jumping". To me, it seems that the IS is acting up. It started to happen once in every blue moon and now it happened a lot during my last wedding. Thankfully my wedding season is now over and I can ship it to get it fixed.

But even with this problem, I would still recommend the lens, but make sure that you have something to back it up. If it would've died on me, I had the 10-22 on the wide end that the 50 f/1.4 to compensate for the longer end. (plus other lenses, of course). I just hope that sending it to Canon will fix this problem for good.

[toneyw]

I don't shoot weddings but the 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8 are great lenses

[Banbert]

I had one that worked fine for 7 or 8 months, then I had a ton of issues with it. It died unexpectantly during a wedding and then after it had been in for repairs I had further issues with it being out of focus not working until it had been back to Canon several times at which point I chased for and got a replacement new lens from Warehouse Express where I had bought it from.

A few other people here have also had issues with this lens, whether that makes it any less reliable than any other canon lens I wouldnt like to say though. I spoke to quite a few people at warehouse express and at the canon service centre about this lens and no one gave me any indication that had more issues with this than any other lens, and by the time I battled for my new one some of these peeps were like old friends, :) in fact one of the guys at warehouse express is a fellow wedding photographer part time like myself.

Despite my problems this lens is still my main lens and coupled with the 70-200 F2.8 IS I dont think theres any better combo to shoot weddings with on a crop body, my shooting partner also has a copy of this lens and he hasnt had any issues whilst shooting 20 weddings this year, except for breaking a brand new lens by clipping it on a door frame on our first wedding of the year, cant blame the lens for that though :)

Having said all that, its not L series build quality by a long way, if they made a 17-55 F2.8 IS but with the build quality of the 70-200 F2.8 IS ... I would spend quite a bit more cash to get that.

[Banbert]

p.s Full story of my lens can be found here > http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=332478

If you search for threads with 17-55 in the subject you will find lots more discussion about this lens, much of it in the wedding forum.

[tim]

It had problems once, was fixed, and I take 90% of my wedding photos with it. Invaluable.

[liza]

Bought it used from a Philadelphia-based wedding professional and have never had a problem with it. It remains on my camera for almost the entire wedding.

[randplaty]

Great lens as far as zooms go. IS at 17mm allows you to shoot as some unreal shutter speeds. Great for low light.

[mmahoney]

Fantastic IQ .. as good as any "L" zoom.

My nit with this lens is the IS .. you don't really need it at this focal length and it's just another thing to go wrong. I'd rather see better dust sealing or a hood included in the price.
Mike

[ZekaG]

I love mine. Best lens in that focal length on 1.6x crop body.

[gateruner]

I havent had any issues with mine and it is used extensively. If I had one wish I would like it to be built more airtight like the 70-200l but it isnt so.... I don think there is a better alternative for the crop body that gets you in the 17mm range. (27.2mm actually)

[randplaty]

Fantastic IQ .. as good as any "L" zoom.

My nit with this lens is the IS .. you don't really need it at this focal length and it's just another thing to go wrong. I'd rather see better dust sealing or a hood included in the price.
Mike


You might not need it in most instances, but IS is valuable if you're in an extreme low light situation. You can shoot at 1/10th or even 1/4th of a second with this lens.

[Marsellus_Wallace]

I tried the 17-55, but I finally didn't buy it. I went for the 24-70, but now I'm looking again for a APS-C 2.8 standard zoom. Can anyone PM/post about the Tokina 2.8?

My notes on the 17-55:
+ Excellent image quality in every aspect probably the best a fast APS-C zoom in this focal range can offer.
+ Sweet autofocus
+ IS (although I don't care very much for that). It's not the best implementation of IS so far, however. This is the most important unique selling point of this lens IMO.
- Build quality is not bad in an absolute sense, but totally ridiculous for a 1000 dollar lens. Construction-wise, this lens is simply a rip-off IMO. Compared to most (even less expensive) L-glass it's crummy and doesn't inspire my confidence.
- You have to pay a lot extra for a lens hood, and this lens definitely needs one.
- No matter how good it is, I consider it overpriced, especially regarding the competition. Maybe the price will drop a little further.
- It lacks the typical APS-C advantages in weight and especially in size.

