Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM Review

Given the cost of this, or even the 17-85 IS plus the 10-22, if one outfits oneself to reclaim the lost fov caused by the crop-factor of a 30D, one is hard-put to justify not simply buying a 5D from the beginning.

Canon is really doing their best to gouge their customers. Fancy charging $1100 plus for an EF-S lens and not even throwing in a hood. Sigma does a pretty decent EX DC 18-50 f2.8 for $450. So buyers of this are paying an extra $700 for IS and the Canon name.

Well, everyone just about agrees that the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX is an excellent lens and I think it's pretty inexpensive at $1200. The Canon lens has the same focal length range and aperture, plus includes IS. I think it sounds like a very good deal if the optics are good.

It would be interesting to see how this compares to Tamron's excellent 17-50/2.8.

In a way, I don't think this lens has a counterpart except in the Noctilux and other f/1.0-f/1.2 standard-ish primes.

There isn't a full-frame slr/dslr you can bolt a zoom onto and be shooting at the extra stop worst case with shutter speeds in the 1/8-15th area BEFORE Image Stabilization. I've had many, many low-light/no-light situations where that 1 stop would have saved the mids and thrown at least minimal detail into the shadows, without camera shake. This is a bar/small theatre lens if the sensor behind it can handle the lack of lumens (big if).

This lens is very welcome in my books, and if it had an L equivalent, focal-length-wise, I'd move to the 5D now and suck up the cost.

Shawn

The reviews so far have been very, very good for the optical performance of this lens straight up (without stabilizer). The fast aperture & USM motor allows for fast, quite focusing, even in low light. Combined with the IS system, low-light, hand held photography has never been so easy!

The only drawback to this lens is it's build quality. It won't be confused with an "L" series. It's heavy enough, but the zoom action does not work as smoothly as one could hope. It makes you wonder just a bit how long the lens might last for someone who uses the lens a bit heavier than normal (such as an active wedding or portrait photographer).

For an alternate lens, you might look at Tamron's new 17-50 f2.8 zoom. It has the same lens speed, but sacrifices the USM motor and IS system. But it should sell for under $600.

-- "If you try to use this on a film or full-frame sensor camera, such as the Canon EOS 5D, $2700 (review), the corners will be black."

You cannot even try to use this on a 5D ... the lens has EF-S mount and will physically not fit on the 5D.

Given the cost of this, or even the 17-85 IS plus the 10-22, if one outfits oneself to reclaim the lost fov caused by the crop-factor of a 30D, one is hard-put to justify not simply buying a 5D from the beginning.

The 17-55/2.8 IS is cheaper than the 24-70/2.8L and though not quite as wide it is longer and has IS.

For telephoto shots with good telephoto lenses in good light the crop factor cameras still have an advantage. Given the price comparison between a 500/4 IS and a 300/4 IS you could easily justify buying a (or indeed several) 30D(s) in place of a 5D.

The general rule of thumb is that one should spend money on glass rather than on the body. This lens fills a noticeable gap in the lens offerings for crop factor (leaving the only the fast wide gap) and makes these cameras much more attractive for event shooters.

Can this lens be used on a Mark II N?

Can this lens be used on a Mark II N?

OK, you got me looking into your portfolio which is clearly not a product of EF-S 17-55/2.8 and a Mark IIN. Some are nice.

Would you rather recomend this lens over 17-40 4L?
How does the glass in this one compare to 17-40 4L?
I have a canon 350d and trying decide between them.

Hi-I'm new here. The canon EF-S 17-55 is big and expensive. But if you want the best f/2,8 , (better than the Nikon!!) this is the cat's pajamas! And I'm pretty picky, because I've been a Leica-M user for 40 years. Go for it.

If anyone's interested, I have just tried out the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I did a few test shots at the shop to compare it with the Canon 17-55 and I have to say that the Canon was noticeably sharper. Maybe this particular lens was not as good as other 17-50s (I've read some very good reviews) but I will be going for the Canon 17-55. The Tamron is an excellent lens for the money, in my opinion, but the Canon wins if you're prepared to pay the extra.

I have had this lens since January 2007 and it is a delight to use. Most expensive and best lens that I have. I agree with one of the previous writers that Canon is pretty chintzy to recommend a lens hood and then not include it. I paid $1,000 for the lens and $50 for the lens hood. I probably would not have complained if the charge had been $1,050 for the lens and hood as a package. Go figure.

the first sentence of this review is pure Greenspun.

I have tried the 400D with its kit lens EF-S 18-55mm! And I find that experience same as with my experience with my EOS Elan II, with Sigma Aspherical Macro Zoom lens 28-80mm, plus the benefits of the digital diversity of options and possibilities which are immense!

I'm quite satisfied! The camera, with the kit lens mentioned above is all man needs! I must add that under "man" I mean perfectionists as myself included!

this is the best lens I've ever tried in my life.

And , let me tell you this lens is tough actually , I was working in Cambodia and driving back to Bangkok on the way , I dropped it and this lens bounced 2 times on a soil farm , I was really shocked and thought I lost a grand for nothing , though this lens was fine.

My 17-40L was dead from the accident and back-up Tamron was dead , but this one survived, my 10-22 and my DO survived.

Those 3 lenses are most used lenses of mine , so I was lucky although my 17-40L dead.

