A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Home > Equipment > Canon > EF-S 17-55

Featured Equipment Deals

Introduction to Creating an Album in Lightroom - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Creating an Album in Lightroom - Part II (Video Tutorial)

Continue to learn the more advanced functions of the Book Tab in Lightroom so you can output an album for printing or export an album for digital sharing.

Latest Equipment Articles

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50 Read More

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50

We've searched high and low to put together this list of 10 small photo-related gifts that any photography lover would be delighted to receive. No matter your budget, these are also fun to give (or...

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


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

by Philip Greenspun, February 2007


If you want a high-quality Canon-brand mid-range zoom for your Canon small-sensor digital SLR, you have a choice between the Canon 17-55/2.8 and... nothing. Fortunately, this is a very high quality lens indeed, with a constant f/2.8 aperture and image-stabilization. The 35mm equivalent focal length range is 27-88mm. If you've got a Digital Rebel, a 20D or a 30D, and you're not on a tight budget, buy one right now from amazon.com, (compare prices).

Why this instead of the kit zoom?

Your Canon small-sensor digital SLR probably came with a lightweight plastic zoom lens covering roughly the same range as the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. Why spend the money and carry the weight of this lens?

First and foremost is performance in available light. The typical kit lens has an f/5.6 focal length at 55mm and no image stabilization. With the 17-55/2.8, the lens itself passes four times as much light through to the sensor. The image stabilizer adds another three f-stops of capability (8X), which means that you need light only 1/32nd as bright to capture a photo with this lens. With the kit lens indoors, you'll be blasting every scene with the on-camera flash. Pictures will come out looking just as though you'd been wearing a miner's headlamp.

Second is the brighter viewfinder. An aperture of f/2.8 means that the viewfinder image will be four times as bright as with the kit lens, making it easier to evaluate composition and focus. One of the great things about a digital SLR compared to a point and shoot digital camera is the viewfinder. This advantage is seriously compromised when using the slow cheap kit lenses.

Third is image quality. The EF-S 17-55 will have higher contrast and better sharpness, especially in the corners, than the kit lens.

If all of your photography is on bright high-contrast sunny days, you might not need this lens. If you like to take natural-looking photos indoors or near sunset, the 17-55/2.8 IS is a great investment.

Alternatives

If you don't need the zoom and love to take photos in dim light, consider the Sigma 30/1.4, (compare prices). It is two f-stops faster than the Canon lens, and, despite the lack of image stabilization, is more useful in low light.

How well does it work with the EOS 5D?

This is an "EF-S" lens, casting an image circle only large enough to cover the sensor in Canon's less expensive digital SLRs. If you managed to defeat the lens mount interlocks and attacked this lens to a film or full-frame sensor body, such as the Canon EOS 5D, (compare prices) (review), the corners of the resulting images would be black.

Where to Buy

We're impatient and want to have more time to be out on the street taking photos, so we buy everything from amazon.com, (compare prices).

More

Gallery

My best photos with this lens are used to illustrate the Canon 40D review (all the photos on the linked page were taken with this lens).

Manhattan with an EOS 30D...


Santa Monica and Venice Beach with a Rebel XTi... (note how well the image stabilizer works in the photo of the Getty Villa, taken from an airplane moving at 120 mph and vibrating from the operation of a four-cylinder engine)


Boring Technical Details

Image size APS-C
35mm film equivalent focal length (mm) 27-88
Angle of view (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) 68° 40' - 23° 20',
48° - 15° 40',
78° 30' - 27° 50'
Elements/Groups 19/12
No. of diaphragm blades 7
Minimum aperture 22
Closest focussing distance (m) 0.35
Maximum magnification (x) 0.17 (at 55mm)
Distance information Yes
Image stabilizer 3-stops
AF actuator Ring USM²
Filter diameter (mm) 77
Max. diameter x length (mm) 83.5 x 110.6
Weight (g) 645
Magnification with Extension Tube EF12 II 0.45-0.231
Magnification with Extension Tube EF25 II 1.71-0.51
Lens hood EW-83J
Soft case LP1219

1. Only compatible at tele.
2. Mechanical full-time manual focussing built-in
* Maximum number of Hood III/IV attachable. In the case of zoom lenses, the maximum number applies to the shortest focal length.
NC: Not Compatible with Gelatine Filter Holder III/IV.
** Product specifications subject to change without notice


Text and pictures copyright 2006-2007 Philip Greenspun

Article created February 2007

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



terence mahoney , March 18, 2006; 01:01 P.M.

