Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras
by Canon
|
List Price: Our Price: $1,049.00 You Save: $851.00 (45%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $890.00 (click here) Category: Digital Camera See more product details |
|---|
Customers in the UK,
Buy this product at amazon.co.uk
for British Pounds
Digital Cameras Photo Reviews of Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras
Customer Review: The best Lens for 1.6x Crop Canon DSLRs
Summary: 5 Stars
I received my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens today (12/28/06). It feels heavier by far than the 18-55mm kit lens, but lighter than I expected. Feels good (well-balanced) cradling the lens in the left hand near the base of the lens when mounted to my Canon Digital Rebel XT. I put the lens on the camera right away in a manner that would limit the opportunity for dust to intrude on the back of the lens or into the camera, since I've read about this lens not being sealed as well as "L" series Canon lenses. I may never take it off. 8-)
This lens focuses fast and sure--even in low light, no hunting around to lock onto a subject. Pictures taken with the camera hand-held at 1/10 to 1/15 sec shutter speeds inside with no flash were tack-sharp (Thanks to the IS). With F2.8 and IS, this lens opens up a whole new world of natural low-light photography. Not only are more inside shots possible, you also have the versatility to create gorgeous bokeh. You create these bokeh effects generally zoomed to 55mm (where the kit lens' max aperture is F5.6). Since the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 has a constant F2.8 max aperature, you don't have to worry about the depth of field increasing as you zoom. It is so confidence-inspiring to walk around and set your aperture where you want it to give you the depth of field you want, and not really worry about the shutter speed being too slow. Some of my outside dusk (low-light) shots at 1/6 sec shutter and F22 came out sharp (Thanks again to IS). I almost got vertigo when I first looked at my pics uploaded to my PC--they were so realistic. Images really pop!
The decision to go with this lens instead of some of the "L" grade lenses involved the following criteria:
1. Focal Length Range. I wanted at least the range of the 18-55mm kit lens.
2. Max Aperture. I wanted f/2.8, since f/4 is too confining for low-light situations. Also, f/4 doesn't give you the depth of field limiting ability of f/2.8. Trade-off is size and weight (and price).
3. Constant Max Aperture. I wanted a constant max aperture throughout the zoom range. I don't want to set the aperture and have the camera stop it down due to the max aperture decreasing as you zoom in (as is the case with the kit lens).
4. USM. I wanted the Ultrasonic Motor (USM) feature, since this is known to be the fastest and quietest autofocus technology.
5. IS. I wanted Image Stabilization (IS), since this effectively makes your lens faster, because you can shoot in lower light at lower shutter speeds without fear of blur (provided the subject is still). Also, zoomed-into 55mm, camera shake can be more of a problem than at shorter focal lengths. IS has got you covered there as well. This lens only has one IS mode (no mode for panning).
6. Full Format or Crop-optimized. It is true that going with a full format lens would mean that you could use it on any DSLR (35mm film, APS-C DSLR, and Full Format DSLRs such as the 5D and 1Ds Mark II). However, full format lenses are not optimized for the 1.6x crop of the Canon DSLRs Rebel through 30D. The crop-optimized lenses (designated by the "EF-S" in the model name) are tailored to the smaller image sensors of the APS-C camera bodies. The lens elements and coatings are designed to minimize the ghosting and flare that can come from reflections off of the image sensors in digital cameras. Also, the crop-optimized lenses tend to be smaller, lighter and less expensive than otherwise identical full format lenses. I considered the EF 17-40mm f/4L, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF 24-105mm f/4L. But, none of these had the focal length range I wanted, and two of them weren't fast enough (f/4), and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L was very heavy (2.1 lbs). I determined there was no need to sacrifice performance now for some possible benefit later on if I purchase a full format camera. If I ever do, I would hope there would be full format lenses that have been designed to limit chromatic aberrations and introduce other digital optimizations currently provided by the crop-optimized APS-C format-only lenses. Besides, you can always continue to use your old camera and lens as a back-up, or you can sell them to help purchase the new ones.
7. Grade ("L" series or Advanced Amature). Of course, if all else is equal, take the "L" lens with the red stripe. But, all else is not equal. I'd rather have an optically superior lens that is well-built (although not as well as an "L" series) that meets all my other criteria, and just be careful to keep the dust out. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is expensive (I paid $[...] on [...]). But, I'm sure if there were an "L" series version of this lens, it would be even more expensive.
