# Advice on ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 IS



## carlc (Mar 14, 2012)

Using a 7D I was wanting the new 24-70mm, however the price and no IS has me looking for options. I shoot a lot indoors and enjoy fast lenses, ie. 70-200mm f2.8 II, Sigma 50mm f1.4, ef-s 10-22mm f3.5 and ef24-105 IS.

I am trying to decide if the 17-55 would work for me. I rented this lens over Christmas and just felt I had to get in everyones face to get good head and shoulder shots. Maybe I did not give it a chance so thus my plea for help today. Then this weekend I did two shoots with the 50mm and I could not get far enough away to do groups (more than 4 people) and I started thinking about the 17-55 again.

My hope of getting a 5DmkIII was delayed by the intro price and to be honest my 7D is treating me very well. So the concern of buying another ef-s lens is waning and I am now enjoying the anticipation of a new 7D. Maybe!!!!

I have read the reviews on the 17-55 and I am aware of the dust issue, the weight is not a concern and I thought the overall sharpness on my rental copy was very good. So any advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2012)

IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. After getting a 7D, I subsequently got a 5DII, 24-105, and 16-35. I kept the 17-55mm for those times I'm using the 7D and need a general purpose zoom.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 14, 2012)

The ef-s 17-55 is a fine lens, and the dust issue is overblown if you take precautions. However, I'm not sure if the 17-55 makes sense in your case because you already have the range covered. From what you've written, it looks like you need faster glass for shooting indoors. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to look at the 24L or 35L instead of the 17-55. The 17-55 is only about one stop faster than the 10-22/24-105 lenses you already have. The 24 and 35L would give you three stops compared to the f/3.5-4.5 of the 10-22/24-105 combo. I like the 35L for on a crop body for single person portraits, and the 24L is nice for small groups.

You won't lose much money by buying and selling the 17-55 if you decide you want to move to FF, but if you'd rather not and are willing to swap lenses more, you might prefer a fast prime.


----------



## photophreek (Mar 14, 2012)

I almost bought this lens 4 times and got cold feet and passed. I still don't own one and for those that do, you might want to get better advice from actual owners. FWIW, the following are what has held me back buying this lens:

> dust - this does not affect image quality at all
> lens creep
> overall build quality not the best
> USM issue for older lenses

I did buy the 15-85 EF-S lens and I'm very happy with the IQ of this lens and the zoom range. It was an upgrade to the 17-85 EF-S which was released around the same time as the 17-55. I'm only guessing, but this lens might be on the upgrade list with a 15-55 or a rumored 15-60 to replace the 17-55. Again as I have stated, these are my reasons why I have not actually bought this lens and they have nothing to do with IQ.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 14, 2012)

I loved mine, I had it for three years and held on to it for 6 months after I upgraded to FF. Not a speck of dust.

I later bought a 7D as a backup, and a 15-85mm worked for my use, but I can say I was very happy with the 17-55 and got a good price when I finally sold it.

My 24-105mm L was also very good on my crop bodies, but I had to carry the 17-55mm with me for wide angle use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2012)

photophreek said:


> > lens creep
> > overall build quality not the best
> > USM issue for older lenses
> 
> I did buy the 15-85 EF-S lens...



You are concerned about lens creep (my 17-55 has none, never heard this as an issue), and got a 15-85mm, which reportedly does suffer from lens creep?

AFAIK, the 17-55 and 15-85 build are equivalent. If you want/need better, you'd need an L lens. 

Also...what USM issue for older lenses??


----------



## photophreek (Mar 14, 2012)

neuro - I read somewhere that the focus motor did emit a clicking noise in older lenses. 

I'll probably eventually buy this lens one day, but so far, I'm in a holding pattern.


----------



## dturano (Mar 14, 2012)

I had the 24-70mm L and before that the older sigma version on my 7d all the time. I stressed about the the 17-55mm for a while, I took the leap about6 months ago, i loved and still do, the only down side to me upgrading is having to get rid of the 17-55mm.