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.

Geoff Francis , March 22, 2006; 12:49 A.M.

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.

Ilkka Nissila , March 29, 2006; 03:37 P.M.

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.

Sean Garrick , May 20, 2006; 08:44 A.M.

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

Shawn Gibson , June 04, 2006; 05:13 A.M.

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

Wera Mesal , August 24, 2006; 06:12 P.M.

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.

Rainer T , February 14, 2007; 06:37 A.M.

-- "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.

Alistair Windsor , March 11, 2007; 07:46 P.M.

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.

Victoria E , March 30, 2007; 05:22 P.M.

Can this lens be used on a Mark II N?

Jim Rais , March 31, 2007; 12:13 P.M.

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.

Birkir Jónsson , April 02, 2007; 12:01 P.M.

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.

w Corbishley , April 27, 2007; 04:03 P.M.

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.

Michael Bramwell , May 09, 2007; 09:08 A.M.

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.

Roger Edgington , May 13, 2007; 01:27 P.M.

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.

L G , June 29, 2007; 09:26 P.M.

the first sentence of this review is pure Greenspun.

Pierre Dumas , July 02, 2007; 05:32 P.M.

And why not the kit lens?!

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!

Image Attachment: AnEagleS.jpg

Jake Izumi , August 17, 2007; 03:15 A.M.

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.

Jake Izumi , August 17, 2007; 03:20 A.M.

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.

John MacKay , September 25, 2007; 11:43 P.M.

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.

timothy medrano , November 26, 2007; 10:47 A.M.

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..

Bullet Salvador , February 24, 2008; 07:52 P.M.

I love this lens to death. It's the eyes of my baby. Here are some portrait shots (click for a larger view). Lean on MeBirthday Girls!!Study TimeHer Eyes Say It All...School GirlThe Boys

Millard Carter , February 26, 2008; 04:20 P.M.

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.

Image Attachment: IMG_0064.JPG

Antryg Revok , May 14, 2008; 11:59 P.M.

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

Richard Crowe , June 18, 2008; 08:04 P.M.

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.

Veronica Anderton , July 14, 2008; 09:07 P.M.

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.

Stephen Meeks , July 16, 2008; 02:55 P.M.

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

Phil Trites , September 06, 2008; 05:32 A.M.

My 30D came with the kit lens in 04/06, and after I purchased the IS lens which is every bit of the build quality of any red banded lens in my arsenal, the kit lens is an easy throw in the ditch item. If anyone needs a kit lens barely used an hour, I have it.

J Peebles , September 15, 2008; 02:01 A.M.

I have this lens for my EOS40D. I've been surprised with its reliability to date (1000+ shots using 17-55 EFS only. Use a 77mm B&F Pro 1 filter, which has been good so far, maybe with a little extra blue.) My pictures have turned out really quite nicely. I'll get some up at a later point, once the smoke clears. The 2.8 is a big plus in low light, but I haven't been able to do night shots. Probably need the remote to remove shutter blur. Trying to focus is tricky, but I'm new to Canon 9-pt. AF, so this isn't an issue with the lens. Range isn't that great--this probably isn't to infinity, but rather about the depth of view of a squinting human eye when out at 55 mm. I do very much like covering the 17mm (28mm equivalent) which gives a bit of a fish-eye effect. Great full-length body portraits at like 10-12ft. Again not doing a lot of distance with this lens... Vignetting can be substantial and I'm learning how to avoid the lens shadow. A bonus is the higher resolution which allows the camera to double as a macro substitute. Trimming feature is nice in the bundled Photo Professional, and I've done some e-bay style shots with it. Minimum focus distance is over a foot though, so this isn't as convenient as a macro at all. (Combined with vignetting, this means you need to have some close-in composition experience to use this lens as a macro substitute, especially if light is from a single source. I wouldn't consider this usage, except for the fact this lens is expensive and people might want to use it for that function, which it does fine albeit with extra effort.) When my focus is accurate, this camera really produces near-real quality. I do notice some "digital effect" not on an film camera. Not sure if it's graininess or slight blur, but this isn't a problem focusing to about 50-70 feet (at 17->28), where the AF covers most everything. Just don't expect ultraclear past 30 yards (at 55mm->88mm) or so, although I did get crisp silhouette of the tree line at 500+ yards across a lake at sunset, as the sun went down behind it. In the range that arguably matters most,,,17-55 (translating to 28 to 88)..this efs17-55 gets most everything I want to see. It basically recreates the human eye. I can capture what I see. At 55mm full extension (88mm equivalent) I can get some zoom but it could never substitute for a telephoto. The truly amazing photos with this lens come at sunset, under tree canopy, picking up beams of light quite well... I don't know what a f/3.5 lens could do, but I feel confident in using this camera in deep shade (it won't capture near dark though. You might need to fish for some ambient light in low light conditions the viewfinder. I like flash off as a personal preference--this is the lens to avoid flash,,,flash shots also work well because they are close-in, which favors this lens. Being a USM, speed of focus is fantastic. I'd be able to recommend this lens if I could compare it to the kit lens(es), which I never got with my 40d. Honestly, I scoured the posted photos and found this lens to meet all those expectations. I'm pleased I ate the higher price because I wanted to make the next step up. This lens combo is heavy! Not for people who have weak hand strength or arms.