Conclusion: This is one great lens! There's nothing else out there for 1.6x crop digital cameras that gives you the sweet spot of zoom range, low light capability, depth of field control, image stabilization, fast and quiet auto-focus, and superior image quality rivaling prime lenses. And to put the considerable weight (22.8 oz.) into perspective, it is still 3.8 oz. lighter than the very good digital-only Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, and the Nikon does not even have image stabilization (and costs more to boot). Game, set and match!
UPDATE 2/3/07: I've taken 1000+ pictures. I'm impressed with battery life given that I thought IS would use a lot of power. But, since flash is nearly never needed (due to f/2.8 and IS), battery life has seemingly been extended. I didn't realize how much I would grow to expect a stable image through the viewfinder until I looked through a viewfinder with a lens without IS and saw the image shaking. Note that cameras with built-in image sensors (such as Sony Alpha) don't stabilize the viewfinder. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM autofocus locks-on amazingly fast even in low light. No apparent optical weak spots at any focal length or aperture. Lens hood (optional) eliminated most, but not all, flares from bright sun. I think this is the best, most versatile walk-around lens you can get. I wish Canon would make an EF-S 55-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens to pair it with so I could zoom in closer on distant wildlife, etc.
Customer Review: You may not realize it yet, but you NEED this lens.
Summary: 5 Stars
Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a professional photographer by any means. I am a guy who is into photography, who has a penchant for gadgetry and who appreciates quality. This lens fulfills my desires on all three of those levels. You won't hear me talking about "creamy bokeh" or any of the other esoteric stuff that some reviewers rely on for filler material. This is a regular guy's review for other people in my same boat.
OK first of all, this thing is expensive. I paid $980 from Amazon and kicked and screamed the whole way. I had agonized over literally 1000 reviews (most of which were very favorable) before making the final decision. I had pros and semi-pros advising me, and in some cases insisting that I buy this thing. I don't know though---a thousand bucks? For a hunk of glass? I felt my gag reflex kicking in a little as I broke out into a cold sweat. Oh sure I wanted it, but did I need it? As most of you know, need is a relative thing, and I can usually rationalize myself into "needing" something with fairly little effort. Usually. A thousand bucks though? The one thing that finally pushed me over the edge was that I joined a couple photography forums and noticed that these lenses were selling on the used market for around $900--and not only that, but when one did pop up for sale, it usually only lasted about a day before it was SOLD! So, I guess I didn't really have that much to lose.
When it came (3 short days later), I could swear I heard a Heavenly choir singing and saw a little divine glow eminating as I unboxed that ravishing beauty. And there she was, the culmination of about 60 hours of research, 30 emails, 8 phone calls and me parting with almost 1000 of my very favorite hard-earned dollars. Would she be worth it? Only time would tell.
For a few minutes, all I could do was stare. It is a good looking piece of equipment and I'll tell you this too, it's pretty big. Like a soup can. And not one of those condensed soup cans either--more like a "Chunky" can. I'm talkin' BIG. Despite its size and what feels like a much more substantial build quality than most Canon L-lens disciples would have you believe, it is not unweildy or particularly problematic in the weight department. I have it slapped on the front of a Canon 50d and could easily carry it around all day long if need dictated.
Back when I was agonizing over this decision and balking about the price, I was trying to rationalize my way into another (less expensive) lens. I looked at the Canon 15-85mm, but it was MUCH slower than this one, didn't have any reviews to speak of and still cost somewhere in the $8-hundo neighborhood. I also thought I could just go with the 17-55mm kit lens and really save myself a whole bunch of money in the process. I mean afterall it's the same focal range, right? Right...sort of. I'm here to tell you right now in as plain a language as I can muster, those two lenses do not even reside on the same planet as one another! It's about like substituting a Honda Civic for a Ferrari---sure they both get you from A to B, but that's where it ends. A Ferrari does things that a Civic can only dream about and a Ferrari instills a certain pride of ownership--particularly in someone who appreciates the fine quality of the marque. A Ferrari can go 200mph, and while that is not always necessary, or even desired, it is still an option. This lens is a Ferrari.