The 24-70 produced great images I just wanted something a hair wider for my needs on the crop body. I found myself using the great sigma 10-20mm 3.5 to go wider and didn't always like the results (again for my needs) being so wide. The 17-55mm met my needs and now the 10-20mm and 24-70 L are in the bag most of the time.

note on what i use my 7d for
I shoot friends and fam indoors and out, I'm the weirdo with the massive camera at all times. - prefer no flash but keep the flash mounted for when I really want to wow people, i prefer no flash, i find everyday photo viewers like a blow out flash shot, also most people, without being to harsh are not suitable for no flash photography unless in great indoor/outdoor or great natural light. I also do photography on the side for a friend who owns a DJ company in NY. I prefer to be a third shooter, less stress I get to take a lot of pictures at events and find my shots being selected by the clients, people love the artistic/photojournalistic approach. Mostly I have them pimp me out for low stress 3 hour zap shot gigs, they have really nice commercial plasmas they put around the room - they DJ shuffles videos with the music he plays and my shots are mixed in the whole night. Its a really nice chance to get some practice and not have the pressure of say a wedding shoot. At any rate, I'm new to the forum and wanted to supply some input on how I use the 7d with the lens your considering. For a while I was actually concerned about having L glass on my 7d but Im confident and my work is suitable enough I could care less what people think about the equipment i use and always compliment me on my photos. Especialy since i wouldn't be surprised if in april i find guests pulling out there new shiny 5d3 or d800. While my camera does produce great results in auto mode in the hands of most, they always ask, why do your shots look different than mine?....


----------



## krjc (Mar 14, 2012)

This lens is a great match for the 7D. Brighter and wider then the 24-105 I find it is a great lens for many situations and is my default lens on my camera. I have had no issues with this lens and have had it for a year or so now.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> photophreek said:
> 
> 
> > > lens creep
> ...



I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation. The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...


----------



## Aglet (Mar 14, 2012)

I have the 17-55 and the 15-85 on 60D bodies.
I slightly prefer the images from the 17-55 but make far more use of the 15-85 (about 5:1) because of the greater zoom range and superior IS performance. 
I'm usually reaching for more DoF so the aperture limits on the 15-85 aren't much of an issue for me. 18-85's done some great landscape shots for me altho I tend to avoid the extremes of the zoom range for some optical issues. 17-55's slight advantage in low light comes in handy at times.

Got my 17-55 used and it had a fair bit of dust in it. I keep my 15-85 clean and there's none inside it.

Each is good in their own way and despite the large overlap, they're rather different animals.
Try a 15-85 for a day if you can.


----------



## SPG (Mar 14, 2012)

17-55 2.8 IS is the default lens on my 7D when in video mode. It's a good range for day to day shooting. Wide enough, but able to zoom in for a good portrait too.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 16, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> However, I'm not sure if the 17-55 makes sense in your case because you already have the range covered. From what you've written, it looks like you need faster glass for shooting indoors.



You didn't actually read what he wrote did you? I think he said the problem was that the framing was too tight with the 50mm and he couldn't back up far enough to fit everyone in the frame. 50mm is like 80mm on a 7D, so that is pretty tight. 

Caric I think you'll love the 17-55, like neuro said it's the best general purpose zoom for the 7D. The optics are definitely "L" quality and the IS works great, go for it.


----------



## carlc (Mar 16, 2012)

Thanks everyone, very good advice. Before I pull the trigger on the 17-55 does anyone know when it was introduced and are there any rumors of a pending upgrade or replacement?

One final comment that helped me make the buying decision. Last night I had a shoot at church (gratis of course) using my 24-105mm and I did not allow myself to go past the 55mm mark. Fairly revealing. It is a lot easier to move closer than further back (indoors).


----------



## AJ (Mar 16, 2012)

Go for it. I don't think you'll be disappointed with this lens. 

There have been some rumors about a replacement. Some of these rumors were probably wishlists and wishful thinking. The rumors came out some time ago, and things have been quiet lately on that front. I don't think there's solid grounds to believe a replacement is imminent.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 16, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > However, I'm not sure if the 17-55 makes sense in your case because you already have the range covered. From what you've written, it looks like you need faster glass for shooting indoors.
> ...



Axilrod, I *did* read the OP's post, which states that he *owns *the 24-105L (also look at his signature). I'm assuming he chose the 50 f/1.4 over the 24-105 because he needs faster glass for indoors, but the 50mm is too long. He covers the 17-55mm range with 3 lenses already: 10-22, 50 and 24-105. The 17-55 would give him a one stop advantage, which does not give him much for 1k. I'm suggesting that he looks for a faster wider prime (i.e. 35L or 24L) for shooting indoors. What's wrong with that suggestion?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2012)

carlc said:


> Before I pull the trigger on the 17-55 does anyone know when it was introduced and are there any rumors of a pending upgrade or replacement?



It was released in 2006. No credible rumors of an update.