Image Attachment: filegF0iPO.jpg

Mike Criss , September 18, 2008; 09:39 P.M.

I bought this lens prior to a trip to Denali National Park in Alaska. I use it on my Canon 40D and it has become my walk around lens, I love it. Shot several HDR images by hand. Also have the 70-200mm 2.8 L and the 100-400mm L.

Mike www.akphotograph.com

Peter Ridding , November 21, 2008; 02:33 A.M.

Hi Just about to buy a canon 450d (my price range), and have been agonizing over the lenses. A pretty dumb question but, does the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM take excellent quality landscapes? I've read it is good for portraits as blurs the background nicely, but can I get everything sharp ( depth of field) with this lens? Pricewise it is out of my reach, and was thinking of the 18-55 f4/5.6 IS USM, in my price range. but have read lots of horror stories about it. True? I will also buy the 70-300 f4/5.6 IS USM canon lens. A good combination? Thanks for any help and advice, Cheers, Peter, Australia.

Bard Fosse , December 07, 2008; 12:26 P.M.

I have had this lens for one month and taken tons of photos daily with it, it is the best zoom lens I have ever used. It is crystal sharp, and makes fantastic portraits at 2.8 @ 55, I tried it out at sport, architecture, portraits, landscape and street photography it is excellent. Only downside is the weight, but for a zoom like this @ 2.8 you expect it to be a bit heavy. The focus ring works perfect, I simply have no complaints at all for the first time in my life.

Pablo Matsumoto , January 19, 2009; 01:51 P.M.

I had a EF-S 17-85 IS 3.5-5.6, but it was slow for indoor photography (mainly social). At first I was hesitant to buy this lens because of its price tag and I also was not very sure of the real advantages of 2.8. Now I can say that it is a whole different world. I used this lens mainly for indoor social shooting and having 2.8 is great. At ISO 3200 I could considerably reduced the use of flash, which I always try to do. Also bluring is much better, so isolated main subjects is possible (it was difficult at 5.6), and sharpness is totally different. AF is also much faster. Although it is not cheap, I highly recommend this lens.

yunming cai , March 19, 2009; 06:42 P.M.

I use it on 40D as the high quality walk around. The IS really help for indoor shots. This lens' IQ is quite high (color/contrast/sharpness). IS won't help with motion blur but it's the shooter's duty to find those targets that move less in low light. The build quality is not of L quality. But the IQ and IS are great combo. On the 5D, 24-70L doesn't have IS 24-105L IS does but without the f2.8. If you have shaky hands like me, this lens is a great help.

Robert O , May 22, 2009; 12:35 P.M.

Dear all

I found a website where the prices are really low but I want to make sure so Im asking everyone whether they got any experience with this website , please write http://www.wootechworld.com/items.php?id=990964 http://www.wootechworld.com/items.php?id=1091991 http://www.wootechworld.com/items.php?id=1084467

Im considering to buy this lens and one of these bodies.

Scott Paris , May 22, 2009; 09:45 P.M.

I have this lens and the 24-105 f4 L for my 40D. The 24-105 is entirely competent but the 17-55 knocks my socks off every time I use it. Best zoom lens I've ever used (in 40 years) and among the 3 or 4 best lenses of any kind ever.

yunming cai , October 09, 2009; 06:30 P.M.