The proof is in the pudding (or is it putting? I can never remember) and this baby delivers. On my first day of shooting I was just walking around taking pictures of anything and everything that was in front of me at the time. I wanted to see if f2.8 is really worth all the hubbub and drool from the Photophiles. Trust me, it is. I captured a shot of my dining room in almost total darkness with only the light from an outside street lamp shining through the window--and the pic turned out GREAT! I later got a picture of my kids outside at night with NO FLASH that I would have never been able to capture with one of those other lenses. I've had this lens for about a week now and in that time have shot almost 600 pictures. Exactly ONE of those pictures incorporated the flash--the rest were shot in natural light. The shot with the flash was just an experiment and probably would have looked better without it anyway. I even shot about 150 of those pictures at my children's Christmas program--again--no flash and every picture turned out perfect. Awesome!
When I saw the quality of the images I was getting with this thing set at a WIDE OPEN aperture (traditionally yielding softer images) I almost cried. I mean I've had good gear in the past, but this lens takes the cake. Speaking as a person who is not affiliated with Canon in any way , shape or form AND has absolutely nothing to gain by giving a review, I can tell you without reservation that this lens gives me joy. Joy! I paid $980 for about $100,000 worth of joy and in turn have captured memories that are priceless to me. I'd say all in all, that's a pretty good deal.
If you are reading this review, you may be in the same position I was in about 2 weeks ago. You like the lens, but aren't quite convinced yet. Do I spend? Do I wait? Do I settle? Believe me, I know a grand isn't easy to come by these days and I also know you are being more careful how you spend, but I have had very few occasions in my life in which an "investment" like this has paid me back so much in so short a time. This lens will bring you joy too, and in this day and age that is even harder to come by than mere money. Buy this lens--you can thank me later.
Customer Review: 17-55mm f2.8 IS vs 24-105 f4 IS
Summary: 5 Stars
It seems that many people looking into purchasing this lens are also thinking about some alternatives like the 24-105 f4 IS, so I thought it would be useful to offer up my own experience in the matter. This seems to be a big issue for many people, myself included. Which to choose for a good walk-around lens? Reading reviews and forum posts around the web, it seems that about 80% of people say go for the 17-55mm f2.8 IS on a crop camera. That's exactly what I did. I compared models from sigma, tamron, and canon in store and found that the auto-focusing on the canon was much faster than the 3rd party candidates, and thus purchased the canon 17-55mm f2.8 about a year ago after reading an overload of advice to get a 17-55mm instead of the 24-105mm.
First off, I've been overly pleased with the image quality produced by the lens. It's fast and SHARP!
To address two of the most heard complaints about the lens:
1) "it's big and heavy": it's really not THAT heavy (think maybe 2-3 times the size and weight of the 18-50mm kit lens). I've carried the 7D with this lens around all day and wasn't fazed at all. Any smaller and lighter, and it just wouldn't feel as substantial to me. It would feel like a toy.
2) "poor construction; it gets dust inside": Sure, it's not weather sealed. It doesn't have the construction of an L lens. I haven't had any problems with it in the year that I have owned it though. No dust at all inside. That's not to say that others won't experience this and that it's not a problem with the lens, but it's not something that is so prominent that everyone will experience dust in their lens.
Although I have been extremely pleased with this lens, I couldn't help but wonder if I made the right decision to purchase it instead of the 24-105mm though. There have been several instances where I really wanted some extra reach on the 17-55 and that 55-105 range would have really come in useful. Also, I went through a great deal of my photos and looking at the exif data, I found that I actually rarely use this lens at it's widest focal point. Barely anything was wider than 24mm, especially since I have some wider lenses for landscape shots. Just based on the focal range of the lens, I was starting to think I should have considered the 24-105mm lens more. I still had 2 big questions in mind if I switched though: 1) would the f4 aperture be adequate or would I miss the f2.8? 2) would the image quality be worse than the 17-55mm?
So, I rented a 24-105mm to find out which I liked better.
My first big observation was how much more solid the 24-105mm feels. The 17-55mm is no slouch, and the lenses are about the same size, but the 24-105 definitely feels much more solid. Not to the point where that would make my decision though. As I stated before, the construction of the 17-55mm is fine. It's just not top of the line. The other big difference I noticed when taking pictures was the color and contrast that the 24-105 produced. It's MUCH more "contrasty" than the 17-55mm. I actually found the pictures to be much more vibrant. This is something that really can be edited in pot processing, so it's not that big of a deal, but I found the colors produced by the 24-105 to be very pleasing. After doing a little pixel peeping, both lenses are very sharp throughout their range, but the 17-55mm is definitely a little more sharp though.
