17-55 2.8 IS owners

Do you consider your IQ from your 17-55 2.8 IS is "L" quality?

Far and wide. I'll be posting in the forums real soon. This thing just needs some sealing and a red ring around it. It's truly the best lens in it's class. Durability the thing is a tank. It'll take a beating. It's just not sealed very well.

Then again, unlike most users here, I don't feel my lens needs to be made out of platinum and titanium in order for the build quality to be excellent.

The colors, the contrast, the SHARPNESS.....this thing is just as if not better than some L glass. I have hardly any photograhy skill yet, and I've taken some of the sharpest, cleanest, and colorful pictures I have ever thought were possible on my camera. I have this lens to thank. And just to give it's UWA brother some recognition, I speak equally as well for the 10-22.

august23 can you post some of your examples? Thanks!

Here is a picture with my 17-55 at the park. All the way out at 55mm, F2.8, and auto WB.

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

Image quality is on par or even better than some L's. Build quality is not as good; however, that is not to say this lens isn't durable. I'm sure it can take a licking and keep on ticking.
However, it did not give me the "joy" of good handling and build quality that L lenses give me...although I must admit this is a secondary consideration in judging a lens.

The only thing I wish this lens had was weather sealing and It would be great if the end of the shaft did protrude when zooming. But I am fine with composite materials, much lighter than metal. I really hope they start making Ls with this material.

I love this lens...it is sharp, contrasty, and has great colors. It is the equal of my 24-70MM EF L in IQ This lens can be found on one of my two bodies 99% of the time.

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

I agree that the build is not as bad as people make it out to be!
This lens is tack sharp. PERIOD!!!

Definitely the best non-L lens out there for sure, feature for feature...f/2.8 IS...can't beat that!

You didn't give the choice required to be able to vote, "No, the optics are better than L quality and the construction is different."

I only have two L lenses, the 17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8. Both have very good optical quality, but neither is quite up to the standard of the 17-55 if you want to pixel peep. For real world enlargements it does not make much difference.

The 17-55, 17-40 and 70-200 are all much better than the 100-400L that I tested one time. Not all L lenses are created equal.

ScottE wrote in post #2698337
You didn't give the choice required to be able to vote, "No, the optics are better than L quality and the construction is different."

I only have two L lenses, the 17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8. Both have very good optical quality, but neither is quite up to the standard of the 17-55 if you want to pixel peep. For real world enlargements it does not make much difference.

The 17-55, 17-40 and 70-200 are all much better than the 100-400L that I tested one time. Not all L lenses are created equal.

he should have also asked for responses only from those who own or have owned L lenses like you .

raw enthusiasm is no substitute for experience when you are asking for a comparison .

ed rader

I may not have owned an L lens Ed, but pictures speak for themselves. If theres a lens out there that gives better IQ than a 17-55, I'd be hard-pressed to notice a difference. I'm convinced one day photography will literally be exactly what we see with our eyes, reflected onto a piece of paper.

august23 wrote in post #2698995
I may not have owned an L lens Ed, but pictures speak for themselves. If theres a lens out there that gives better IQ than a 17-55, I'd be hard-pressed to notice a difference. I'm convinced one day photography will literally be exactly what we see with our eyes, reflected onto a piece of paper.

i think the problem is that everyone sees things differently and an opinion based on what an unexperienced person thinks is pretty worthless as far as a poll goes.

i think that it is impossible for a lens that won't fit all canon DSLRs to be superior to one that will.

i also think those that accept the status quo in a rapidly advancing technology are selling themselves short.

ed rader

lol this doesn't have to be another FF pride thread. I'm just saying after a while, IQ becomes a non-issue with these kind of lenses. It's just like the video game industry. It's reached a point where the graphics are good enough, now they need to work on better gameplay. Much like IQ of lenses is reaching a new potential, and it's time to work on things other than IQ. Has nothing to do with owning a lens that doesn't fit someone elses camera, that sounds more like jealousy.

Well,, I have owned and still own several L lenses. I have found the 17-55 2.8IS to be a very sharp lens. As good as nearly any of my Ls and maybe a tad better than some.. We are talking about sharpness here. If I were wishing, it would be for this lens with internal focus and zoom, but... That would be a lot more expensive and heavy. Optically, I find it excellent as delivered!!

ed rader wrote in post #2699070
i think that it is impossible for a lens that won't fit all canon DSLRs to be superior to one that will.

ed rader

Well, of course, superior means different things to different people. There is nothing I know of about EF-S specifications that would prevent Canon from making a lens with superior image quality. And in fact enough people have gotten 17-55 copies that are superior in image quality to EF lenses in general and many L lenses in particular that such superiority can be noted generally.

The build quality doesn't match L lenses, but it is superior to other lenses that fit all Canon DSLRs.

Of course you could be measuring superiority in a lens by how many different cameras you can attach it to. In that context, the statement is true.