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: lens is a winnah
Summary: 5 Stars
all around a nice purchase with excellent customer communication from the actual merchant, j and r (bought through amazon).
i had been worried about bad packing that other amazon members said they had when lens arrived (not necessarily from the same merchant), so i called j and r and asked them to make sure lens in canon box doesn't move around in the larger box. it might have come ok anyway, but they said they'd make sure, and they did. the lens came well packed.
as for the vaunted dust problems getting into the lens some of you may have heard about, i had found out from the experts at canoga camera calif that there is a small vent hole next to the glass at the front of the lens that allows air to draw in when lens moves in and out. per many posts on this issue on the net, i immediately put a clear glass multicoated hoya DMC1 pro on the lens to keep dust out. in the forums/blogs this was said to be the solution, as well as by the folks at canoga camera. as for the lens itself, when it arrived it was pristine and totally dust free inside the elements.
after putting the lens on my 20d i then shot 3 pix of my cat swirl and looked at the jpegs (not even the raw files) and was amazed at the quality of these 1st three pix with the lens. i have posted them on the customer pictures and are 3 cat pix in a row, so you can see straight out of the camera with NO photoshopping and judge for yourself. the shots were taken 1/15th second, 3200iso, f 2.8, full 55mm (for you portrait photogs) and in low natural room light...all of which test this lens at what might be considered any lens' weak points...wide open aperture/fully extended to longest telephoto length/very low light. looking at the pics i would have thought the shots were taken in a well lit setting at least at 1/60th of a sec, and probably around what is normally a sharper f stop than full wide open at 2.8. corroboration of the virtually unanimous praise of the lens' quality.
i am blown away by this lens. my reasons for getting it are handheld night city photography, which this will allow me to do better with the wider angles and image stabilization then my wonderful tamron 28-75mm 2.8.
this was pricey, but totally worth it if you care about your pictures. i shoot professional headshots and they need to be good. my artshots i love, and need to be good. i'm still shooting with the wonderful 20d, and amazed at the quality and life this new lens injects into an older 8.6 megapixel camera...albeit a superb old camera.
Customer Review: My reasons for purchasing this lens and why I like it
Summary: 5 Stars
I'm a 40D owner, who, like many of you, had a hard time deciding between this lens and the 24-70 2.8 L lens. Reading the "reviews" didn't help me much. In fact, the reviews just made me unsure about which was the "right" lens to get. So, I rented both lenses to see it for myself. As I expected, the build quality of the "L" lens was noticeably better, and some may find their egos boosted with that red ring around the lens. Besides from the build quality, I feel many of the other aspects of the lens such as contrast and sharpness, are quite subjective. I took 8 pictures of a "scene" with each lens, obviously with the same camera/lens settings. Pictures were taken from 6 different locations, at different times of the day. I then looked at the pictures on a Macbook Pro WITHOUT looking at the information on which lens they were shot with. This way, I can put aside my preconceived notions about which pictures are supposed to look better. From each scene, I selected the one I liked the best. Out of the 6 locations, I ended up selecting 3 from the 17-55mm and 3 from 24-70mm. I was VERY happy with the picture quality of both lenses. Both focused very quickly and silently. Neither showed visible vignetting or chromatic aberrations. One lens may be better than the other in some regards under "lab" conditions. But, in the real world, I really can't see a noticeable difference (at least on the Canon 40D).
For me, it all came down to the price--since I don't have a full frame sensor DSLR like the 5D, I decided to make best use of my 40D with the 17-55 lens. I do plan to upgrade my camera with a full-frame sensor camera. So, why did I buy this knowing that it wouldn't work on my upgraded camera? If I were to upgrade to a full frame sensor camera within a year, it would make sense to get the 24-70 lens. But, I plan to use the 40D for at least 4-5 years before upgrading. However, I think it makes a big difference to actually have the wide end that 24-70mm cannot provide for the 40D. For me, it was the wide-end capability that sold me the lens. If I were to get better lenses that would withstand the time better and at the same time allow me to get wide-end I needed, I would have had to spend 3 times as much getting the 16-35 (L) and 24-70 (L). Since my budget is limited, I believe I've made the right decision. AND..I am loving this lens.
Customer Review: Great walk around lens for 1.6x body
Summary: 5 Stars
I debated between this lens, a 3rd party f/2.8 17-50mm and the canon 17-85mm. I chose this one for several reasons. 1)constant aperture 2)IS 3)USM 4)great reviews of IQ 5)it covers the zoom range I use most. Basically it had the best combination of features and quality. Despite these advantages I agonized over whether or not it was worth the high price (since I'm just a hobbyist). If you can afford it, I would go for it. It takes great indoor pics (thanks to IS and wide aperture). You'll take indoor pictures you previously thought were impossible. Also takes great landscapes and portraits with very nice bokeh.