One of the big reasons I ended up first getting the 17-55mm was the f2.8 aperture. I wanted nicer bokeh and I wanted to be able to use it in lower light. Looking at the bokeh produced by each lens, I was surprised to see that both lenses produced similar results at their widest aperture. I was expecting to see nicer bokeh from the 17-55, but the 24-105 held its own even though there was the f2.8 vs f4 difference.
There's no doubt that the 17-55mm is faster. It handled low light areas much better than the 24-105, but one thing I found out shortly after purchasing the 17-55mm was that even though it's nice in low light, it still can't handle shots I tried to get inside my house without a significant bump in ISO, and thus a lot of noise. f2.8 is great, but just not good enough for most indoors shots. To me, this kind of negated the need for the f2.8. If I'm going to use a flash to get most of my indoor shots anyways, I don't have much problem getting them with f4. In shots where flash is impossible to get, the f2.8 still came in very useful though.
This probably goes against the majority of other opinion, but I actually found that I preferred the 24-105mm. The 17-55mm was a great lens, but I just found that I liked having the extra reach instead of the wider focal range and wider aperture. Many other people might find the opposite though. In my experience what you shoot should be the deciding factor between these lenses, not the image quality. Both are about equal with image quality, with the 17-55mm being slightly sharper and the 24-105mm being slightly better color and contrast. The f2.8 on the 17-55 isn't going to work miracles even though it can come in handy. I wouldn't fully rely on that stat to purchase this lens either. In my opinion it just comes down to when you are walking around, are you going to want extra reach or more wide-angle? To me, my answer turned out to be the reach and I'm very happy with my decision. To others, it might be the other way around though.
Customer Review: So far works as advertized
Summary: 5 Stars
Like so many people, I bought this to replace my kit lens. In my case that's the 18-55mm IS associated with the XSI. The main issue I had with that lens was the variable (and small) aperature. I wanted constant 2.8 without sacrificing zoom or IS. That's what you get here.
1. Optical quality. So far, it seems unambiguously better than the 18-55. No surprises there. I don't see any issues with aberrations, though I seldom take photos fully wide open and that's where people tend to see them.
2. Performance. It zooms quickly and quietly and it has full time manual, so you can tweak the zoom after it has zoomed. It's really nice that the focus ring doesn't twist when it focuses. You can keep your hand on it without worrying about interfering with the focusing. It's an excellent design.
3. Weight. It's heavy. There's a huge difference between this and the kit lens. If I were to go on a long walk with my camera, I'd take the kit lens for weight reasons. Besides, outdoors the advantages of this lens are much less. Also this is an expensive lens so I'd never take it somewhere where it might get hurt.
4. Design. The front lens is really close to the front, so watch out for fingerprints. I use a lens hood and it keeps stuff away from the glass. It also cuts down on the ghosting, which apparently this lens is prone to although I haven't experienced it. Like I mentioned, I really just use this lens indoors. The construction has been critisized, but it feels pretty solid to me. It's not metal, but it's heavy, hard plastic. I have used L lenses before and unless you are coming under gun fire I see no need for the metal construction. People have complained of dust inside the lens. I have been using mine frequently for a month or so and I don't have any dust in there at all. That's not much time, so we'll see. The zoom ring is very large. It practically begs you to use the zoom instead of walking back and forth. And the constant F2.8 helps encourage that. Why physically move when you can zoom without losing aperature?
5. Aperature. I think 2.8 is a great aperature for indoors. It's not so wide that the field of view is so narrow that people's noses are out of focus if their eyes are in. It's wide enough that you get a pleasant bokeh and take pictures in pretty low light. It's an excellent width for indoor shots of your kids and stuff. That's what I use it for. When I want crazy bokeh I use my F1.8 prime, which works well for that. That doesn't happen much, though. The difference between F2.8 and what you'd be using in the kit lens is very noticeable. Totally a good thing.
6. Accessories. I don't use any filters, but this lens really deserves a hood. I can't abide the prices canon charges for their hood here, but on ebay you can get a knockoff shipped from Hong Kong for like 1/6 the price. I did, and it's a really sturdy, well-fitting, excellent hood.
7. Image stabilization. I'm in the camp that thinks IS is really important. Shaky hands and all that. The IS doesn't make any noise and it doesn't noticeably drain the battery, so I have it on almost all the time. I haven't really tested it thoroughly to see how well it works, but I assume it works about as well as other lens based IS systems. If so, it works well.
