Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Jun 2009 (Friday) 22:19
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "How long before your canon 17-55 failed on you (IS breakdown etc)?"
first 5 months
2
6.7%
within 1 year
2
6.7%
within 1.5 years
0
0%
within 2 years
1
3.3%
within 3 years
1
3.3%
I've had it for 1 year and it hasn't failed
10
33.3%
I've had it for 2 year and it hasn't failed
5
16.7%
I've had it for 3 year and it hasn't failed
9
30%

30 voters, 30 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

When does your Canon 17-55 wear out?

 
verdantsound
Senior Member
Avatar
272 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:19 |  #1

I'm close to replacing my tammy with the canon over dim light AF accuracy issues, but reading a few reviews have me concerned over Canon's fragile build. People have had it "crumbled" in their hands while others have had the IS break down.

How long have you had it, and has the Canon 17-55 ever failed you? If so, please elaborate on your experience, and perhaps how this is compared with your experiences of your other lenses.


T2i
Sigma 30mm f1.4, Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L, Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 100mm f2.0 550 EX Flash
Budget: College Kid

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bendel
Senior Member
Avatar
323 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:19 |  #2

I have heard it is just short of L type build quality...


Brandon
Canon 5D, 24-105 F4L, 70-200 F4L, 85 F1.8, 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 708
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:34 |  #3

"crumbled in their hands"?? ?? Those people must be grossly exaggerating!

It's not a delicate piece. The stabilizer is known to be weak, but other than that it doesn't fall apart in your hands unless you abuse it in ridiculous ways.

I now turn off the stabilizer unless I actually need it, which is when I shoot under 1/50 shutter speed with NO flash. And that isn't often. The lens will last just about forever if you use it in that fashion.

This is an excellent lens.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Innocence
Member
134 posts
Joined Oct 2006
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:36 |  #4

My IS unit broke down within 1 year and I had it replaced under warranty. It is probably around 2 years now, and it is still functioning.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
verdantsound
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
272 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:37 |  #5

picturecrazy wrote in post #8058612 (external link)
"crumbled in their hands"?? ?? Those people must be grossly exaggerating!

It's not a delicate piece. The stabilizer is known to be weak, but other than that it doesn't fall apart in your hands unless you abuse it in ridiculous ways.

I now turn off the stabilizer unless I actually need it, which is when I shoot under 1/50 shutter speed with NO flash. And that isn't often. The lens will last just about forever if you use it in that fashion.

This is an excellent lens.

Yeah, I don't know what the deal is. They used the word crumbled too. Can you tell me more about the stabilizer weakness?


T2i
Sigma 30mm f1.4, Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L, Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 100mm f2.0 550 EX Flash
Budget: College Kid

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
verdantsound
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
272 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:37 |  #6

Innocence wrote in post #8058618 (external link)
My IS unit broke down within 1 year and I had it replaced under warranty. It is probably around 2 years now, and it is still functioning.

how often did you use it? Did you change your style of shooting after the warranty, or was it replaced with a more robust piece?


T2i
Sigma 30mm f1.4, Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L, Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 100mm f2.0 550 EX Flash
Budget: College Kid

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,877 posts
Likes: 2644
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:39 |  #7

Bendel wrote in post #8058541 (external link)
I have heard it is just short of L type build quality...

Not body wise, but it's built pretty solidly. Optically I like it better than my 24-70. I'vr had mine for over 2 years with no issues. WOrks as well today as it did brand new.

picturecrazy wrote in post #8058612 (external link)
I now turn off the stabilizer unless I actually need it.

I do the same but not because I fear it's going to break. I turn off all IS unless needed. I know a few wedding shooters that have this lens and use it all the time. Haven't heard of one fail yet though I know a while back there was a post or two on this forum that had their IS fail.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Duncan ­ Frenz
Purposely evaded the TF
Avatar
1,553 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: NE Ohio, USA
     
Jun 05, 2009 22:40 |  #8

Bendel wrote in post #8058541 (external link)
I have heard it is just short of L type build quality...

I have heard the complete opposite. I hear it has 'L' IQ, USM, IS, but the build is cheapish. Not fall apart cheap, but you'd expect more from a $1k lens. I am in this exact situation, and would like to hear some objective opinions. I know it is difficult when you own and love something, and it is equally hard when you have been burnt by a piece of equipment and loathe it.

I really thought of just getting the Tammy because if it is optically close to the 17-55 then I can forgive no IS for the FL, but the AF motor has me worried. I love USM and am not sure I can buy a lens without it unless it is a full manual lens to begin with. I have never used the Tammy and unfortunately my local shop does not have one and neither do any of the photogs I know. I have used the Canon though, and I was not impressed with the build at all, but the IQ and AF it provides is spot on.

I want to hear some honest opinions, because my entire idea of lens selection hinges on what I choose in this FL range.


- Duncan
Gear_Mor
e than I need, Less than I want
Nonconformists are all alike.
I am not an expert, but I play one on the internet.:D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 708
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jun 06, 2009 16:22 |  #9

Seriously, the build isn't THAT bad on the 17-55. A lot of the haters that bash this lens haven't even used it.

