# Are there weather seal issues with Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM?



## fotoray (Apr 28, 2011)

Read on Amazon reports of problems with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM due to lack of weather sealing. Can anyone report having this problems and how serious this may/may not be? I'm interested in using this lens on my 7D.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 28, 2011)

fotoray said:


> Read on Amazon reports of problems with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM due to lack of weather sealing. Can anyone report having this problems and how serious this may/may not be? I'm interested in using this lens on my 7D.



There are lots of people who may have a problem with a lens, and think their experience reflects all the other users, or some just makeup stuff for the feeling of power it gives them.

I used my 17-55mm EF-s for three years and never had a issue. I did not use it in heavy downpours, both my camera and lens were not sealed, so getting it soaked and zooming a push-pull lens is probably not a good idea. I did keep a filter on the front and never saw a spec of dust in it.

Just normal light rain should not be a concern, at least not for me.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 28, 2011)

I don't think this lens has weather sealing at all does it? At least not like what we call "weather sealing" on a L lens.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 28, 2011)

No, this lens doesn't have weather sealing (currently no EF-S lens has). There is of course still _some_ protection against dust etc, in the basic way almost all lenses have. The claimed issue with this lens is that it collects a lot of dust, which is almost unavoidable with its extendable design. I've always used a protective filter on my copy, and I can confirm that it still has managed to collect a fair amount of internal dust. That is normal and influences the IQ insignificantly. In theory there should be some loss of contrast, but in practice it is unobservable.


----------



## Paolo (Apr 29, 2011)

I used it for about 3 years with a 40D. Last September I travelled quite a lot and had it with me in the desert outside Dubai and in rainy days in Hong Kong (light rain): no issues at all. By the way, it is an amazing lens.



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


----------



## ronderick (Apr 29, 2011)

I think for the non-weather-sealed lenses, light drizzle should be no problem (at least I didn't have noticeable problems with my 100mm Macro in such situations). However, standard precaution should be taken with downpours.

I think it's always better to bring the lenses to Canon for a thorough cleaning from time to time.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 29, 2011)

I've heard this lens has trouble with dust inside. I do have experience with the 18-135 and I know that it has issues with this. Mine had all kinds of specks on the inside.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 29, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I've heard this lens has trouble with dust inside. I do have experience with the 18-135 and I know that it has issues with this. Mine had all kinds of specks on the inside.



I had mine for three years and sold it when I went to full frame. Not even a spec of dust. There are lots of posts coming from non owners who read a post from other non owners, and so on. Most zoom lenses can get dust in them unless they are the weather sealed lenses, and even then, some have dust when received from the factory.

I did not have trouble with the lens, and even if it had a little dust, it would not be regarded as trouble, just normal.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 29, 2011)

I think the dust issue was in earlier builds, because I had heard a lot of people complain about that. 

I used it for several months filming surfing in a Peruvian desert by the ocean, a very harsh environment with tons of blowing sand, wind, etc... and I never noticed any dust caught inside.

It's a great lens, one of the best zooms ever made.


----------



## branden (Apr 29, 2011)

This dust-inside-the-lens issue really overblown; it's not something to really worry about unless you're selling your old equipment. On the used market a clean, well cared for item is a good indicator that the lens was generally well protected by its previous owner -- but apart from that, light dust in the lens is just a fact of life. I have the EF-S 18-135mm lens someone mentioned above -- no dust issues with it. 

A filter attached to the front of the lens won't affect dust inside the lens, by the way. Dust "gets sucked inside" from the zoom cylinder sliding in and out, not through some magical hole in the front of your lens.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 29, 2011)

branden said:


> A filter attached to the front of the lens won't affect dust inside the lens, by the way. Dust "gets sucked inside" from the zoom cylinder sliding in and out, not through some magical hole in the front of your lens.



Not entirely true. On the 17-55 there are two small vent holes in the ring around the front element. People that always have a filter on tend to get less, and smaller particles of dust. People that don't, have found things as large as pet hair and jelly beans (just kidding) behind the front element.


----------



## branden (Apr 29, 2011)

Wow, I had no idea. I haven't seen that lens in person -- do any of the other lenses have that?


----------



## bvukich (Apr 29, 2011)

branden said:


> Wow, I had no idea. I haven't seen that lens in person -- do any of the other lenses have that?



Not sure. The 50/1.4 has two small holes, but they are blind holes (don't go all the way through) for a spanner. The 28-135 has a single hole that looks similar to the holes on the 17-55, but I think the back of it is blocked by a snap ring.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 29, 2011)

Tried to find a picture of the holes on a 17-55 and found this:

http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/1755_is_surgery


----------



## Goincarcrazy (Apr 29, 2011)

I have had my lens for about 2 years now. I bought it used and when I got it it had a couple pieces of dust in it (very very tiny specs). After using it at the beach, in dry dusty fields, in fog, and in light drizzle, I've not noticed a single thing except maybe literally 2 more specs of dust. It's a crazy sharp lens and if I hadn't moved to full frame, I'd still use it. I like it WAY more than the 17-40L and I think it's sharper than it as well. 