----------



## Sauropod (Mar 16, 2012)

I own the 17-55 and the 15-85. For my uses (and as Aglet noted) the 15-85 is what typically resides on my 7D as it is a great walkabout lens. I spend a tremendous amount of time in light-challenged museum basements and was finding the 15-85, though adequate, just wasn't giving me the results I wanted. The 17-55's 2.8 is handy in such venues. However, I find I end up with more unusable blurry shots because I think, "This lens is 2.8 so I can take that near darkness shot no problem!" Shots I'd never even attempt with the 15-85 have come out on the 17-55 so I can say the 2.8 does work. Working in museums I sometimes find I miss the extra 2mm on the wide end. I own a 50 1.4 and find I can't use it for most shots as I can't get far enough away to compose the image. 

As for dust I live in Phoenix and have taken the lens outdoors many a time. Maybe I am just lucky but I haven't had any dust issues yet and I've used the lens for well over a year in all manner of environs. Though I don't recommend shooting in our August monsoons I don't hesitate taking it with me on a desert hike.

The resale value of the 17-55 seems to hold up well in my local Craigslist pages so I'll say if you can swing it buy it, use it for an extended period of time, then resell it. It should be overall less expensive than renting.

Hope this helps!


----------



## GMan (Mar 16, 2012)

I shoot a lot of indoor activities often in a grade school gym. This includes 7-8th grade basketball, school musicals, and fund raising events that feature a live band. Low light performance is a must. My main body is a 60D, which is very similar to the 7D for low light performance.

For indoor events, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is an excellent compliment to the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II. I have both and use both for all of the above scenarios. With low light, I want my lenses to deliver sharp, corner-to-corner images at wide open and both lenses deliver. The 70-200 is superior for sports, but both are used heavily for other events. The long lens lets me stay in the background and isolate the subject more with the tighter perspective. But, for closer quarters, the 17-55 can't be beat.

I considered the 24-70 2.8L, but ultimately chose the 17-55 for the IS and I'm glad I did. If you're paying for a sharp lens, don't dull the image with camera shake. With low light candids, shutter speeds often live between 1/60 and 1/30. This range is generally fast enough for subject movement, but can still be affected by hand held camera movement even from the steadiest shooter.

In addition, I have found numerous times when I needed the extra-wide range between 17-24. You can't always backup in a crowd.

There are two “quirks” with 17-55. Some complain about dust, presumably from being sucked in through the vents near the front element. I use a Hoya HD clear protector to avoid this – a tough filter that doesn't introduce additional glare.

The second quirk is that some copies have a “hitch” in the zoom ring between the 20-24mm range. You will feel more resistance when the zoom ring approaches this range. When you're playing with the lens and trying to determine whether it will bother you, the hitch feels huge. But, when I'm using the lens, I forget all about it. Maybe video shooters will notice it more, but I'm so focused (sorry) on getting the exposure right and on the subject that I've never noticed the zoom hitch in the field.

A nice-to-have for the crop-sensor body is the 35 2.0. Now that I have the 17-55, my 35 isn't used quite as often, but it's nice to have when I need a faster shutter speed in low light – or want less DOF. It's known to be soft in the corners on FF bodies, but the 60D crops this out. I find it to be quite sharp wide open. It's also nice when you want to lighten the load for grab shots.

From me, an ideal indoor event setup is a 60D with a 17-55 2.8 IS, and a 7D with 70-200 a 2.8L IS II. Don't have the 7D yet, but soon.


----------



## eskoeunmo (Mar 16, 2012)

its a great lens! you won't regret buying it. i'm actually selling it because i just preordered the 5diii.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

I have both. I use the 17-55 indoors preff w/o flash and the 15-85 when i need the extra reach or outdoors since its more versatile there and the low aperature does not matter in sunlight.


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 17, 2012)

If you're planning on sticking with the crop bodies for a while, go for it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 17, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation. The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...



The 17-55 is said to have a "weak" IS motor which breaks just outside Canon warranty - I don't know if this issue is fixed with the newer 15-85 which I'd prefer. The 17-55 is more prone to lens flare, too - and this is an issue with wide angle lenses when shooting outside. And concerning construction quality: Since the 17-55 is the most expensive, it is most obvious that Canon marketing kept the plastic quality to prevent ef-s lenses entering "L-territory".


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation. The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...
> ...



