Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM

Love hate relationship, I love the focal length and hate the lens.

kind of miss using this lens, but i need to stop being so lazy and sell this lens as i dont have a camera that works with it.

Saxi wrote in post #11784069
Love hate relationship, I love the focal length and hate the lens.

What do you hate about the lens?

rclester wrote in post #11784438
What do you hate about the lens?

It is a vacuum with dust (inside where I can't clean it). The image quality is no where as good as many praise this lens of having, night and day the IQ with this and my 70-200 f/4 IS L. I know it isn't a L but many claim it has IQ of an L. It is as expensive as an L lens. I get some good shots with this lens, but many times I am disappointed. I would much rather have a 70-200 f/4 IS L equivalent for this focal length on a crop.

When I first decided to buy my first non-kit lens for my 50D, I walked into the store (wanted to try them out before buying them, otherwise would just order from Andorama or Amazon) to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. I wanted only the best (primarily at the time fixed aperture and image quality, but I didn't know much at the time) lenses in the focal lengths I use most often. I only wanted 2-3 lenses total as I wasn't going to carry tons of lenses and I don't shoot for money. It was clear these two lenses were the best choice.

Update: Also, the build quality sucks, I'm just waiting for my AF to die on it as it seems to be a common problem with this lens. It is far to expensive for what it is.

When I shoot the 70-200, I am usually happy with results and sometimes impressed. When I shoot the 17-55, I am usually disappointed with the results and sometimes happy.

Keep in mind, I shoot in bad conditions, rarely have anything better than a 580EX II, it is usually fixed on camera because I am solo shooting my son being a 3 year old boy and I can't setup anything. Many times I am at 3200 ISO (many times I should be 6400 but opt for 3200 in favor of noise but risk more blurred).

Studio conditions, I've had fairly good luck with the 17-55, but in the real life conditions I shoot it is "meh". I can attest that some of it is me, I am by no means "pro" but I am not ignorant either.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, I'm just waiting for the AF system to die on it as it seems to be common with this lens, it is far to expensive for what it is.

Saxi wrote in post #11784566
It is a vacuum with dust (inside where I can't clean it). The image quality is no where as good as many praise this lens of having, night and day the IQ with this and my 70-200 f/4 IS L. I know it isn't a L but many claim it has IQ of an L. It is as expensive as an L lens. I get some good shots with this lens, but many times I am disappointed. I would much rather have a 70-200 f/4 IS L equivalent for this focal length on a crop.

When I first decided to buy my first non-kit lens for my 50D, I walked into the store (wanted to try them out before buying them, otherwise would just order from Andorama or Amazon) to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. I wanted only the best (primarily at the time fixed aperture and image quality, but I didn't know much at the time) lenses in the focal lengths I use most often. I only wanted 2-3 lenses total as I wasn't going to carry tons of lenses and I don't shoot for money. It was clear these two lenses were the best choice.

Update: Also, the build quality sucks, I'm just waiting for my AF to die on it as it seems to be a common problem with this lens. It is far to expensive for what it is.

When I shoot the 70-200, I am usually happy with results and sometimes impressed. When I shoot the 17-55, I am usually disappointed with the results and sometimes happy.

Keep in mind, I shoot in bad conditions, rarely have anything better than a 580EX II, it is usually fixed on camera because I am solo shooting my son being a 3 year old boy and I can't setup anything. Many times I am at 3200 ISO (many times I should be 6400 but opt for 3200 in favor of noise but risk more blurred).

Studio conditions, I've had fairly good luck with the 17-55, but in the real life conditions I shoot it is "meh". I can attest that some of it is me, I am by no means "pro" but I am not ignorant either.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, I'm just waiting for the AF system to die on it as it seems to be common with this lens, it is far to expensive for what it is.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the minority opinion. 1% of people owning this lens feel this way.

Saxi wrote in post #11784566
It is a vacuum with dust (inside where I can't clean it). The image quality is no where as good as many praise this lens of having, night and day the IQ with this and my 70-200 f/4 IS L.

You must have a bad lens. My 17-55 provides dang near the same great IQ as my 70-200 f/4L IS.

jb1911 wrote in post #11784698
Ladies and Gentlemen, the minority opinion. 1% of people owning this lens feel this way.

Really? Can I see the results of your poll with 100+ people?

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11784723
You must have a bad lens. My 17-55 provides dang near the same great IQ as my 70-200 f/4L IS.

No where near for me, color, contrast, IQ. I've sent it to Canon a while ago for cleaning and adjustment but still nothing special. It isn't as bad as a kit lens, but when I shoot with my 70-200 f/4 IS L, I notice a huge difference.