I totally agree with the reviewer above, 17-55 is definitely the sharpest zoom I have as well. It's close to the regular primes I got. But the build quality is nowhere near L. My brand new zoom ring is sticky, and still sticky after 6 months. Too bad that my 40D's ISO1600 is so lousy that I almost always use 5D for low light, that limits the use of my 17-55. heard that 7D is better, but can't justify a switch since my 40D is still perfect...

Rick Moscola , November 05, 2009; 09:37 A.M.

If you need this lens to take a good photograph, you should take up a new sport! The entire digital photography business is an exercise in consumerism. As soon as you think you have everything you need, the big companies come out with a new camera, a new lens, a new flash unit, faster cameras with more megapixels, etc. If you can't accomplish your photographic goals with a simple camera (like a Leica) and 3 prime lenses, then you'd better cut up your credit cards.

Bill Young , January 13, 2010; 02:32 P.M.

Very sharp at short range, but only after adjusting to +10 to correct front focus. And not so sure about sharpness at longer range (distinctly softer in the centre wide open). Pronounced vignetting at 2.8 and 17mm. I am pretty new to photography so I do not have standards for comparison but I feel this cannot be right!

Igor Arandjelovic , January 20, 2010; 10:30 P.M.

This lens is very good indeed!
But also, I have found Tokina AT-X 165 PRO DX AF 16-50mm f/2.8 very interesting choice in this zoom range, so just to make a note to anybody finding best solution for buying.
Reviews of this Tokina, allready mentioned in some of the posts above:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498661-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXC_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html#reviews

Ronny Kurniawan , July 20, 2010; 11:16 A.M.

Regarding the 17-40L vs 17-55 EF-S comparison. It really depends on what camera body you have (If you have an APS-C sensor -> trust me, go for the 17-55mm). Why? The 17-40L is one stop slower than the the 17-55, meaning if you have to have to double the shutter speed (if you were shooting 1/60 (with the 17-55) then you only have 1/30 (with the 17-40)) to get the same exposure. Also because the 17-55mm has IS and the 17-40 DOES NOT this further reduces the handheld capability of the lens when compared to the 17-55.

M. McReynolds , September 18, 2010; 08:08 P.M.

...bought mine used off ebay a year ago and am surprised to discover that it is my most-used lens.  I am very, very happy with its performance on my xti, 40D and 50D.

Image Attachment: filetJRsbX.jpg

Bill Young , September 19, 2010; 07:00 A.M.

"...you'll be blasting every scene with the on-camera flash."

Unless, that is, you want to use the 17mm end in which case you will find that the lens casts a shadow and you will be reaching for the separate flash unit.

 

Belinda Chalmers , October 18, 2010; 10:40 A.M.

I bought the EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 IS USM and it is well worth the money. I have a 7D and there is no comparison with the quality of images you get to the standard canon issued 18-55 5.6f lens (this was off my my 450d). Even the old 450d camera with the new EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 IS USM the quality is fantastic and I am so glad I upgraded my lens. Not sure what it would be like on a 5d, but for those with a reduced sensor cameras, it is the only choice.

Timothy Love , February 05, 2011; 02:05 P.M.

I have a Rebel XSI and I have been looking at upgrading lenses.  Will this lens work well with an XSI?  I want an 2.8 aperture lens, is this the best option?

G Lara , March 17, 2011; 12:06 A.M.

Timothy: I also have an XSI, which is an APS-C (1.6x FOVCF) sensor camera. The EF-S 17-55 is built specifically for APS-C cameras such as ours. To answer your question: yes, this lens will work on your camera. 

To answer part 2 of your question: Is the 17-55 the best option if you want f/2.8? Maybe. Have you considered the EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII or EF 50mm f/1.4 USM? Or the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM? There are a lot of options and only you can decide what you want.

I'm also considering the 17-55 so we're on the same boat...

Hope this helps.

G

Phil Roberts , July 10, 2011; 01:22 P.M.


Waterworld

I love this lens to death. It produces the most natural stills and video with a 3D depth quality that looks very professional to me. Bright and colorful, without over saturated images, this lens is perfect. I never knew such pleasure in a lens. Now if only I could get a 55-300mm to compliment this lens, I would be set.

 


Add a comment



Notify me of comments