So far this lens has lived up to my expectations. The USM is nicer than I expected and everything else is pretty much what people say. It's a great lens. Overpriced, yes, but it's a real winner. As long as you remember it's just a lens and it can't change the quality of your composition and lighting, you won't be disappointed. I wasn't.
By the way, if you want something that will magically make your photos way better, get the Canon 430ex II or 580ex II external flash and bounce it, along with a DIY or Fong diffuser. That makes a huge difference. By the way the external flash is kind of necessary with this lens because it sticks out farther, so if you use the onboard lens you will get a shadow in the picture from it, especially if you are using the lens hood. Not a problem with the bounced external flash. If I had to give up this lens or my flash, I'd give up the lens.
Get both, though. You won't be disappointed.
Customer Review: Very fine lens. My choice for daily walkaround use.
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a tough review. Many of the other reviews have touched on issues that may, or may not apply, and pretty much follow the lead of the internet photo pundits in content. They are legit issues, but not that important from my current perspective.
OK, here it is... First, I'll answer the concerns about the halflife of the crop sensor camera in general. It's a non issue, as I see it. Nikon is committed to crop sensor cameras for at least a generation. Canon is in the same boat with their crop sensor cameras. Witness the latest Rebel XTi. It boosts Canon APS sensors to over 10 MP, includes new chip set, and makes the thought of a continued series of APS sensor cameras with new tech features a no brainer. Sure, Canon will be marketing full frame sensor bodies. Sure, I will buy at least one in time. Then again, my APS sized crop sensor cameras will always be the choice for certain jobs, and will keep all of my current and future "S" lenses employed for decades.
I own some L lenses, and some full frame non L lenses, but my S lenses are the key to making APS sensor bodies excell. I already own two APS bodies, and if the new Rebel XTi is an indicator, I will own more in the future. Buying S lenses is not a sideshow, nor a dead end. It is just different.
If you desire a full frame camera in your future, choose lenses wisely. Buy what you need for the APS sensor bodies, and buy the rest to suit both bodies. If you never buy a full frame sensor body, no big deal, as the APS cameras will keep you very happy for years to come.
Meanwhile, I'll buy the next gen full frame Canon DSLR because I'm addicted to camera tech, but in the meantime, I won't starve my desire to fill out my APS body lens choices, as I know they will be around for many years to come.
OK, back to the lens at hand. It's a fine lens by any standard. People who bashed it's build quality might have been led astray by internet influence, but I can't imagine any complaints coming from people who used the lens over time. It is a very well built lens, with very smooth control surfaces. It's not made of metal (the lens mount is), but it is a supurb quality lens. It is light. It is solid in construction. It is smooth. It's optical quality is nothing less than outstanding, and it is a pleasure to operate.
Did I mention that it has IS? That is what places it above anything else on the market today. The 17-55 S IS is finely tuned glass. It is built well, and competition simply doesn't exist at this point in time. Sorry, but it's true. Where is the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lens that can best the optics, focus speed, smooth controls, and IS of this lens? Hmmm... They don't exist.
This lens isn't cheap, but it is the perfect addition to an APS sensor body as a standard zoom. Did I mention that it is f/2.8 from one end to the other? You can't beat this lens with a stick. Buy it.
This lens, along with the 10-22 S USM make a powerful package for a Rebel owner, or a 10,20,30D owner. I added a 50 f/1.4 USM, a 100 f/2.8 macro lens, and the 70-200 mm IS L f/2.8 zoom to round out the package. Notice that only two lenses are "S" lenses, and the rest can be used on any Canon body. The S lenses were key though, as they let my 30D take awesome ultra wide angle shots to mild telephoto, while the full frame lenses allow it to get extreme on the far end with high quality results.
Full frame might be in your Canon future, but APS is here now, and here to stay. You can buy a few S lenses today, use them for years to come, and buy more L lenses as they are retooled to include the IS feature. Other than the S 10-22 USM, I wouldn't buy a non IS L (or near L) lens at this point in time. I suspect that they will all be gone within a few years, and replaced by a better, all IS lineup.
One last thing.. Several people have complained about dust problems with this lens. So far, I have not had any dust problems, and even though dust on the elements will not likely degrade the image, it is irritating to see. If my lens develops dust issues, I will post an update right away.