EF-S 17-55: Is it good, or not?

OK, I want to hear ONLY about the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens so PLEASE DO NOT tell me about the Sigma/Tokina/Tamron/al​ternative Canon lenses, etc.

Here is what I would like to know - from those that actually own the lens:
I hear all kinds of **** on this, and other websites, about this lens being inadequate....too much chromatic aberration, IS died on me, sucks dust...etc.

Is this lens worth US $1,000 or not??????????

Please let me know your feelings after having used this lens.

Thanks!

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=234558

When I had a 1.6X body I owned a 17-55. IMO it was a mixed bag, I would call it a good deal at $750 and a stretch at $1000.

The good:
IS handy in a wide-normal fast zoom.
Very sharp, good color and contrast.
Very fast ring USM

The medium:
The build - really on par with Canon mid-grade stuff.

The bad:
Dust inside - I've seen it.
Flare - This lens is a flare monster.

If you shoot landscapes I think the flare performance is a killer for this lens. For general people stuff or portraits it is less of an issue. Otherwise people more or less vary on their tolerance for the build and dust.

In the end there are no other direct competitors. There is no other wide-normal 1.6X zoom that is f/2.8 constant with ring USM and IS.

Best walkaround lens for a crop body, period.

It is ridiculously sharp. The images are amazing. Very fast to focus. The IS is awesome. It's on my camera probably 85% of the time.

Could Canon have done better with the build? Sure, but things like the dust issue do not effect the images (and mine doesn't have a spec to date and I use a good filter).

TaDa wrote in post #6034677
Best walkaround lens for a crop body, period.

It is ridiculously sharp. The images are amazing. Very fast to focus. The IS is awesome. It's on my camera probably 85% of the time.

Could Canon have done better with the build? Sure, but things like the dust issue do not effect the images (and mine doesn't have a spec to date and I use a good filter).

Yeah, +1 on this opinion.

I haven't had too many problems with dust, just put a filter on it as soon as you buy it. Also, just read a thread on here where someone cleaned out the dust - apparently it wasn't too difficult.

An L killer.

It will suck dust but will take years of normal use to be effected.
The build is not L but the IQ is.
You will only get my 17-55 from my cold dead fingers.

TaDa wrote in post #6034677
Best walkaround lens for a crop body, period.

It is ridiculously sharp. The images are amazing. Very fast to focus. The IS is awesome. It's on my camera probably 85% of the time.

Could Canon have done better with the build? Sure, but things like the dust issue do not effect the images (and mine doesn't have a spec to date and I use a good filter).

Another + 1

On the flare issue, an example is probably worth looking at.

The first image I've resurrected from the recycle bin (recycled for several reasons). This is the 17-55 used with the hood and shot with the sun just out of the frame. Note the total lack of contrast and washed out color plus the internal reflections. This doesn't tend to be a huge issue with most shots, but I have noticed that the 17-55 is a poor actor when faced with anything like this.

The second shot is with the EF 17-40L (on a 5D) with the setting sun actually in the frame. Note that it copes a lot better with flare.

People talk about dust and build etc. etc. but to my mind this flare performance is the one place the 17-55 is distinctly non-L in optical performance.

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

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

solidxsnake - great link

All others - thanks for the comments and KEEP 'EM COMING!! I want to go into a $1,000 decision knowing what I am getting - limitations and all.

The 17-55 IS is well-known for being a poor performer concerning flare performance. Yes the 17-40 just kills it in this regard http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/flareshots

As for the dust, it seems to also be an issue but I'd say even with dust there won't be much image quality issues involved. If you want "dust be gone", follow my DRP here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/drp . It's fairly easy to do. Afterwards, throw on a good MC UV filter and you should be fine.

Otherwise, the lens is phenomenal and the "cream of the crop" in the APS-C standard zoom category. Sharpness and contrast is very high, AF is lightning quick (probably the quickest AF'ing zoom I've ever used), and the IS a major boon.

I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 17-40 F4L and agree with JeffreyG's points about flare.

The flare is nasty, however, I know when it occurs and what to do. The hood is a must, I wish Canon included it with the lens (for the price, they should).

Without a doubt, it is my #1 lens (my 17-40 is sitting in a closet awaiting eBay). If you walk backwards through my PaD, you will see that I've used this lens (17-55) in all but a handful of shots since I got it in April.

I now have some internal dust, but not enough to cause me too much distress.

I leave IS on for all of my non-tripod shots, I even leave it on when it's sitting on the monopod.

I bought the lens about a year ago. I noticed it does suck the dust in, however, it isnt horrible (at least not in my case) and has in no way affected IQ. The images are almost always very sharp, and I say almost simply because of user error every known and then. The AF is very fast, f/2.8 always comes in handy. No matter what other lens I put my camera I am ALWAYS going back to the 17-55 because its so versatile!! I havent had any problems with the IS. This is one lens that will never leave me.

Consider first, that the 17-55mm f/2.8 EFS IS lens is a $500 17-55mm f/2.8 lens with $500 IS added...So then you can consider the relative worth of comparable lenses like Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens, which does not have full time manual focus and does not have good flat field optics per the photozone.de test, and which starts to hunt when focusing in low light one EV brighter than the Canon.

As everyone else has already well-cited the pros & cons of the lens, let me just add this:

For the 9 months that I have owned it, I have been constantly searching for a better lens to replace the 17-55, as I'm one of those guys who obsesses with having the best kit for the money. But to date, I haven't found one...

Also to date, I've only had two photos (out of about 6000 taken with the lens) that were compromised by flare. And no dust issues, but I use a B+W 77mm MRC UV filter on it.

Worth $1000? Depends on your point-of-view. Since most people can't manufacture their own lenses for anywhere near that price, I'd consider it a bargain...

-Mike

IQ wise, I do not regret spending what I did on it

Build quality wise, I do. It feels cheaper than $880, which is what i got it for. For 9 benjamins I better be getting something quality. Also, the IS did die on me too (still need to send it in for repair). It also has the dreaded dust issue, which I thought never would happen to me.

In short, I really did love the IQ while it lasted. I didn't mind the dust, since it doesn't affect the actual imagery...but the failing IS motor was QUITE a big problem. It prevented me from focusing and taking shots. I ended up getting a 24-70 f/2.8L to cover my graduation (the 17-55 failed right before then). In the end, if you don't need the IS, get the Tamron. If you do need the IS, only turn it on when you need it. I made the mistake of keeping it on all the time...though other IS lenses are not known to fail at this rate, even when left on all the time.

It lasted me a year, and it was a good year at that, in terms of the images it produced. However, when I take stock of what it cost when I got it and what it will cost to get it fixed...I'd have much rather spent my money on a more reliable lens that would've lasted more than a year without failing.

Again, IQ worth $1000, but it's a gamble in terms of the common issues with this lens (flare, dust, failed IS).

That said, I will get it repaired and put it to good use, remembering to turn on the IS only when I need it. Hopefully it will last me until I get a FF body that will make the 24-70L a more usable wide angle. I will miss it though, since f/2.8 and IS is a winning combo in my books (I shoot a lot of low light action stuff). I'm glad I went with it as my first lens, problems aside. It was on camera about 95% of the time until it failed.