Canon Ultra-Wide Zoom EF-S IS USM Lens

a good marker on the road to the perfect EF-S lens

Posted Aug 2, 2007 - First, I would rather have something more like a 20-135. Beyond that this lens is the best that I have tried out of the 17-85 F4 and the 28-135 F3.6. I think the F2.8 is almost required to get decent focus accuracy and reliability. It may not need to be a *constant* F2.8 but at least at the wide angle it should be F2.8. The short porch is very nice, makes it easy to shoot whatever you are standing in front of, the 28-135 is just too long for this. The only thing this 17-55 leaves me wanting is another 2x or so of zoom range. It would be great at 20-100, even. Wide-angle at night only works for close-up subjects, and the 55mm limit means a lot of walking around to get a good crop on the shot. And you can't use "digital zoom" if you don't get a good focus, so with the Rebel XTi and just about every lens that I've tried, I can't rely on getting a good focus at high zoom. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But otherwise, I think this lens is worth the $900, the 17-85 is worth the $400, I'd stay away from the 28-135 and the kit lens is not all that bad for "free". What I really want, now, and I guess I'm going to have to wait for, is a good-quality 20-120 or so, F2.8-F4.5ish lens with IS. There is no point in getting a lens that will not focus reliably. Now as far as speed...I've shot this camera handheld at night at full zoom and gotten good shots, plenty of times. Pick your poison: ISO1600 RAW to ISO400 jpeg, it'll do it for you.

50% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Great walk around lens

Posted Jul 8, 2007 - I love the constant aperture and IS. It's awesome for indoor handheld shooting. I wasn't used to such a wide aperture so it's easy to overdo the shallow DOF and have part of you subjects face (eg ears) out of focus when that wasn't your intention. It also takes great landscape and night photos. However, as expected for very wide angle lens there is some vignetting at the wide end but not usually a problem. However, becomes a major problem when using the lens hood between about 17-20mm against a bright uniform background (eg blue sky). it also seemed like the polarizing filter might have made it more obvious (?). Anyways, not a deal breaker of course but just something to be aware of. Others on the web have reported problems with dust. I have not had any dust problems after a month or so and I don't do anything special to prevent it. Overall a great lens. Blows the 18-55mm kit lens away.

Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Very solid EF-S lens

Posted May 24, 2007 - This is one of the best EF-S lenses available on the market at this time. Lens is pretty sharp throughout, although it vignettes somewhat at 17mm. The price is a killer - $1000 for a non-L lens is just expensive. Build quality is average as well - it's not bad, but can't be compared to L lenses. I often use this lens as a general walk-around lens, although it is a bit too bulky for my taste. There are a couple of comprehensive reviews available on the web, so if you're considering buying one, check them out and compare to some other EF-S lenses. One site that comes to mind is www.slrlensreview.com - has a handson review,

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

A great walk-around lens

Posted Sep 7, 2006 - I have been debating for a long time whether I should go for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70 f2.8L. The EF-S 17-85 is a big no-no because of its poor optical performance. My major concern on 17-55 is that it only fits EF-S mount cameras, which means it will have to go when I upgrade to a full-frame camera body eventually. However, there just isn't any walk-around lens (on a 1.6x crop body) from Canon out there that has f2.8 and IS. I love the solid construction of 24-70 f2.8L and the fact that it can be used on any Canon cameras. However, lacking IS finally pushed me away from it. As other reviewers said, 17-55 has great optical performace. No doubt about that. It complements my 70-200L quite nicely. However, I did notice that the zoom barrel is not as smooth as 70-200L, and the overall construction seems less solid. For the high price Canon charges, we don't even get a lens hood! But anyway, I have no regret that I purchased this lens. There are certain imperfections but I can live with them. This is the best walk-around lens with f2.8 and IS on a 1.6x crop body.

83% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

EF-S version of EF27-40L with IS -- the ultimate walk around lens for EOS DSLR.

