[IMO] The 17-55 2.8 is in need of a Mark II version

Don't get me wrong, I have owned the 17-55 and it's a great lens. However I feel that the lens deserves a refresh, since there is much room for improvement.

The things I liked:
- Focal range of 17-55
- Combination of 2.8 and image stabilization
- Decent overall image quality

The things I didn't like:
- Mediocre build quality
- So-so autofocus system and manual focus ring
- Outdated and fragile image stablization system
- Image quality (mostly corners) compared to more modern lenses

I started noticing these flaws after I upgraded to the Sigma 18-35 1.8, which is simply a stellar lens. Although, I now feel I want to go all Canon with my lens line-up for their (autofocus) reliability.
The problem here is that I simply can't go back, because of the insane quality of the Sigma lens I've become used to now. Not only in terms of sharpness, but also professional build quality and controls. It's just the focus inconsistency which I just can't cope with anymore... That's the Sigma's curse I guess.

How would you guys feel about a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS Mark II with improved build quality, STM autofocus and Canon's 4-stops (hybrid) image stabilizer?

For me that would be an instant buy!

I would buy one in a heartbeat. I love my 17-55 2.8, but all your points are valid.

i'm really surprised canon has not refreshed this lens. I remember the splash it made upon release. It was more sharp wide open than even f2.8 L glass. many of the third party lenses have excellent sharpness but nothing focusses like canon glass on canon cameras -- especially in the past few years.

If they could just make them all properly optically-aligned it'd be a good start.

If you roughly break lenses down into three segments with the Pro class being the top of the line L glass, Consumer being slow 2.8 primes and 5.6 zooms, and prosumer being the middle of the road lenses like the 17-55, 35/2, 10-22 and even the f4 L glass. Think what lenses that have been released since the 17-55 in 2006 that a owner of a xxD (60D, 70D, 80D) and 7D series bodies would be targeted by Canon's marketing?

35/2 IS in 2012, 70-300L in 2010, 70-300 II in 2016, and 100-400 II in 2014 (although you can ague this being the best in class other than the 200-400 that this belongs in the pro class). The 16-35/4 24-105STM, 24-105 II and 24-70/4 would be prosumer glass, but not for crop users as these are really designed more for full frame. So really I count 3 prosumer lenses in the past 11 years for crop users.

Lets list the pro lenses: 16-35 II 2, 35 L II, 11-24L, 400 DO II, 200-400, 24-70 2.8 II, 600L II, 500L II, 300/2.8 II, 400/2.8 II, 8-15 FE, 100L, 24 TSE, 17TSE, 24/1.4 II, 800/5.6, 200/2, 14/2.8 II, 16-35/2.8 I, 50/1.2, 85/.12 II. That's 21 lenses for pros.

I am not going to list them all but I count 24 consumer class lenses including M mount lenses.

Now we can argue a lens here or there but you can't deny how pathetic the R&D response to the prosumer crop segment is based on this: 24 to 3 to 21 lenses in the classes. So yes a new 17-55 is a great and overdue idea, but don't hold your breath.

I agree that this lens needs a refresh, but it's possible that hasn't got one yet because it's sort of in a class by itself. It's the only EF-S 2.8 zoom made by Canon and still sells for ~$800 new which is the top end of that range (wasn't it close to $1100 or so at launch?). Even as old as it is, it still has the highest MSRP of any EF-S lens, at $879. Maybe they think there'd be a rather small market for a new version since it would certainly be well over $1k initially. Just a thought... I wonder how many people would still buy one if it were $1500?

Lyndön wrote in post #18344897
I agree that this lens needs a refresh, but it's possible that hasn't got one yet because it's sort of in a class by itself. It's the only EF-S 2.8 zoom made by Canon and still sells for ~$800 new which is the top end of that range (wasn't it close to $1100 or so at launch?). Even as old as it is, it still has the highest MSRP of any EF-S lens, at $879. Maybe they think there'd be a rather small market for a new version since it would certainly be well over $1k initially. Just a thought... I wonder how many people would still buy one if it were $1500?

If they made it a bit longer and wider.. say 15-85 f/2.8... it would be worth $1500 to many people I think. But that would be another lens entirely. I guess I liked the range of the variable f stop 15-85.

With all the new STM EF-S lenses, I doubt we'll see either the 17-55 or the 15-85 updated in the near future... and maybe, never.