It DOES have it's weaknesses, namely the IS motor. But it still IS a fair price. It has L optics, and is over a couple hundred less than the 24-70L. It has a stabilizer, the 24-70 does not. Both are F/2.8. If the 24-70L has IS, it would be about $700 more than the 17-55, instead of around $300. Tell me how that isn't reasonable pricing on the 17-55.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mhj202
Senior Member
Avatar
350 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jun 06, 2009 17:46 |  #10

picturecrazy wrote in post #8061873 (external link)
Seriously, the build isn't THAT bad on the 17-55. A lot of the haters that bash this lens haven't even used it.

It DOES have it's weaknesses, namely the IS motor. But it still IS a fair price. It has L optics, and is over a couple hundred less than the 24-70L. It has a stabilizer, the 24-70 does not. Both are F/2.8. If the 24-70L has IS, it would be about $700 more than the 17-55, instead of around $300. Tell me how that isn't reasonable pricing on the 17-55.

PictureCrazy,

I think you're probably the perfect person to ask this question to as I am also in the boat of folks about to pull the trigger on a 17-55 or 24-70.

If you could get a "like new" 24-70 or new 17-55IS for the same price, which would you choose for use on a crop body?

I have a 50D and need something for indoor/low light situations. Love what I'm reading about the 17-55 except the weak IS and paying $1k for a non-L build. Also, honestly speaking, there is some lure to the red ring.

I can get the new 17-55 for about a hundred dollars less than the "like new" 24-70 but I would need to buy a hood and filter for the 17-55 which would pretty much make them the same ultimate price (the 24-70 seller would include a high-quality filter).

Would love your thoughts on this.

Thanks.


Canon 6D | Canon 50D | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L | Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 | Canon 580 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dorkiedoode
Senior Member
Avatar
438 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
Location: SoCaL
     
Jun 06, 2009 17:52 |  #11

Crop = 17-55mm



Feedback:
1 2 3 4 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CChiappa
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Arlington, MA
     
Jun 06, 2009 18:11 as a reply to  @ Duncan Frenz's post |  #12

I don't have the 17-55 but it's worth mentioning that it is on lensrentals.com's list of high-repair lenses:
http://www.lensrentals​.com …05.17/lens-repair-data-30 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mhj202
Senior Member
Avatar
350 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jun 06, 2009 18:16 |  #13

CChiappa wrote in post #8062297 (external link)
I don't have the 17-55 but it's worth mentioning that it is on lensrentals.com's list of high-repair lenses:
http://www.lensrentals​.com …05.17/lens-repair-data-30 (external link)

Yup- I've seen that. I think it's consistent with the "weak IS" discussions throughout and that's one reason I am pretty much looking only at new 17-55's so at least I'll have the year of warranty and if it breaks afterward, I'll know I'm the one who broke it. Also, I've read that the out-of-warranty repair costs about $100 so the risk isn't too great. Still wish it was as sturdy as an L but as PictureCrazy has pointed out, if it were an L with IS and 2.8, it would likely be quite a bit more expensive.


Canon 6D | Canon 50D | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L | Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 | Canon 580 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Duncan ­ Frenz
Purposely evaded the TF
Avatar
1,553 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: NE Ohio, USA
     
Jun 06, 2009 19:30 |  #14

picturecrazy wrote in post #8061873 (external link)
Seriously, the build isn't THAT bad on the 17-55. A lot of the haters that bash this lens haven't even used it.

It DOES have it's weaknesses, namely the IS motor. But it still IS a fair price. It has L optics, and is over a couple hundred less than the 24-70L. It has a stabilizer, the 24-70 does not. Both are F/2.8. If the 24-70L has IS, it would be about $700 more than the 17-55, instead of around $300. Tell me how that isn't reasonable pricing on the 17-55.

I agree, the build isn't that bad, but it isn't $1k good either. The 24-70, despite not having IS, has optics and build to match its price tag. It just seems odd to take such great optics and put them in a so-so casing. I'd gladly pay a bit more for a casing to match. I don't know about the IS problems, but if it is true, then it makes my decision to purchase even more worrisome.


- Duncan
Gear_Mor
e than I need, Less than I want
Nonconformists are all alike.
I am not an expert, but I play one on the internet.:D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yuriyo923
Goldmember
Avatar
2,284 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2007
Location: US
     
Jun 06, 2009 19:36 |  #15

picturecrazy wrote in post #8061873 (external link)
Seriously, the build isn't THAT bad on the 17-55. A lot of the haters that bash this lens haven't even used it.

It DOES have it's weaknesses, namely the IS motor. But it still IS a fair price. It has L optics, and is over a couple hundred less than the 24-70L. It has a stabilizer, the 24-70 does not. Both are F/2.8. If the 24-70L has IS, it would be about $700 more than the 17-55, instead of around $300. Tell me how that isn't reasonable pricing on the 17-55.

What do you use more: 17-55 or your 24-70?


Canon 5D2 ~ 40D + 17-50mm in da booth!
www.seattleboothrental​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,974 views & 0 likes for this thread
When does your Canon 17-55 wear out?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Guashumerda
844 guests, 207 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.