I liked it, but I felt I could spend my bucks better than on this lens. For, say, 650 dollars it would be a no-brainer. As things are today, if you want this lens while you already own some glass you might as well consider going full-frame, thus making a bigger leap in image quality for not that much extra money.

[Grace]

I tried the 17-55, but I finally didn't buy it. I went for the 24-70, but now I'm looking again for a APS-C 2.8 standard zoom. Can anyone PM/post about the Tokina 2.8?

My notes on the 17-55:
+ Excellent image quality in every aspect probably the best a fast APS-C zoom in this focal range can offer.
+ Sweet autofocus
+ IS (although I don't care very much for that). It's not the best implementation of IS so far, however. This is the most important unique selling point of this lens IMO.
- Build quality is not bad in an absolute sense, but totally ridiculous for a 1000 dollar lens. Construction-wise, this lens is simply a rip-off IMO. Compared to most (even less expensive) L-glass it's crummy and doesn't inspire my confidence.
- You have to pay a lot extra for a lens hood, and this lens definitely needs one.
- No matter how good it is, I consider it overpriced, especially regarding the competition. Maybe the price will drop a little further.
- It lacks the typical APS-C advantages in weight and especially in size.

I liked it, but I felt I could spend my bucks better than on this lens. For, say, 650 dollars it would be a no-brainer. As things are today, if you want this lens while you already own some glass you might as well consider going full-frame, thus making a bigger leap in image quality for not that much extra money.


I agree. I love the focal length, but for a thousand dollars...I would expect it to last more than 6 months. Thank God I have a break to send this in. I would be PISSED had this thing died in the middle of my season.

[arch1tect]

I tried the 17-55, but I finally didn't buy it. I went for the 24-70, but now I'm looking again for a APS-C 2.8 standard zoom. Can anyone PM/post about the Tokina 2.8?

My notes on the 17-55:
+ Excellent image quality in every aspect probably the best a fast APS-C zoom in this focal range can offer.
+ Sweet autofocus
+ IS (although I don't care very much for that). It's not the best implementation of IS so far, however. This is the most important unique selling point of this lens IMO.
- Build quality is not bad in an absolute sense, but totally ridiculous for a 1000 dollar lens. Construction-wise, this lens is simply a rip-off IMO. Compared to most (even less expensive) L-glass it's crummy and doesn't inspire my confidence.
- You have to pay a lot extra for a lens hood, and this lens definitely needs one.
- No matter how good it is, I consider it overpriced, especially regarding the competition. Maybe the price will drop a little further.
- It lacks the typical APS-C advantages in weight and especially in size.

I liked it, but I felt I could spend my bucks better than on this lens. For, say, 650 dollars it would be a no-brainer. As things are today, if you want this lens while you already own some glass you might as well consider going full-frame, thus making a bigger leap in image quality for not that much extra money.
For 1,000 you could get a stellar lens for a crop which would improve IQ over most of what's out there.

Or you could spend $2000+ to go FF, then I'd have to spend another 1,000 to get the 24-70 and deal with it's ghosts.

[picturecrazy]

What I've decided to do is just use this lens, but IS off. From now on, I'm ONLY gonna turn it on when I need it, i.e. for low light no flash shots. It's killer for that and I love it, but for the rest of the shots I'm just gonna turn IS off to preserve it's life. I figure if I do that then the lens will last me many years rather than months.

I too am rather annoyed at the IS longevity. I've been thinking that I want to compile a list of serial numbers of 17-55 lenses that had the IS motor poop out and send it to canon with a WTF note. It happens TOO often to be a coincidence. And the fact that I've discovered that just about every failing 17-55 malfunctions the most between 28-35mm is just too much of a coincidence to NOT be a design fault.