Canon 17-55mm 1.8 Lens worth it?

dave_bass5 wrote in post #14352165
There is no L equivalent.

dust level and zoom creep?

gunston wrote in post #14352223
dust level and zoom creep?

The 17-55IS has been out since around 2006 i think, if you look around the various web forums you will see many, many happy users and hardly any complaints. Of course those that have had issues would post about them, but those that dont are hardly likely to post they dont have issues so i can understand your worry but this lens has proven to be a huge success so im not sure why you would put so much emphasis on a few complainants over the many good comments
Its a lens that gets recommended almost daily, how can it be that bad?

You have a right to ask of course, im not trying to be rude but i would have thought its track record would speak for itself.

For what its worth i had mine for 5 years and had no zoom creep (never heard of that to be honest) and a few speck's of dust that are definitely not an issue.

gunston wrote in post #14352160
how long have you been using the Canon 17-55mm ?
i own 7D as well, am still deciding to get 17-55mm or 24-70mm L lens.
Other than sharp image, fast focus, lot of negative review of this lens about dust magnet to the front element as well as zoom creep issue. That is the reason why it hold me back until now. If this is the case, would better go straight to L lens
Would like to get some feedback from you, how long have you been using it?

I just got the 17-55 so I'm still in the honeymoon phase. Usually when I get a new lens I shoot extensively with it early on to identify any issues. I've probably shot 1,000 or so images with it and am very pleased. My keeper rate with this lens is very high.

I'd search the forum. There are quite a few posts about this lens. Its drawbacks are well documented such as the dust issue, general build quality,etc. but there are many satisfied users. There is a certain expectation that comes with an $1,100 lens and it was hard for me initially to wrap my head around spending that money for a non L lens that didn't even include a lens hood (factor that into the cost since it is important... and get the Canon one). All those things aside.. this lens is designed for a crop camera and it delivers.

As far as the 24-70... I have the Tamron 28-75 and found it to be a decent alternative. It's not the Canon 24-70 L but still a fine lens and I will probably keep it for basketball (along with my 85 1.8). I'm interested to see how the new stabilized Tamron does. It just wasn't wide enough for my shooting style and wasn't stabilized... that was the deal breaker for me.

Ultimately, although I'm cautious of the dust issue, it apparently does not effect image quality so I'm not going to obsess. One way to mitigate that is to use a UV filter. I'm not sure if I'll go this route.

Have had the 17-55 about a year now after upgrading from the kit lens.The quality of the shots are far superior to the kit lens.You are paying for quality glass but not weather sealing,so fit a UV filter from day one and you will not have a problem with dust.Most of the dust problems were with early manufactured units and people soon realised that with the UV filter fitted the dust problem reduced dramatically.
It's a cracking lens.

Is the 17-55 worth it? Hell yes.
Mine has been outstanding , sharp colourful images, fast accurate focus.

I'm switching to a 5d2 so will be selling (not on here..) and will miss this little beauty.

It's definitely a good lens but pricey compared to the alternatives (sigma 17-50, canon 15-85, and even tamron 17-50)

I don't think that it is worth the price. I bought the 24-70L instead for a little more. I will be picking up a Tokina 11-16 in a month as well. You'll use both for video.

I consider the 24-70 the better lens, better bokeh, build etc. But the wrong (for me) focal range on a crop.

mondmagu wrote in post #14354182
Have had the 17-55 about a year now after upgrading from the kit lens.The quality of the shots are far superior to the kit lens.You are paying for quality glass but not weather sealing,so fit a UV filter from day one and you will not have a problem with dust.Most of the dust problems were with early manufactured units and people soon realised that with the UV filter fitted the dust problem reduced dramatically.
It's a cracking lens.

do you encounter the zoom creep?

OP
The 17-55 is a very good lens and this is on my body until I need a different focal length. If you decide on this lens I think you'll be happy.

The 11-16 is not another option since the focal length is totally different you are comparing apples to oranges.

Just upgrades my 15-85 to 17-55, I'm very happy with the switch and planning to keep the lens long as I shoot crop!

gunston wrote in post #14358814
do you encounter the zoom creep?

No lens creep at all!!

by the way, is the 17-55mm better than the 18-55mm at f 3.5 @ 18mm? What does the 17-55 have over the 18 other than aperture?

OriginalProof wrote in post #14373222
by the way, is the 17-55mm better than the 18-55mm at f 3.5 @ 18mm? What does the 17-55 have over the 18 other than aperture?

Would like to know this too. Considering the amazing price difference between the kit 18-55 and the 17-55 2.8, the 17-55 must be a lot better at a lot more.

OriginalProof wrote in post #14373222
by the way, is the 17-55mm better than the 18-55mm at f 3.5 @ 18mm? What does the 17-55 have over the 18 other than aperture?

internal focus with USM, constant aperture, L glass