17-55 f/2.8 IS - Anybody here used it?

[keith204]

I'm sending back my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and selling my Canon 17-85 IS to go for this 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Does anybody have this? I've heard mixed reviews. f/2.8 AND IS in a <$1000 tag looks nice...but on the other hand, paying ~$1000 for a non-L series lens is a bit strange.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

I have it. Use it professionally - PJ. Its a fabulous, marvelous, fantastic lens.
The IQ is unbelieavable(some reviews say better than the full frame alternatives :16-35L and 24-70L), the f2.8 is handy and the IS,well, just works.
On the downside - its not weather sealed, but EF-S bodies aren't either.
The barrel extends when you zoom in - but so does the 24-70 L.
The build quality could be better, it's definitely not the 16-35L or the 70-200L, but if you're not going to Afghanistan any time soon, it should last a long time.
Focus is lightning fast - but that's no surprise.

What else...oh, yeah - it's nice and light.

That's it pretty much. I use it for 80% of my work, and it does a great job. Next is the 10-22, which not unlike the 17-55 is built with L grade glass components, and gives the same high quality results.

Emil.

P.S. Some complain that it collects dust. I've used it for six months now, taking somewhere around 50K pictures in all sorts of conditions, including rain, tear gas, dust kicked up by tanks and foot soldiers, and there's not one speck of dust,or anything else,inside.

 

[keith204]

thanks - I just ordered the lens today and absolutely can't wait until it arrives. This will be an incredible low-light wide zoom walkaround lens.

 

[Big Mike]

I don't have it yet...but I know quite a few wedding photographers who swear by it.

 

[memento]

i got one about two weeks ago.
i put it on my camera when i first got it and haven't taken it off.

i had a three month debate on whether or not i should drop a grand on a lens.
i wound up buying a 'refurbished' one; thinking if i don't like it.. i'll sell it.
NO chance that'll happen.
IMO, this lens brought my camera to life!

you won't be disappointed!

 

[keith204]

I don't have it yet...but I know quite a few wedding photographers who swear by it.

i got one about two weeks ago.
i put it on my camera when i first got it and haven't taken it off.

i had a three month debate on whether or not i should drop a grand on a lens.
i wound up buying a 'refurbished' one; thinking if i don't like it.. i'll sell it.
NO chance that'll happen.
IMO, this lens brought my camera to life!

you won't be disappointed!

This is all super exciting to hear. Why do you say it has brought your camera to life? I'm a sucker for 2.8 zooms, so I imagine the shallower DOF will help...

but this lens seems to have more people riled up and thrilled than the 24-70. The 24-70 owners often say it's a great lens, and is sharp, and reliable...however, 17-55 owners seem absolutely stunned by the 17-55.

I guess my fear is... I already sold my 17-85 IS (shipped it today and it was hard to see it go). I really loved the 17-85. I purchased a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to replace it, and shipped it back. Then I purchased a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to replace it, and shipped it back! Will this lens really make me content? I sure hope so!

 

[memento]

i don't know, the images just seem better(than my 28-135).
color, contrast, sharpness.. evrything.
the auto-focus is crazy fast and the focal range suits my shooting.

i was at a six year olds birthday party over the weekend.
my buddy walked by (as i was trying to get shot's of the kids) and flipped me off,
then he sat down laughing after i told him what i thought.
i didn't even look, i just pointed the camera in his direction and pushed the shutter button(mumbling offensive words).
well that picture truned out to be awesome, a genuine smile... totally in focus.
and all i did was aim in his direction and push the button.

this was my first real outing with the lens.
and man, it didn't disappoint.
even though it was over cast(not a lot of light), i was able to get awesome shots of the kids inside a moon bounce.
other parents w/ p&s's were having no luck... i just shot wide open and blasted away.

 

[Garbz]

Looks good in the lab.
Obligatory photozone link: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...7-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I got one at Christmas and like some of the others, it rarely leaves the camera body

 

[JustAnEngineer]

I am pleased with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. It's sharp and it focuses very quickly. Like everyone else, I keep this lens on my 40D most of the time.

 

[keith204]

well I got mine in today. It's pretty incredible, and better in low light than I had imagined.

It feels good. The IS seems much better than my 17-85 IS. The 17-85 clicked when engaging. With this 17-55, the IS seems always active, and very very helpful! I fired some 1/15 second shots, and 1/10 second shots at the 35-55mm range, and all of them came out crisp with IS. VERY impressed. The 17-55 range doesn't seem as short as I thought...seems to be a very decent range. I am sure this will stay on my camera most of the time. f/2.8 AND 3-stop Image Stabilizing, AND 17-55 AND L-grade glass, all make for an unbelievably incredible and practical lens.

 

[msf]

I am also trying to decide between the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS or the EF 16-35 F/2.8L II. I like the price of the first one better, but its classified as L. But it does have IS which is a great bonus.

It'll be used on a Rebel XT and mostly used for weddings, and possibly portraits.

But one drawback about the EF-S one is it cant be used on the 5D, which I hope to get eventually.

 

[msf]

I also like to do closeup pictures. How close can you get with either of those lens'? I can get pretty close with my 17-55mm kit lens, but the colors get really distorted as the focus fades, making the pictures worthless.

 

[JDHoward]

I also like to do closeup pictures. How close can you get with either of those lens'? I can get pretty close with my 17-55mm kit lens, but the colors get really distorted as the focus fades, making the pictures worthless.

Well...the 17-55 f/2.8 is going to have the same reach as your 17-55 kit lens.

The 16-35 f/2.8L will go as wide as the kit and will only zoom in half as much.

Personally, I have the 17-55 f/2.8 and couldn't imagine having anything with the limited reach of 16-35. It may not be an "L" lens, but I'd rather have the reach (and IS).

As far as upgrading, the 17-55 should hold it's value over time. I'd get the 17-55. I would think it would be better for weddings. Plus when you do upgrade, you should have a backup body for weddings, so a 40D (or whatever comes after it) would be a great backup with the 17-55 on it.

 

[msf]

Well...the 17-55 f/2.8 is going to have the same reach as your 17-55 kit lens.

The 16-35 f/2.8L will go as wide as the kit and will only zoom in half as much.

Personally, I have the 17-55 f/2.8 and couldn't imagine having anything with the limited reach of 16-35. It may not be an "L" lens, but I'd rather have the reach (and IS).

As far as upgrading, the 17-55 should hold it's value over time. I'd get the 17-55. I would think it would be better for weddings. Plus when you do upgrade, you should have a backup body for weddings, so a 40D (or whatever comes after it) would be a great backup with the 17-55 on it.

Thanks for the reply.

I realize both the kit and the EF-S 17-22 F2.8 would show the same amount of area, but I didnt know if the build design would allow one lens to have a closer focal length than the other. Also the kit warps the color's that close giving fringing, etc, so I was hoping the F2.8 version would give much better results.