Canon 17-55 2.8

S

Slicker

Messages
315
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Has anyone used the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS Lens? What is it like?

I am looking for a faster lens for my 400D (soo to be upgraded to a 50D hopefully) and just wonder what peoples thoughts are

At the moment, I have the 18-55 (kit), 17-85 IS, 50 1.8 and 70-300.

I am looking to upgrade to this lens and a 70-200 2.8

Thanks
 
I was looking at this lens, but in the end went for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 instead. Having read pretty much every review out there, I decided that although the Canon is a little sharper, as I didn't use the IS much I could save myself about £400 (£500 if buying new!) and get the Tamron, which is still stunning!

There's a fairly well-known issue with the 17-55 IS (although how common it actually is, and how much is scaremongering is anyone's guess!), where dust builds up behind the front element. I really didn't like the idea of a 600-700 pound lens that lets the dust in!

Chris
 
A UV/protection filter should help keep the dust out, but DIY cleaning it is not that hard. I've done it once. Here are instructions by someone else....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp

Another point to note is that since the dust is nowhere near the focal plane, unlike sensor dust, it is so out of focus as to be undetectable in the image. I don't like using UV/protectoin filters, unless I really need to, which is basically never. However, they are required in order to complete weather/dust sealing on some L lenses. I've just fitted one to my 16-35 so that I have a fully weatherproof system when using my 1D3. Having just done that, and seeing the dust having built up in my 17-55 a bit, once more, I have also fitted a filter to that lens. I haven't taken any photos with it since but I will at some point perform a back to back comparison to check the effects on IQ of the filter. If I don't like what I see it will be coming off again. Some lenses really don't work well with filters. The 100-400 is a good example. I will only use such filters when I have to.
 
Its a very good lens, quite large and some say it's heavy.

If you're planning to upgrade to a 50d, then it's a worthwile investment.
 
yeah, I expect it to be a little heavy.. I will be using my 400D for a few months still though...
 
tdodd said:
A UV/protection filter should help keep the dust out, but DIY cleaning it is not that hard. I've done it once. Here are instructions by someone else....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp

Another point to note is that since the dust is nowhere near the focal plane, unlike sensor dust, it is so out of focus as to be undetectable in the image. I don't like using UV/protectoin filters, unless I really need to, which is basically never. However, they are required in order to complete weather/dust sealing on some L lenses. I've just fitted one to my 16-35 so that I have a fully weatherproof system when using my 1D3. Having just done that, and seeing the dust having built up in my 17-55 a bit, once more, I have also fitted a filter to that lens. I haven't taken any photos with it since but I will at some point perform a back to back comparison to check the effects on IQ of the filter. If I don't like what I see it will be coming off again. Some lenses really don't work well with filters. The 100-400 is a good example. I will only use such filters when I have to.
Click to expand...

Tim, there was some debate about this recently and I guessed that if you sealed the front of a 17-55 with a filter, then you were forcing it to suck/pump air in/out from somewhere else, likely the other end, nearer the sensor.

So I tied a plastic bag around the lens mount to see how it filled with air, with an without a filter. Sure enough, the bag fills more when the filter is on, so it must then be pumping more air around the mirror box. Just an observation.

No UV filter is going on my 17-55, and if it gets dusty, and I guess it will some time, then I'll clean it myself. I think StewartR is going to try that cleaning routine in your link, and will hopefully report back.
 
I use this lens as a walkabout on my 50D and it is a belter in my opinion. It is incredibly sharp, I do noticeably less sharpening on PP when using this lens. I think that the focal length is good on a cropped body and it is really handy having f2.8 in low light.

I guess that for some people the price tag is too high and there are other alternatives out there, such as the Tamron, that people say are very good too. For me, the price was fine and I do not regret my decision at all.

Dust? ......... Yes there is some, but having seen a post here, I hardly think I'm going to notice some dust!!
 
Hoppy, thanks for the heads up on that. Filter coming off again, before I've even taken a shot :)
 
Ive rented it from Lensesforhire and it will arrive today, even though I now dont need it...

But i'll put it on my 400D and take some test shots for you if you like.
 
rgrebby said:
Ive rented it from Lensesforhire and it will arrive today, even though I now dont need it...

But i'll put it on my 400D and take some test shots for you if you like.
Click to expand...

cool - that be good thanks..

Just need to wait till pay day now...

Do I buy the 17-55 or 70-200 first... decisions decisions
 
Had mine for a couple of years now and only 2 tiny specks of dust in the front element (had a filter fitted from day one) Very sharp and very well built.

RE: hoppy filter and dust

Is that why my sensor is so dirty :LOL:
 
I rented one from lensesforhire last year for a holiday walk about lens.

It's not that heavy to be honest. Build wise, it feels good although maybe not as good as an L lens.

Performance wise it's impressive. I found it really sharp and a nice natural range to cover most things you'd encounter on your travels.

It's quite unusual that it's got such a wide aperature with IS. It doesn't need it unless you're outside at night time. Then you can get some very good handhold shots which might suit those unable to carry a tripod.

I'd have one, but as I've got a 10-22 it seems more natural to get something like the 24-70 f/2.8.
 
whiteflyer said:
Had mine for a couple of years now and only 2 tiny specks of dust in the front element (had a filter fitted from day one) Very sharp and very well built.

RE: hoppy filter and dust

Is that why my sensor is so dirty :LOL:
Click to expand...

LOL Probably not ;)

But as a thought, if you stop a lens 'breathing' through the front, then it must suck air in from somewhere else. It has to. And the 17-55 2.8 sucks in a good cupful zooming from end to end. This is one of the advantages of some L lenses which, when the design makes it possible, are internal zooming and do not extend.

So like it or not, if you are working in a dusty environment then one way or another your lens is going to get filled with dust, sooner or later. So stop pumping it back and forth for no reason :D

More seriously, if you could choose where you wanted this dust to be deposited for easy cleaning, then maybe behind the front element is the best place. After checking that link above which shows how easy it is the pop the front element off, you can clean it yourself in a few minutes. Or at least it will take a technician only a few seconds, which is better than dismantling the whole lens, plus a full sensor swab :eek:

Get those UV filters off :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top