Posted Sep 1, 2006 - The first thing you will notice is the sharpness of this baby. It's sharp @ f/2.8 through the range, and much sharper than EF17-40L through f/4-f8 especially in the corners. Amazingly it still holds its ground till f/16, that’s nearly Macro lens territory. Sharpness wise this thing is nearly as good as 50mm prime lens, certainly in the best group of L league. Color and contrast are very good @ all apertures, color reproduction is the same as EF24-70L/24-105L IS. This means it is a tick less than EF17-40L, but for me this is just right. EF17-40L is a landscape lens with very high contrast and highly saturated color, use it for normal street photos or portrait can be a nightmare, and you have no way to fix it in Photoshop. Let’s talk about the main feature – Image Stabilization (IS). Many people say IS only works well for long telephoto lens like 70-200mm or 100-400mm, on mid-range it is not as useful and not as effective – They Are Wrong. With F/2.8 and 3 Stops IS on hands on my 20D, I can handle the trickiest low-light condition, even EF50mm f/1.4USM prime won’t survive in conditions like that. That is because, 17-55mm f/2.8 + 3 stops IS = 17-55mm f/1.0 in low-light!!! What’s more, IS will mimic your handshake no matter how tired you, therefore the shooting results become more consistent through a long trip. For those who have EOS 20D/30D DSLR, a lens with f/2.8 or faster aperture will activate the double cross AF sensors in the center result in 3 times more sensitive Auto Focus, cheaper EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS won’t get such benefit. For those Canon 20D/30D/D Rebel/Rebel XT/XTi users, who want a truly high-performance walk around lens should seriously consider this baby. It does all things to the highest standard in all conditions. $1100 is a lot of money, but for what this lens is capable of, this is going to be a very good investment.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Great lens!

Posted Aug 27, 2006 - The perfect lens for going wide back up to portrait range. This is truly an L lens, but not marketed that way for Canon's silly reasons. It's massive, but f/2.8 all the way through with IS is wonderful for wedding photography and landscapes.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras

Posted Aug 23, 2006 - I am currently using the Digital Rebel body. I had been using the kit lens 18-55mm, 50 mm 1.4 and 55-200mm. I mainly take pictures of Martial Arts events, and weddings. I found that I was using the kit lens the majority of the time. I sold my 3 lenses to purchase the EF-S 17-55mm f/ 2.8 IS USM. When I first received the lens my initial response was that the build quality was not as nice as the 50mm 1.4 lens, it did not feel as substantial or smooth. The zoom became smoother after a few uses. The lens is relatively heavy but feels balanced when mounted on my camera body. I got to put the lens thru a trial this weekend. The lens was fast as far as light and speed of focusing. The pictures were of excellent quality! Clean crisp and sharp. I am very happy w/ my purchase! The focal length is perfect for the types of shots I normally take. The lens has a very versatile focus length, it works well for large group shots to close-ups. The 2.8 and ISM is a must for being able to take action shots indoors. This lens allows me to take quality pictures w/ out the use of a flash. I would recommend the purchase of this lens to anyone looking for a versatile lens for taking indoor shots, action shots or portraits.

95% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

Posted Jul 2, 2006 - If you look at reviews from the-digital-picture.com, the 17-55mm IS compares favorably to 16-35L, 17-40L and 24-70L: "My Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is slightly sharper in the center at 17mm wide open, but the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is sharper at all other tested focal lengths - and proved much sharper in the corners at all focal lengths and apertures. Distortion was also less on the 17-55. In my opinion, the only reasons to buy the 16-35 over the 17-55 are for full-frame compatibility (a big reason), better build quality and environmental sealing. Similar story with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM Lens. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is sharper at all other tested focal lengths - and proved much sharper in the corners at all focal lengths and apertures. At close distances, the 17-40 had sharper corners and held its sharpness to a narrower focal length than the 17-55. Lower barrel distortion at the wide end is also in the 17-55's favor. Full-frame compatibility (a big reason), better build quality and environmental sealing are in the 17-40 L's favor. I suspect the wider price discrepancy between these two lenses will keep sales of the 17-40 L going stronger than for the 16-35. At all overlapping focal lengths and apertures, the 17-55 is sharper than my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens." For a 1.6 crop camera, 17-55mm is equivalent to 27-88mm, close to the ideal walk-around/general purpose. Combine than with f2.8, IS and great optical quality, this lens is one of best zooms for APC-S. This lens, in my opinion, is not for everyone. It is for someone using 1.6 crop (and not switching to FF soon) who wants the best picture quality and does not mind paying a high price. The best examples are wedding and professional photographers, and advanced/serious amateur. For beginners on a budget, the 17-40L is a good value at a lower cost.

83% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Decent lens for $600

Posted Jun 24, 2006 - I returned it - Overall It performed as a great lens - great but not excelent. I know its not L glass - but canon forgot to remember this when they priced it at around $1200. I ended up returning it for a cheaper sigma 18-50 2.8. Pictures from this lens are not up to par with my 50 1.4, or even my 50 1.8. The sigma I replaced this with seems to be a little slower at focusing, doesn't have the IS, or the USM. However Sharpness and colors of the sigma are on par, if not better than this lens. For 1/4th the price the sigma makes this thing look awful. If you have the extra $800, or absolutely need IS, USM opt for this lens, otherwise put the $800 towards something you need. By not buying this lens - canon will be forced to move it to a more consumer friendly price, or decide to improve its quality in the "L" range

46% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Posted Jun 22, 2006 - I am an amateur photographer although I spend like a pro sometimes. I have two Canon 350D bodies, 17-40L, 70-200 f/4L, 60mm macro and 580EX. The 17-40L is nice but a little short and slow. I bought the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and did some comparison with my 17-40L. The new lens is sharper at almost all f-stops at overlapping 17-40mm. That means I get a sharper 17-40, plus a bonus of 40-55mm, and IS and f2.8 stop. The downside is you don't get a red ring and pay more (I paid $1,144 including the hood for this lens). The new lens is very close in optical performance to my 70-200 f/4L and 60mm macro, both very sharp lenses. I decided to keep the 17-55mm as my general walk around lens. If you a professional or serious amateur with a 1.6 crop camera like 20D or 30D, this is the ultimate lens to match with your camera.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Canon EF_S 17-55mm f2/8 IS USM lens

Posted Jun 21, 2006 - Optically speaking, this lens beats or matches all the L's and primes that Canon made. I think is is the sharpest zoom lens Canon has made. Based on my testing, it is one step sharper than all of these lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 IS, 50 f/1.4. It is two steps sharper than my 17-40L. Comparing to the ef-s 60mm macro, in my opinion the sharpest prime that Canon made, it is very close in optical quality. When I use my 17-40L, I need to do some moderate sharpening with Photoshop CS2. With this lens, minimal sharpening is needed. My tests are confirmed by numerous other users, the Digital-Picture.com and Photozine. After using this lens for one week, it has displaced my 17-40L as the general walk around on my Rebel XT. Before I bought this lens, I thought of buying a FF and 24-105 F/4l one day. This lens postpones that decision indefinitely. One weakness of this lens is there is some flaring when shooting at a very bright light such as a spot light or the sun. Is this lens too expensive? The Nikon 17-55mm has a better build, a lens hood but no IS at about $1,150. I bought mine at Badgers Graphics for $1,069 plus $44 for a lens hood, for a total of $1,113. If you consider IS worth the same as the better build plus a lens hood, then the Canon is priced close to the market. I personally like the IS feature better. This lens weighs at 22.8 oz, certainly not light, but the Nikon weighs almost 25.6 oz. I don't think you will regret buying this lens.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Excellent but expensive lens

Posted Jun 19, 2006 - Very sharp lens with beautiful bokeh. Wide aperture provides a bright viewfinder. Solid construction despite some plastic parts. No obvious vignetting, chromatic aberration or distortion on everyday use. Image stabilization at f/2.8 allows night-time photography without tripod with excellent shots. However, the lens was 200g heavier and at least $500 more expensive than similar lenses without image stabilization. Hard to tell whether the image stabilization was worth the cost or the weight. Now that I own it, I really love using it and definitely did not regret the purchase. For the price though, you would expect Canon to at least provide a lens hood.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Execellent general purpose zoom lens

Posted Jun 13, 2006 - This lens is to replace my 17-85mm lens which has small aperture and low image quality. This large aperture IS zoom lens covers the range of 16-35mm and part of 24-70mm lens. Image quality is similar from other reviews. Only works on APS frame cameras. Best zoom lens for indoor family shooting.

60% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Just what I've been waiting for.

Posted Jun 6, 2006 - I got this lens just in time to shoot a wedding this weekend and a couple of outdoor portrait sessions since then. I was previously using the EF-S 17-85mm. The f/2.8 makes a world of difference shooting indoor weddings and at dusk when light is the best for portraits. The constant aperture is a "must have" as far as I'm concerned because the variable aperture on the 17-85 was frustrating when using manual exposure or aperture priority settings, which are what I use about 95% of the time. I use this lens and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for everything now. Fabulous combination for the 20d/30d. If I could change anything it would be to make this lens extend to 70mm to fill the gap it leaves between this and the 70-200, or better yet, go to 85mm as the cheaper lens does. But we can't have everything, can we? The 17-55 seems to focus quickly, even in low light. It's quiet. It works just as well or better than my other USM lenses, even as well as the L lenses. Oh yeah, it's expensive, and it's not even an "L" lens! But it's exactly the lens I've been waiting for, and I'm very happy with its performance so far. I would recommend it to anyone who is doing portrait or wedding work with the 20d/30d. (But the less expensive 17-85mm is also a great lens, with more zoom range, and only falls short if you have to shoot without a tripod in low light situations such as indoor weddings.) If you shoot weddings, this is the lens you want.

94% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review