The 17-55 F2.8 IS as a "PRO" lens

I typically take the standard 16-35 / 24-70 /70-200IS lenses to every wedding, along with a 50 1.4. I'm thinking of adding the 100mm macro next, but before I do, I'm really considering picking up the 17-55 F2.8 IS lens and basically using it to replace the 24-70 and the 16-35. I shoot with a 20D and two 30D's.

By all accounts the optics in this lens are as top notch as any L glass and the focusing is quick and quiet. The IS is appealing though not a deal breaker either way. My concern, especially w/ lenses in heavy rotation, is the build quality.

I've read about dust showing up in these lenses and I don't know if it's a vocal minority, or a real problem - as in, maybe I should wait for the version II of this lens. Also, it's a decent size lens, but the build is decidedly 'consumerish' so on that level it may just be ego that makes me want to stick w/ black and red. (We photographers are like dogs at a park sometimes...we all sniff around each other ) I don't think I'll miss the coverage between 55mm and 70mm if it means not having to switch lenses or carry three bodies - the idea is to make life a little easier.

I'd like to know if anyone has gone this route, or is thinking of doing the same.

Thanks!

I'm waffling between this one and a 24-70 myself. I hesitate to purchase an EF-S lens should I decide to move to full frame within the next year. Spending 1K on EF-S bothers me a bit. With that said, I've heard excellent reports about the image quality from the lens, so I'm still unsure.

Ive heard such good remarks about this lens and played with it in shop on a 20D, that this will be my next lens, probably within the next two months. I'm so confident I will like this lens that I'm not even worried if I switch to full frame as I would happily keep a crop body just to use this lens.
As far as replacing your 16-35, you are going to save a lot of $$ but if you sell the lens, then go FF, you'd need to buy it back to get those wide shorts on a FF body.

I decided to go the route of the 16-35 & 24-70 because of the FF factor. I know at some point in the near future I would like to go FF and so I am purchasing lenses with that in mind. The "L" factor ultimately did not make my decision.

I have seen beautiful images captured by both lenses. I know the 17-55 has been recommended by some very knowledgable people. That being said, so has the other two so it would break down to a matter of preference.

Can you possibly rent or borrow this lens for a time to see if it works best for you?

Yes, I could easily rent this lens from the local Calumet store. I've rented the 10-22mm from them and I've read that the build quality is just like that of the 17-55.

I don't see myself going FF anytime soon since my bodies are such great workhorses (despite the tiny veiwfinders). FF is nice, but I can't justify the expense since the work I turn out w/ my bodies sells all the same.

I'm really just concerned that after a year of weekly use, the 17-55 will not hold up the way the L's do. I'd be using it a lot since it could sideline two other lenses. Plus, the dust factor. I have a lot of beach shoots lined up as well as outdoor weddings. Boy, this is a tough deicison!

The 17-55 focuses as well as the 2.8L lenses, the build quality is short of L but not by much, I reckon it'd survive professional use. IMHO the dust 'issue' (if it exists) is purely for gearheads and shouldn't even occur to a pro. It'd take a massive amount of dust in a lens before you'd notice a drop in IQ, particularly as you use a lenshood all the time!

Ive got this lens and it rarely leaves my camera and I think it will be the lens I use most at the weddings I have booked for this year, tis a great lens, very fast focussing and sharp and I certainly havent noticed any dust issues in mine despite being used a lot over the last few months. My main concern before buying it was the effect that the lens IS would have on my battery life but that doesnt seem to be an issue either.

Flip a coin. Can't get any more scientific than that.

(Im just an amateur)I just shot a wedding for a friend yesterday and I find that the shots seem a bit soft. (I cant complain about the 17-55 otherwise) I'm using a 550ex and bouncing the flash - not to risk too much, I kept the camera on 'P'. Im a bit worried that my flash may be faulty - it only seems to fire well when inclined upwards- it dosen't seem to fire at all when horizontal - it was dropped some years ago & it came apart a bit .
Sorry if this is a very silly question.

Get it, it's the ideal main wedding lens. I have a tiny bit of dust but I don't consider it an issue. Canon can clean it if it ever gets bad.

Hey Tim,
I remember reading that you've been using this lens, so I'm happy to see your reply. Do you ever have occasion to miss that gap between 55mm and 70mm? Have you held on to your 24-70 as back up, or are you comfortable enough with this lens to let it go?

Cheers & Thanks

I never missed the 55-70mm gap, I have legs so I move backwards or forwards. I have the Tamron 28-75 but it sits on a shelf at the moment, either a backup or a paperweight. I might sell it some time, but it was cheap so no real need.

I use this lens more than any other during the weddings I shoot.

It's a beauty.

Why aren't camera stores open on Sundays? I've got the urge to go get my hands on this piece of glass now!

If your going to keep your 20D/30Ds for a while then you wont regret getting the 17-55 2.8 IS. Its sharp, not too heavy or big and has excellent IQ. I have had mine for 5months and have not found any negatives yet, although I wish it had been made as an 'L'. The IS is great. I am sure I will move up to FF in the future but will not buy the 24-70 until it is upgraded to IS.