Got mine in 2008, and never had an issue with IS. I'm also not aware that its IS motor is "weak," so that is news to me. And I don't agree that the 15-85's build quality is significantly better. I'm actually having more problems with a "L" lens built in 2011 than my 17-55 ever had. Lenses that have larger apertures cost more even with the same build quality. A lot of people think that the 17-55 is a dust magnet, but I wouldn't say that any other ef-s zoom lenses have better dust resistance. It wasn't designed for all weather conditions and doesn't claim to be. People who use it under inclement conditions should know that they are risking failure.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> photophreek said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation. The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Got mine in 2008, and never had an issue with IS. I'm also not aware that its IS motor is "weak," so that is news to me. And I don't agree that the 15-85's build quality is significantly better


For the record: I didn't say the 15-85 build or iq is better than the 17-55, actually iq-wise it's clearly but slightly the other way around - apart from flare. But I'd get the 15-85 because its value (price/iq releation) imho is better and I don't need 2.8 on this zoom range.

Concerning the alleged weak IS motor on the 17-55: I read this at a couple of places because I was thinking about buying it, here's one example and you can of course use Google yourself: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=484061

"The 17-55 has a weak IS motor and dies after hard use. You have to use it ONLY when needed, and it should last forever. Overuse it and it'll break. I was the first on POTN to report this back in 2006. Many identical cases have popped up since then. I have found a rather consistent way to tell if it's on the way out. Half-press the shutter so IS is activated, and slowly zoom from 17 to 55. If it's starting the dying process, you'll likely see a jump in the viewfinder between 28 and 35mm. If it isn't, then you're good. It's been mostly pros who've subjected the lens to rigorous use that have failed 17-55 IS motors, so the casual shooter may not need to worry. In any case, I suggest any 17-55 user ONLY turn on IS when you actually need it. So in other words, shooting under 1/50 with NO flash and no tripod."


----------



## Tijn (Mar 18, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation. The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...


Probably because the 17-55 has image quality good enough to be "L"-rated, and more importantly a price high enough to be "L"-rated; but it lacks the build quality. Therefore people are more likely to complain about build quality: because it's so expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2012)

Allow me to cut to the chase...



Random Orbits said:


> I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation





Tijn said:


> ... people are ... likely to complain about...



...almost anything.


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 20, 2012)

carlc said:


> Thanks everyone, very good advice. Before I pull the trigger on the 17-55 does anyone know when it was introduced and are there any rumors of a pending upgrade or replacement?



It came out in 2006.


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 20, 2012)

carlc said:


> Using a 7D I was wanting the new 24-70mm, however the price and no IS has me looking for options. I shoot a lot indoors and enjoy fast lenses, ie. 70-200mm f2.8 II, Sigma 50mm f1.4, ef-s 10-22mm f3.5 and ef24-105 IS.
> 
> I am trying to decide if the 17-55 would work for me. I rented this lens over Christmas and just felt I had to get in everyones face to get good head and shoulder shots. Maybe I did not give it a chance so thus my plea for help today. Then this weekend I did two shoots with the 50mm and I could not get far enough away to do groups (more than 4 people) and I started thinking about the 17-55 again.
> 
> ...



This is pretty funny. I am in exactly the opposite position. I own the 17-55 f2.8, but I am thinking of purchasing the 70 - 200 f2.8 II.

I love the 17-55 and my copy has no "hitch" whatsoever between 20mm and 24 mm, or anywhere else in the range. I haven't a speck of dust in it. It is bright and sharp and I am very happy with it. The $1000 price was high, but now seems cheap compared to the 70-200 IS II which you already have and which I may make my next lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 20, 2012)

Roger Cicala of lens rentals has published some stastics about lens failures. The 17-55mm EF-s was failing at high rates back in 2008 and 2009, but then failures became so low that they dropped to average. Could something have been fixed? We'll probably never know.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0


Several lenses that have been regulars on the list previously not only dropped off, they dropped way off. The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS has been a fixture on this list for IS and electrical problems since we started but not only is it gone, its repair rate has dropped to 6%, right around our average. Similarly, the Canon 10-22 EF-S has dropped off the list and now has one of our lowest repair rates. The Nikon 24-70, which gave us a horrible time with sticking zoom barrels when it was first introduced, now is virtually trouble free. We’ve eliminated the web-page warnings on all of those lenses. (I probably should point out again that we turn our lenses over pretty frequently, and in all three cases over half of our current copies were purchased in the last 6 months.)


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 25, 2012)

Mine is running good and no dust.


----------