IF MY 17-40L was alived and my 17-55IS was dead , well, I was really sad and needed to replace it , but the 17-40L ? who cares?

I dont the L is an inferior lens to this one , period , this is the first lens I would replace if my kit got stolen, then I would replace my 70-300DO IS and EF85 F1.8.

I love this one and keep my Tamorn 17-50 as a back-up lens.

one question , Bob , I thought you had a detailed review on this one , but it seems to be gone , why? I would like to read your review on this, especially the comparison between this lens and the Tamron.

I think this one is a bit sharper than the Tamorn , but what do you think?

Thanks for this amazing site.

I have a 40D and a 5D (and a 20D). All succeeded an EOS-3. I use the 5D mostly with L lenses.

This lens on a 40D is much better in more situations than a 5D with the 24-105 L lens. With the 24-105 lens, the 40D is maybe a stop better than the 5D. The faster 17-55 is better yet. The 40D's autofocus is dynamite. Comparing the 5D - 24-105 combo with the 40D 17-55 combo, they are similar in size and weight with the 40D looking a bit smaller, but feeling very solid and better subjectively, f2.8 is a whole lot better than f4.0 for focusing in lower light, view finder, and ability to shoot without a flash. The subjective feel of the combination of the 40D and 17-55 is superb. There is no comparison at athletic events, especially under low light and when the multiplier for the smaller sensor is applied - the 40D is handsdown better. HDR images (see digital outback photo.com) can be done handheld with the 40D.

When cost is considered - there is no choice.

When the successor to the 5D appears, I may change my mind, but the combination of the 40D and 17-55 should continue to have a very large role.

would anyone sell there 17-40 and a 70-200 f4 non-is for this? just got a 85mm which is used for portraits now... seriously thinking about this..

I love this lens to death. It's the eyes of my baby. Here are some portrait shots (click for a larger view).

I have tried so many lenses looking for the right one for my Canon Rebel XTi. This is by far the best and I had two L series lenses in the mix including the 17-40 which isn't even a close 2nd. I do event photography so most of it's inside and low light. I almost always use a monopod and IS but I get beautiful sharp pictures. Great skin tones, everything you could ask for.

There is a Tokina lens that is $600-$650 nowadays, similar in spec, without the IS:

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx165prodx-a.html

the so-called AT-X 165 PRO DX - AF 16-50mm f/2.8 
( whatever happened to shorter, nice names like "Lens # 3" or something? )

Reviews of it:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=326 
( one excellent, a few very-good, and one bad review )

and someday, 
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/33
( someday, because that's where the Tokina reviews live, but no-one's reviewed that particular lens, yet )

It's available for both Canon & Nikon, 
& the reviews on B&H Photo Video are currently 5 reviews good-excellent, 
with the bad-unit revews saying ( 1 each ) 
chromatic aberration, 
soft, 
zoom creep, 
flare. 
Most of the reviews are in the Nikon version of the lens.

Epinions, remember them? yeah, I had hopes too... 
http://www.epinions.com/Tokina_16mm_50mm_F_2_8_Pro_DX_Autofocus_Zoom_Lens_for_Canon_EOS_Digital_SLR_Cameras 
http://www.epinions.com/Tokina_AF_16_50mm_F2_8_AT_X_165_Pro_DX_Lens_77mm_f_Nikon 
no reviews.

---

Anyways, it seems that if one is seeking something similar to the Canon 17-55 IS lens, 
but it's got to be significantly cheaper than $1k+, 
AND one is careful to test several units & choose the one that is most true, 
then this'd be it.

( IOW, for the cheapest Rebel, this Tokina'd be excellent, 
for the more pro' 40D, however... )

Cheers, & hope this makes things more difficult for everybody...

  : b

This lens is great and it has become half of my two lens, with two 1.6x cameras, travel duo, sharing the honors with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. The 17-55mm is sharp and, for not being an "L" lens is well built. I didn't think that I would be excited about the IS on a lens of this focal length but, I was wrong. I love it and have found the combination of constant f/2.8 aperture and IS to make this a very creditable lower light lens. In fact, I have not used my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens since I acquired the 17-55mm.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens has just about replaced my 24-70mm f/2.8L for walk around and travel photography. It allows me to dispense with a wide angle lens because 17mm (even on a 1.6x camera) is wide enough for me. The lens is a lot lighter than the 24-70L which really helps after a day of walk-around shooting.

I still use the 24-70L in my home studio because of the longer focal length available and because it focuses a bit closer than the 17-55mm IS lens. However, if I had the 17-55mm lens first, instead of the reverse, I would never have purchased the 24-70L.

My only wish is that the 17-55mm IS lens was weatherproofed. This didn't matter to me until I acquired a 40D body which is weatherproofed. I'd like to carry a camera with a normal lens attached without worrying too much about a drizzle. So, I guess that I will be taking my 24-70L to Alaska this Summer.

I used this lens on a brand new Canon 40D at Niagara Falls beginning June 08 The Falls were very Misty at Night and both my lens and camera were wet. The Lens is fine the Camera broke the middle of the next (dry) day ...I don't believe it was water though I am pretty sure it was just mechanical. Adorama Replaced it since I only had it a week.

I have a Canon 40D and I tried to say a little money so I went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it is not as sharp as I would like so I'm sending it back to purchase the Canon 17-55.2.8.,but I totally agree with the others, Canon should include a lens shade on a lens that cost $1000.00