opinions about canon 17-55 IS

Ive heard some good things about this lens and then ive heard some "dusty" things about this lens. I don tknow if the "dust issue" is as widespread as it seems....
I'd love to see some 17-55 images wideopen..... especially in lowlight situations.....

I am very much considering this lens....
Just need a few opinions to push me over the edge..

troy

That and my sigma 30 1.4 are my night on the town lenses. The 17-55 is my main lens and boy what a lens it is!

Here ya go

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=213912

I've had mine for a couple of weeks, and I'm loving it! I've got sharp handheld at 1/6 sec that I probably would not have got with any other lens. It is sharp and fast, and I havent had any dust proplems yet.

Here are a few wide open, ISO 1600 from yesterday:

This one has been through neat image.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Don't let the alleged dust issue hinder you from this gem -- it's the cream of the crop (NPI).

Hi,

I love this lens...no dust problems that I can see.

Here is a shot from a recent visit to the local farmer's market.

Love the colors this lens can capture

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

LightRules wrote in post #2026879
Don't let the alleged dust issue hinder you from this gem -- it's the cream of the crop (NPI).

What dust issue is being alleged by whom ?
Dust on the CMOS
Dust in the lens distance window ?

The net is sometimes not your friend...it can be evil.

I just had a bunch of relatives over last weekend and manage 300+ shots outdoors and some pretty bad light indoors. The 17-55 performed amazingly from groups and scenes to portraits. I continue to be so impressed by this lens.

Malcolm

I'v had focus issues with mine at it's wides focal length and some lens aberation on close ups.

offtheroad wrote in post #2052757
I'v had focus issues with mine at it's wides focal length and some lens aberation on close ups.

Sorry to hear this. It is definitely not the norm. This lens is excellent so I hope you can have it checked out.

my gf was holding the camera and she accidentally set it to f/2.8 for this picture... 1/2000 shutter speed.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

but here's one with somewhat low light (large window to the left, but blinds are closed):

f/2.8, 55mm, 1/3 sec, ISO 100, handheld

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

lensview wrote in post #2027831
What dust issue is being alleged by whom ?
Dust on the CMOS
Dust in the lens distance window ?

The net is sometimes not your friend...it can be evil.

Well, I am one with a dust issue (I'm not evil - honest!). Before buying the lens , I did see some concerns about dust but ignored it. I have only taken about 30-40 shots with the lens so far, all indoors and I can count about 12-14 specks of dust on one of the internal elements (actually more than sitting on the exposed front element!). That's not going to affect images but what is it going to look like in a few months and once I get into less favorable environments. It has me concerned and I don't know what to do because I really like the lens.

It is more noticeable when the lens is zoomed to 55mm as the element in question is then magnified. The dust is less noticeable when at 17mm, looking down the front.

But you are right, had I not read this prior, I would not be looking for the dust and probably would not have noticed it yet.

Brent

I think the lens is overpriced for a non-L - but it is a 2.8 zoom and that costs - but this much extra? most of the cost is IMO taken up in the IS, and to me a zoom range of 17-55 does not really need IS.

I'd only ever be taking slow shutter speeds for landscape stuff, and for that I need a tripod and f/11 or f/16, not IS. It really depends on your shooting style.

If I wanted a lens with IS I'd personally be going for the 24-105 L - it would suit my needs better, and I feel it is much better value too.

steved110 wrote in post #2054637
I think the lens is overpriced for a non-L - but it is a 2.8 zoom and that costs - but this much extra? most of the cost is IMO taken up in the IS, and to me a zoom range of 17-55 does not really need IS.

I'd only ever be taking slow shutter speeds for landscape stuff, and for that I need a tripod and f/11 or f/16, not IS. It really depends on your shooting style.

If I wanted a lens with IS I'd personally be going for the 24-105 L - it would suit my needs better, and I feel it is much better value too.

the upcharge for IS on the new 70-200f4 L IS is about $600. the 17-55 would be more attractive to me without the IS and @ about $500 too.

ed rader