Comparing a telephoto lens to a wideangle->standard/normal lens does not make any real sense imho. They don't have anywhere near the same focal range and they are not intended for the same work.
You can compare it to a 17-40, to a 17-50, a 24-70 etc etc. And in most of the cases compared to these lenses it does a great job.

It is really sharp, and may I remind you that it is the only lens in its category that combines constant 2.8 aperture and IS and providing such great results? Do you know of any other zoom lens that can provide IQ of this level and simultaneously be such a versatile lens?
I can take handheld pictures with this lens at ridiculously low shutter speed with amazing results. Which other lens in its category can do that?
Sure the build quality of this lens is not L quality, but I don't get anywhere near the dust issues that many reporting to have. And let me tell you, I use this lens A LOT. AF works like wonder and is blazing fast on my 7D.

I'm not criticizing you, just stating the facts that each and everyone of us knew when we purchased this lens. After all it's your opinion, and/or maybe you have a really bad copy of this lens. If you don't like it then sell it and buy another zoom in this category. You can have better results with primes for sure but I'm not so sure about other zooms with the exception of the great 24-70. But it doesn't have IS..

Just my 2 cents.. Cheers

Saxi wrote in post #11785107
Really? Can I see the results of your poll with 100+ people?

Let's see ... I know it's here somewhere ... oh yeah, it says "if you don't like it, sell it and buy something else instead of **** about it to a bunch of camera geeks on the internet."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.:o

Saxi wrote in post #11784566
It is a vacuum with dust (inside where I can't clean it). The image quality is no where as good as many praise this lens of having, night and day the IQ with this and my 70-200 f/4 IS L. I know it isn't a L but many claim it has IQ of an L. It is as expensive as an L lens. I get some good shots with this lens, but many times I am disappointed. I would much rather have a 70-200 f/4 IS L equivalent for this focal length on a crop.

When I first decided to buy my first non-kit lens for my 50D, I walked into the store (wanted to try them out before buying them, otherwise would just order from Andorama or Amazon) to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. I wanted only the best (primarily at the time fixed aperture and image quality, but I didn't know much at the time) lenses in the focal lengths I use most often. I only wanted 2-3 lenses total as I wasn't going to carry tons of lenses and I don't shoot for money. It was clear these two lenses were the best choice.

Update: Also, the build quality sucks, I'm just waiting for my AF to die on it as it seems to be a common problem with this lens. It is far to expensive for what it is.

When I shoot the 70-200, I am usually happy with results and sometimes impressed. When I shoot the 17-55, I am usually disappointed with the results and sometimes happy.

Keep in mind, I shoot in bad conditions, rarely have anything better than a 580EX II, it is usually fixed on camera because I am solo shooting my son being a 3 year old boy and I can't setup anything. Many times I am at 3200 ISO (many times I should be 6400 but opt for 3200 in favor of noise but risk more blurred).

Studio conditions, I've had fairly good luck with the 17-55, but in the real life conditions I shoot it is "meh". I can attest that some of it is me, I am by no means "pro" but I am not ignorant either.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, I'm just waiting for the AF system to die on it as it seems to be common with this lens, it is far to expensive for what it is.

Never have had any dust problems in 1 1/2 years I owned this lens, also no AF or IS problems and I shoot quite a lot. I sold it here and this is how it looks like after 1 1/2" years of ownership. Never send it to canon , never clean it inside.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

jb1911 wrote in post #11787253
Let's see ... I know it's here somewhere ... oh yeah, it says "if you don't like it, sell it and buy something else instead of **** about it to a bunch of camera geeks on the internet."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.:o

No one is ****, I was asked why and I said so.

I have several lenses. Two of them are "L's", but this is my most used lens. It pretty much stays on one of my camera bodies, and the lens changes are made on the other body. I also have two EF-S lenses. This one and the 10-22mm. Both are expensive, but have near "L" quality glass. They both give me great results. They do not have "L" construction though; so I don't use them in rain or blowing sand. I do use them in rough areas though, such as the deserts of Utah & Arizona and have never had a problem with either one of them. I think this is a wonderful lens. If I could only have one lens for a camera with an APS-C size sensor, this is the one I would have.

rclester wrote in post #11787899
I have several lenses. Two of them are "L's", but this is my most used lens. It pretty much stays on one of my camera bodies, and the lens changes are made on the other body. I also have two EF-S lenses. This one and the 10-22mm. Both are expensive, but have near "L" quality glass. They both give me great results. They do not have "L" construction though; so I don't use them in rain or blowing sand. I do use them in rough areas though, such as the deserts of Utah & Arizona and have never had a problem with either one of them. I think this is a wonderful lens. If I could only have one lens for a camera with an APS-C size sensor, this is the one I would have.

By far my most used lens as well because of the focal length.

This lens is so sharp.