# EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 HELP



## lonelywhitelights (May 14, 2012)

I shoot with a 7D and I would love to know peoples thoughts on this lens, preferably people who own the lens - I'm not after uninformed forum-based opinion from specifications or speculation but real, honest advice about results and reliability

how good is this lens? what's the build quality like? is it sharp throughout the zoom range at f/2.8? (even though I'll mainly use it with off-camera flash at around f/4- f/11) is it worth the money or should I buy L series (16-35 / 17-40 ) and adjust where I shoot from?

many thanks


----------



## Random Orbits (May 14, 2012)

It's a great lens. I had it for my crop camera for 4 years before switching to full frame. I used it mostly wide open, and it works well for portraits. The dust issue is overblown. It has a more limited range than the 15-85 or 24-105, but the lack of range doesn't matter much if you're carrying a tele-zoom anyway (i.e. 70-200).

Its weaknesses are build quality and flare resistance. It's not weather sealed, but I found that it worked fine for my uses. Unless you plan on exposing it rain and dust storms, it should be fine. It's not as tough as a typical L-lens, but it's not as fragile as the 50 f/1.4 either. It's in between. The lens is prone to flare when it is really bright outside depending on shooting direction, but I tended to compensate for it using exposure compensation and then fixing it post (but then your 7D's metering system is better than my old camera's).

I would skip both the 16-35 and the 17-40 unless you plan on moving FF soon (within a year or two). The 17-55 is more versatile than either of those lenses, and it is optically superior to the 17-40 especially wide open. Nikon's 14-24 is better than either 16-35 or 17-40, so I think there's a lot of room for improvement for the next versions of those lenses. It would be a shame to spend more for FF compatibilty and then have Canon release a much better version when you finally make the move to FF.


----------



## ruuneos (May 14, 2012)

Lovely lens, actually I bought 7D with 17-55 f2.8 kit just because everybody from Canonrumors suggest it!
Good things:
- Fast AF, sometimes it may search bit longer.
- Image quality
- Nice feel on zoom/focusing ring
- Constant F2.8

Bad things:
- Price, bit high for EF-S lens
- Build quality, "plasticy"
- While zooming it gets longer.

Pretty much perfect/must have lens with 7D!


----------



## ScottyP (May 15, 2012)

I love mine. It feels quite solid to me; much more so than the kit lenses.


----------



## dturano (May 15, 2012)

I loved that lens on my 7d, used it more than my 24-70mm.


----------



## friedmud (May 15, 2012)

I loved mine... even though it was soft on the right hand side... that is, until it died.

A couple of months ago I could hear something "rattling" around inside... and then the zoom ring froze up on me a few weeks later. It's now a _very_ large 20mm prime (that's where it got stuck! ;-)

I highly recommend it though... great resolution, good range... good for portraits and landscapes.

If you want to see quite a few photos taken with this lens you can look at my 500px and Flickr pictures here:

http://500px.com/friedmud

http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/

Here are a couple of good sets with the 17-55:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157627889894423/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157628014191618/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157626931971188/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157624703902635/


----------



## MacroBug (May 15, 2012)

I used this lens with my 7D for 2 years until I upgraded to FF. I loved it and it was my most frequently used lens. It is sharp and has a useful focal length, along with f/2.8 and IS. If you are planning on staying with a crop camera for awhile, this is a lens you must own. If it was compatible with FF I would still own it, even though it would be my only non-L lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 15, 2012)

I used this lens for one week with my 60D. This lens is *VERY SHARP*, even at 2.8. I would take this lens over 24-105 L.

The build quality is NOT that solid, but is not bad. It's on large size.

With 7D AF system, this lens is good as L lens on FF.


----------



## michael6liu (May 15, 2012)

I also like mine! I pretty much use it all the time except for birding.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=449.msg52111#msg52111


----------



## kdsand (May 15, 2012)

As the others said its a great lens & for many the 2.8 makes it a necessary part of a cropped kit. 
The focusing ring turn ratio is better than that of sig or tam models. 
The I.S. seems about 3/4 of a stop better than sigma’s - not a huge difference but one I could notice nonetheless.