Now for some cons: It's bigger than I thought it would be. At first I thought it looked funny on my Rebel XT but now I don't even notice it. Some on the net have reported problems with dust but I have not had any such problem. I don't do anything special to prevent it either. Also, (as expected)there is very slight vignetting at the wide end but it is not usually a problem. Only becomes a real problem when you're shooting at around 17-20mm, and it's against a bright uniform background (eg blue sky). It is really noticeable under those conditions. I hadn't noticed significant vignetting until those conditions were met.
Overall, it is a fantastic lens for a 1.6x body. I'm not so sure that it would be ideal for larger sensor bodies due to the potential for significant vignetting. You might lose too much on the wide end but I'm no expert (as is obvious from this review). Buy it for your XT/XTi if you can afford it. I'm glad I did.
UPDATE (7/24/07 of original on 7/8):1) As someone pointed out, this lens will only work on 1.6x bodies (i was under the mistaken impression that it would work for 1.3x also but not full frame, but I was wrong since the "S" in "EF-S" means that it is only for 1.6x) 2) The vignetting happens more than I originally reported (but I've since learned that it may be related to my UV filter and made worse with stacking of filters, eg UV filter with a polarizing filter on top) Also, shooting wide open (which is pretty wide for this lens) makes it worse while stopping down a bit helps. 3)I now have a couple of small specks of dust in my lens but I don't think it's a big deal (at least I hope not).
Customer Review: Pro Reviews Were Right! This Lens is the Top Choice for Rebel, D50 and 7D Cameras
Summary: 5 Stars
I did read too many, too good to be true amateur and professional reviews about this lens before ordering it in Amazon. It was my first lens so it was hard to compare but then I got the highest rated L-series lens: the 135 mm f2.
I was helping with a charity event and I rented out a full studio set with pro lighting and everything else. I took about 1,000 pictures with both lenses under the same lighting conditions, same subjects, background and similar settings in the camera (between f2.8- f3.5 and 60-100 speed.
Guess what? to my surprise the 17-55mm pictures were identical in terms of image quality to the ones I took with the 135mm -and in some cases better. I got sharper, more focused pictures with the 17-55 mm. Why? because the 17-55 has a superb Image Stabilization feature and the 135 mm...does not.
In addition, for taking pictures with the 135mm lens (which becomes a 200mm in a cropped camera like my 7D), I had to step back at least 15-20 feet to have my subjects within the frame. Then focusing on the right spot at that distance became challenging.
The results:
- 17-55mm: I got about 7 high quality pictures out of every 10 shots
- 135mm: I got about 4 high quality pictures out of every 10 shots
Don't even think which lens is easier to use. With a zoom lens that starts with a wide angle: 17mm; and has a sweet spot: 35mm, and also a good zoom up to 55 mm, there's no comparison with a fixed 135mm lens.
In other words you have to become a human zoom with a fixed lens, stepping back and forward and loosing the momentum with your clients and that special picture that you missed while trying to frame and focus your subjects.
In conclusion, the Image Stabilization and L-quality construction of the 17-55 mm makes this lens the top choice for Canon photographers that own cropped sensor cameras like the 7D, 50D and Rebels. Also, the price is reasonable when comparing to L-series lenses that have IS. If I have to have only one lens, I will choose this one.
Customer Review: my (very expensive) walk around lens
Summary: 5 Stars
All I can do here is confirm what other reviewers have already pointed out. This is an unbelieveable lens when it comes to quality. The color is great; the contrast is great. The image is sharp, especially beyond the 2.8 aperture. Having the 2.8 aperture was really important to me though. It allows me to shoot with available light, and in combination with the image stabilization, I am able to get some photos that would otherwise not be possible. I had tried out the 17-85 Canon lens earlier, and exchanged it for this one. Now I am completely spoiled and will probably not want to buy another lens that is slower than a 2.8 aperture and without image stabilization.
The lens is definitely heftier than the kit lens, but it is not unbearable. Yes, I have some concerns about eventually upgrading to a full sensor frame DSLR body and not being able to use this EF-S lens on it, but for now, the Rebel XTi does 99% of what I want it to do. The important thing to me was to purchase a lens that takes advantage of the full potential of the XTi. Currently, my photographic prowess, not my camera body or my lens, is the limiting feature of my photos.
This is an expensive lens, but the quality will be immediately apparent as soon as you upload your first batch of photos.
Update: Feb 2011
I have now had this lens for about four years. It continues to be amazing, especially in low light situations without a flash. You can't beat the 2.8 aperture. I have taken a lot of "keepers" with this lens, everything from indoor, no-flash, low light high school awards ceremonies to sweeping vistas of Yosemite and New York. This lens is so good that I am having trouble upgrading to a full frame DSLR body. (Currently shooting with the Canon 40D.) I recently tried out the Tamron 18-270 pzd superzoom, but I was so spoiled by my Canon 17-55 that the Tamron couldn't start to compare at the same range. It's a really expensive non-L lens that will only work on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR, but it has been worth every penny.