I dont see a need to refresh at all. Its a great lens. Years ago everyone was talking about this and making it an L with the red ring. Its a darn fine lens and I just dont see the need to pay more for a reboxed lens

Just look at the 24-105 V2....you will have your answers

umphotography wrote in post #18345373
Just look at the 24-105 V2....you will have your answers

Unfortunately, You make a valid point there...

The 17-55mm/2.8 has a little-noticed but serious AF inconsistency problem when focusing at distances farther than a few dozen feet. In the 10 or 11 years it has been around, this has not been fixed. So yes, it seriously needs to be redesigned, and this has been known for years.

The 17-55 has some advantages, mainly in the large aperture, but is no sharper than the 18-55mm STM.

One of the local camera stores told me they are not selling many of the 17-55mm lenses any more. It's not a hot item, so any peculiar behavior of the lens is not much of an issue. More incentive for Canon to refresh it... but again, this has been known for years.

Maybe when they release the 7D Mk III. I'd buy that kit!
Mike

Archibald wrote in post #18345408
The 17-55mm/2.8 has a little-noticed but serious AF inconsistency problem when focusing at distances farther than a few dozen feet. In the 10 or 11 years it has been around, this has not been fixed. So yes, it seriously needs to be redesigned, and this has been known for years.

The 17-55 has some advantages, mainly in the large aperture, but is no sharper than the 18-55mm STM.

One of the local camera stores told me they are not selling many of the 17-55mm lenses any more. It's not a hot item, so any peculiar behavior of the lens is not much of an issue. More incentive for Canon to refresh it... but again, this has been known for years.

what focus problem. I have used mine for a number of years with zero issues. I sure dont see it and I dont see any consistent reports about it.

18-55 is a cheap variable lens. F/3.5-5.6.

Not even in the same league as a 17-55. There is not many lens other than the 70-200's that are sharper than the 17-55. Its one of canons sharpest midrange zooms and many people like me opted for it over the 24-70 V1 because it was a sharper lens. The new 24-70 V2 changed that however that does not now make the 17-55 a worse lens. 17-55 is awesome. Show me a sharper mid range zoom on the entire market and I will buy it no questions asked? Not gonna be there. 24-70 V2 for full frame and 17-55 for a crop own the 2 top spots for the entire market and they are canon lens.


Just dont see a need at all

I agree about the lack of issues that I have had in using the 17-55mm f/2.8 . I have found its ability to focus in very low light to be better than what I can achieve with Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 at same FL setting.
If I could change anything at all, it would be to widen it to 15-55mm f/2.8, as I find 24mm on FF to be too indispensible for personal/travel shooting. So having the same AOV range on APS-C would be highly desirable to me.
I will admit the 17mm wide end does make 17-55mm perfect for me if covering wedding & reception (which I don't do any longer except as a guest), due to 17mm not leaving me as vulnerable to induced perspective distortion in shooting people.

umphotography wrote in post #18346178
17-55 is awesome. Show me a sharper mid range zoom on the entire market and I will buy it no questions asked

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The good news is that B&H is offering it for $700 so you can save $100 over the normal $800.

When used on a crop camera, the 16-35/2.8 III qualifies as a mid range zoom too:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=963&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

umphotography wrote in post #18346178
what focus problem. I have used mine for a number of years with zero issues. I sure dont see it and I dont see any consistent reports about it.

18-55 is a cheap variable lens. F/3.5-5.6.

Not even in the same league as a 17-55. There is not many lens other than the 70-200's that are sharper than the 17-55. Its one of canons sharpest midrange zooms and many people like me opted for it over the 24-70 V1 because it was a sharper lens. The new 24-70 V2 changed that however that does not now make the 17-55 a worse lens. 17-55 is awesome. Show me a sharper mid range zoom on the entire market and I will buy it no questions asked? Not gonna be there. 24-70 V2 for full frame and 17-55 for a crop own the 2 top spots for the entire market and they are canon lens.

Just dont see a need at all

Numerous 17-55mm users have reported AF inconsistency with this lens. It is a known problem. Ken Rockwell documented it in his review. Canon acknowledged it to me in a phone call after much contact with them about the issue.

I noticed the issue within days of owning the lens. I tried three other copies and they were all the same. Other users mostly don't see the issue. But that does not mean the issue does not exist.