F.y.i. lens rentals had a little write up a couple months back showing unusually high number of A.F. failures _ better to know than not know_.


----------



## samuel613 (May 15, 2012)

Unless you *need* the 2.8, I would recommend spending about the same money instead on the EF-S 15mm-85mm and the EF 50mm 1.4.

I just did a small event with only those 2 lenses (and a flash, of course). The 50 1.4 produced some stunning portraits (and others) with awesome bokeh (it really "makes" the picture, sometimes), and the 15-85 allowed me to capture anything else I needed. 

So if you really need low light, 1.4 is about as low as you can go for anything near that price, and you can take it with you when you move to FF. Plus you get the expanded range (and great optics) of the 15-85 for the crop.


----------



## madmailman (May 15, 2012)

I sold my 24-105 after I got my 17-55 for my 7D. I found the 17-55 to be sharper and produce better colours on my 7D. I have since added a 70-200 f/2.8 to my bag and between the two, even with the focal length gap, I can cope in almost all situations. Canon really got the design and manufacture of the 17-55 right. 

I love the lens.


----------



## Ranga (May 15, 2012)

I have this lens. I chose it over the 24 70L It's the best EF-S lens on the market.


----------



## tomscott (May 15, 2012)

Serious piece of kit. Most describe it as an L lens for the crops.

The quality is fantastic so sharp. I moved from a 17-85mm and it just blows it out the water, I was slightly disappointed with the range tho because I was used to a longer one but quickly forgot about it. The 2.8 more than worth it so useful.

One problem is dust, mine has got quite dusty but it doesn't effect the image quality in the slightest. Just make sure you chuck a UV filter on it straight away. That was my mistake.

But seriously buy it, best general lens available for APC by far.


----------



## elflord (May 15, 2012)

lonelywhitelights said:


> how good is this lens? what's the build quality like? is it sharp throughout the zoom range at f/2.8? (even though I'll mainly use it with off-camera flash at around f/4- f/11) is it worth the money or should I buy L series (16-35 / 17-40 ) and adjust where I shoot from?



Adjusting where you shoot from and taking the picture with a wider angle lens will give you a very different shot (and possibly not the shot you want). If you need that whole range (17-55) and go the L route, you will probably need two lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2012)

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for an APS-C body. It's optically slightly better (just slightly, though) than L-series lenses covering simlar focal lengths (16-35 II, 17-40, 24-105) when comparing on the same APS-C body, has a constant f/2.8, and has IS. Build quality is good, but short of the L-series lenses.

The 15-85mm is also worth considering - a bit more distortion and worse vignietting, variable aperture that's 2 stops slower at the long end. If you'll be shooting mostly outdoors or using a flash indoors, don't need f/2.8 for portraits/action, it's worth considering as well.


----------



## Act444 (May 16, 2012)

I got this lens last year after using a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. It's THE social event lens- wide enough for those group shots, and 2.8 lets in enough light indoors if it's bright enough. IS works WONDERS in dark events since you can handhold posed shots down to 1/15s! The only caveat is that 55mm isn't always enough reach to snap candids since once you get close enough, you're noticed. 

Great lens, only wish it were weather sealed so it wouldn't be prone to dust and other stuff getting in it. Good performance throughout the range, sharp at 2.8 and actually doesn't improve that much upon stopping it down. This was unlike the Tamron which was INCREDIBLY soft (almost useless) at 2.8, but boy, once you hit 5.6- if you got a well-focused shot, WOW.


----------



## robbymack (May 16, 2012)

Buy the 17-55. I have one and it's awesome. Worst case you want to sell it in a few years (highly unlikely), if so the used prices of that lens will mean you're only out a few hundred at most. Consider it a long term rental fee.


----------

