opinions about canon 17-55 IS

I was looking into getting this lens. I am very concerned with the dust problem. I realize a small amount of dust will not affect image quality but it may affect resale value.
If I was buying a used one, that would be my first question. L lenses hold their resale value very well from what I see. I'm leaning towards red stripes.

jtsull wrote in post #2054806
I was looking into getting this lens. I am very concerned with the dust problem. I realize a small amount of dust will not affect image quality but it may affect resale value.
If I was buying a used one, that would be my first question. L lenses hold their resale value very well from what I see. I'm leaning towards red stripes.

all the canon consumer zooms are dust suckers and you just don't hear about the dust causing problems with IQ.

but i know if it bugs you it bugs you.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2054867
all the canon consumer zooms are dust suckers and you just don't hear about the dust causing problems with IQ.

but i know if it bugs you it bugs you.

ed rader

I find it rather hard to accept the 'all the canon consumer zooms are dust suckers ', when everyone uses these lenses (when they simply are not obsessed with owning high priced L lenses) yet you don't seem to hear complaints.

In contrast, on another thread the owner of the 17-55 is using brand new lens indoors for 3-4 hours and discovering 12-14 bits of dust have entered within that short period of handling and they are not even in adverse conditions!

The 17-85 IS USM I have is almost one year old. Just one tiny speck of dust. I don't think they are all dust suckers.

Wilt wrote in post #2054915
I find it rather hard to accept the 'all the canon consumer zooms are dust suckers ', when everyone uses these lenses (when they simply are not obsessed with owning high priced L lenses) yet you don't seem to hear complaints.

In contrast, on another thread the owner of the 17-55 is using brand new lens indoors for 3-4 hours and discovering 12-14 bits of dust have entered within that short period of handling and they are not even in adverse conditions!

so you think the 17-55 is more prone to being a dust pump than the 17-85 or the 28-135?

hmmmm. i thought the reports about dust in the 17-55 were because the expectation was higher because of the L price and lacka hood .

you could be right...but my buddy sure complains about the dust in his 28-135.

frankly i don't ever check for dust....not even sure how to do it. and i'll bet that's the case with the owners of 99% of the lenses sold (the other 1% are on these forums).

i'll follow this thread and see what others have to say.

ed rader

jtsull wrote in post #2054939
The 17-85 IS USM I have is almost one year old. Just one tiny speck of dust. I don't think they are all dust suckers.

do you use the lens often? i think the age of the lens has less to do with the amount of dust than does frequency of use and conditions in which the lens is used.

ed rader

Thousands of shots on that lens. Everyone bashes it. I think it is a great lens "for the money". Admittedly softer than the 17-55mm. At $1K+ I expect more in build quality and IQ.
I want to upgrade my 17-85mm. I want a large aperature and IS. It seems my options are slim. I was all set to buy this. The dust problem (if it can be called a problem) just "bugs me"

jtsull wrote in post #2055057
Thousands of shots on that lens. Everyone bashes it. I think it is a great lens "for the money". Admittedly softer than the 17-55mm. At $1K+ I expect more in build quality and IQ.
I want to upgrade my 17-85mm. I want a large aperature and IS. It seems my options are slim. I was all set to buy this. The dust problem (if it can be called a problem) just "bugs me"

the 17-85 was actually bashed when it first came out because it was so expensive relative to the 28-135, but the price came down quite a bit. i expect the 17-55 to drop to $800-ish in a year or so.

if you want no dust buy an L lens and then never check for dust ... tho i'm not convinced that the 17-55 sucks more dust than any other canon consumer zoom. .

ed rader

I looked at this lens today and took a picture with it Wide Open. Out of curiosity I also tried out a 17-85 IS lens to see the big difference between the two lenses. The build of the 17-55 was a little bit better then the cheaper 17-85 but the images in the store, the 17-55 at f2.8 and the 17-85 at f3.5 both look almost exactly the same. Yeah I know these are not the same lenses and the constant f2.8 of the 17-55 is a good thing but other then that I really can't tell the difference and feel the 17-55 is over priced. But here are two comparison shots for you. They suck I know but just an idea. first one is 17-55 second is 17-85 both with IS on.

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

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

you can tell the 17-85 took the second picture because it did not freeze motion .

ed rader

BrentBoshart wrote in post #2054598
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.

Canon says they'll clean it for free. Kind of a hassle for sure but maybe you send it in occasionally.

Bought mine 10 days ago. Taken about 250 shots. no dust yet and i love the images I can produce with it.