Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or....?

MadMac

MadMac

Messages
4
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I want to upgrade my kit lens to something better and have my eye on a used Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I've seen lots of reviews and opinions saying how great this lens is, but just wondering if there was anything else from Canon or any other lens manufacturer (new or used for around the same price or cheaper) that comes close? Budget is <£400.

Also - I've never bought a used lens before - what should I be asking/look out for...?
 
Alright MadMac!

Being a Nikon guy, I can't offer any advice on Canon lenses however...
If buying a used lens I'd check for dust or any foreign debris and marks on the front/rear element. Also I would check if the zoom and focus ring is smooth. There are varying degrees of sharpness so I would get examples of images taken with the lens e.g wide open. Tbh even when buying new I 'd check all these things.

I've always said you get what you pay for with lenses. So you've got to be happy :)
 
The Canon 17-55mm F2.8 is a great lens I use mine quite a lot. The main downside I find with the lens is the lack of reach at times time, some guys use the canon 15-85 but this does not have fast or fixed aperture. In Canons line up the 17-55 F2.8 is the best option for a crop sensor its a very good lens.

You can save some money by looking at 3rd party lens from Sigma like the 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM / EX DC HSM or 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM / DC Macro HSM | C. Tamron also make a similar lens SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]. I did have the Tamron before getting the Canon, the Tamron was sharp and well made but the Canon is just a little better around but the difference is not night and day.
 
You don't specify what you're planning on using the lens for by way of any leaning toward a particular subject type. The Canon lens you mention is obviously going to have a range of applications and also the characteristics which go hand in hand at the shorter end of the focal length which will give you modest barrel distortion at the shorter end of its range and some pin cushion at longer focal lengths. Yes that lens format might be just what you're after, however I'd be inclined to ponder a number of options of wanting a do a lot lens and not having the luxury of buying multiple lenses.
 
Just bought one second hand. Great IQ but the IS unit has just packed up!!! By the look of things it's a common problem. Now in dispute with seller about a return. I want one (I really do) but I've had my fingers burned here and I am disappointed in Canon for putting somethign out that has a recurring technical issue. Beware - get a warranty.
 
Got one used about a year ago after lots of positive comments on here. Was very good with my 60D and is superb with my new 80D.

Any drawbacks ?? Like someone else mentioned occasionally I wish it had a longer range but you can't have everything.

Going to New York in August and don't really want to be carting lenses and bags about so it should be good then but occasionally I get pangs to purchase the 24-105l f4 :)
 
I had one for a few years, very impressed with the image quality, not so much the amount of dust it sucked in.

Big old lump of a lens, price you pay for the constant f2.8, IS works well albeit rather noisily.

Probably the best zoom in that focal range and in my opinion the pros outweigh the cons

One other thing, doesn't come with a hood and the genuine article ain't cheap
 
Thanks for the comments all. I mainly take shots at the wider end of the range, landscapes and so on, but wanted something flexible enough to keep on the camera most of the time until I need my longer 55-250mm zoom. I'll definitely bear in mind the dust and the issues with IS and try to get a warranty. Your comments have pretty much convinced me not to look for a cheaper 3rd party lens and stick to my guns and go for the Canon. I'm the sort of person that would always be wondering "would the Canon have taken a better shot?", without realising it's actually me that's the problem :)
 
I'm in the same boat and was going to buy this lens brand new. Price had dropped to £500 though was typically £600. Since Brexit and the fall in the strength of the pound, the lens is now around £700 mark, so rather than getting cheaper, it's become more expensive.
 
I used to have a sigma 17-50 f2.8 and i was very happy with it. The review put it on par with the canon and much cheaper. You just look 5mm at the long end but that near nothing to be honest. Much better that 17-85 in my opinion, the f2.8 is really practical to have.

I had a sigma 17-70 and that was not as good.
 
Last edited:
I have the Tamron 17-50 non-is which I'm very happy with. If you can live without the extra 5mm on the long end and lack of IS, maybe consider a second hand one and see how you get on with it? Amazon warehouse deals have a couple described as like new for £267 ish. Their returns policy is very good if you don't get on with it.
 
It is the best EF-S lens Canon makes...nuff said
 
I bought an ex demo one recently. £500 plus £27 for the lens hood.
Excellent lens, though I would have preferred if it had the reach of my 17-85mm...
 
Pmba said:
I have the Tamron 17-50 non-is which I'm very happy with. If you can live without the extra 5mm on the long end and lack of IS, maybe consider a second hand one and see how you get on with it? Amazon warehouse deals have a couple described as like new for £267 ish. Their returns policy is very good if you don't get on with it.
Click to expand...
I went from a Canon 18-55 kit lens, initially to a Tamron 17-50 (non-IS) which my brother now has. This was a great lens. I've now owned the Canon 17-55 F2.8 for 3/4 years and for my type of photography, it's a wonderful lens. Be aware though, it is a bit on the "heavy" side, compared to some.
 
pauld said:
It is the best EF-S lens Canon makes...nuff said
Click to expand...
and the most unreliable?

When I had Canon APS-C the 17-55mm wasn't out so I got a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which was at the time the sharpest zoom I'd ever used. Actually if buying today I'd avoid the Canon lens not necessarily because of the reliability issues but because it's a big fat lump. I'd still go for the more compact Tamron or similar Sigma.
 
Last edited:
I also had that old noon VC Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and replaced it with the Canon 17-55. Never had any real issues with it until after I sold it and tried to get another. I had sold the first one to get a 15-85, but after a whiel the lens creep was really bugging me so I decided to go back to the 17-55. I ended up with two poor quality copies and gave up. I then went to full frame so didnt need it.
Last year i got a 80D and thought the 17-55 would be ideal. Unfortunately i found AF to be a bit off every now and then, and IQ was not as good as my much cheaper STM lenses. Shame as i had fond memories of my first one, but at this price I couldn't live with the random AF and IQ.

Ended up with a 18-135 IS USM Nano and 50mm f/1.8 STM. Very happy with these and although the zoom slower than the f/2.8 lens the IS is much better so hand holding down to around 1/6 is easily achievable. The IS on the 17-55 is not very quiet (only an issue with video i assume), but i didnt have any issues with iit on all 4 copies Ive owned.

As others have said, it does depend on what you want to do with the lens, but if low light isnt one of them i really can recommend the 18-135. Even the STM version is really nice and dirt cheap second hand. That and the 24mm f/2.8 STM or 50mm f/1.8 STM make a great general purpose combo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top