This is just another theory gone awry like the 100-400L. Mine doesn't have a spec of dust in it and it's been through hell in the 4 years I've had it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2011)

No dust issues for me, not in my 17-55mm, and not in my 100-400mm, either. B+W MRC UV filters on them from day 1.


----------



## OnceUponaHoneyB (May 3, 2011)

I rented the 17-55 about 3 months ago, and it had a considerable amount of dust in it. Didn't seem to affect image quality but it was concerning if I was going to pay $1000+. Main reason why I went with the 24-70 L, which is amazing.


----------



## te4o (May 4, 2011)

The zoom of my 17-55 blocked after 6 months of normal usage. Before that it had a plop in one section for a while. When it broke, it gave me a very bad feeling of how zooms work - like getting your car's gear box stuffed. Had it repaired and worked well after that. I read about this and found it a common defect. 
I had dust behind the front element despite B+W filters etc. It enters from the rear. Did not affect IQ.
I used it a lot on the beach but very carefully and not close to water sprays, sand storms etc. By the feel of it I'd say there is *no reliable weather seal* in it. Zooming with my 70-200/4 L IS is a different world. Using MF was not smooth, due to small dust particles in the notch of the ring. Actually I was always annoyed by the tiny MF ring - a nuisance in LifeView.
The lens offered me good service overall. I sold it (repaired) because I realized that despite its sharpness, perfect IS and fast aperture it did not give me the micro-contrast and the look of the Zeiss primes. The colors are clean but cool and not that impressive even after PP. And the built issues still cannot justify its price.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 6, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> fotoray said:
> 
> 
> > Read on Amazon reports of problems with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM due to lack of weather sealing. Can anyone report having this problems and how serious this may/may not be? I'm interested in using this lens on my 7D.
> ...


Reading posts like this is frustrating. Speaking of people who think their experience reflects all other experiences - that works both ways! We can't take your post and say it speaks for everyone. There can't be any harm in finding out what the OP asked for - what the extent of any problem was for anybody who had it (this is not the same thing as asking "how bad is the whole range of produced 17-55mm lenses"). A post like this, which even throws in an ad hominem attack against a whole class of people who aren't here, doesn't make anybody want to come forward if they did have a problem, for fear of being labeled a "power monger" or whatever.

I've been thinking about getting the lens and wouldn't let dust worries stop me, though thanks for bringing them up. I wouldn't get a filter at first - if it started acting up, I might have it serviced and then I'd buy a filter.


----------



## Admin US West (May 6, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > There are lots of people who may have a problem with a lens, and think their experience reflects all the other users, or some just makeup stuff for the feeling of power it gives them.
> ...



Nothing I said infers that all users have my experience with the lens, in fact i said just the opposite. As you can tell by reading all the posts on this topic, many people are happy with it.

Nor did I label anyone a "Power Monger"


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 9, 2011)

I don't like sounding like a lecturer, but there was a serious problem with the argumentative style and logic of the original reply, which is like this: Other people's bad experiences with lens x are coincidences, and my (your) positive history proves that those are not worth considering (especially when you say that some people just lie "for the feeling of power"!). The OP's question wasn't "people on the internet say the EF-S 17-55mm always fails, is this true?" but rather if anybody here thought there was sometimes a problem (yes) and if so how severe (your own positive history is an example of how it can never crop up; very relevant and useful but as you say, doesn't speak for everyone else).

This is why it's frustrating: You immediately put the topic in terms of whether people were "happy" with the lens or not, instead of it being a pretty focused technical discussion of some small possible issue. That is changing the question. I like my car but I know it can rust if I don't take care of it; swapping preventive maintenance tips isn't dissing the hardware. (But I drive an older Hyundai...so...  ) And then there's the whole issue of saying that some people apparently lie for kicks...

I think that the community of serious photographers isn't big enough for us to just write off certain other groups as being usually wrong. There certainly is a lot of junk on Amazon.com, and you could spend your whole life trying to clear it up, but there are also a lot of awesome photographers who share their reviews.

Sorry if it seems rude and presumptuous for some random guy on the Internet to be running around giving unwanted advice, but I like to think that Canon Rumors had a friendly atmosphere. I don't see how you keep the atmosphere friendly when the first sentence of the first reply insinuates that some people lie about their 17-55mm lenses just to get a feeling of power...on Amazon of all places...sorry Scales, you just happened to be the person who said it this time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2011)

I agree with the sentiment, Edwin. On the other hand, I think scalesusa is also touching on the 'squeaky wheel' phenomenon - people with a problematic whatever will make that fact known, whereas people who don't have any problems with that product rarely proselytize about that. Thus, there's a disproportionate representation of negative comments. IN this particular case, the 17-55mm also suffers from its price point - if your $99 nifty-fifty (or now $135, thanks to the recent price inflation) is not perfectly sharp, you're unlikely to complain too loudly. But if you pay $1000 for a lens (and it doesn't even have an L on it!), your expectations are higher.


----------

