|
|
|
|||||
Reviews for Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM Standard Zoom Lensf/2.8 - MPN: 1242B002
By member:
annieko
- Jun 22, 2006
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USMStrengths: Extremely sharp, perfect walk around range for a 1.6 crop, IS + f2.8 is very useful Weakness: Some flaring and vignetting under extreme condition I am an amateur photographer although I spend like a pro sometimes. I have two Canon 350D bodies, 17-40L, 70-200 f/4L, 60mm macro and 580EX. The 17-40L is nice but a little short and slow. I bought the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and did some comparison with my 17-40L. The new lens is sharper at almost all f-stops at overlapping 17-40mm. That means I get a sharper 17-40, plus a bonus of 40-55mm, and IS and f2.8 stop. The downside is you don't get a red ring and pay more (I paid $1,144 including the hood for this lens). The new lens is very close in optical performance to my 70-200 f/4L and 60mm macro, both very sharp lenses. I decided to keep the 17-55mm as my general walk around lens. If you a professional or serious amateur with a 1.6 crop camera like 20D or 30D, this is the ultimate lens to match with your camera. 100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
nickyfastbid
- Sep 1, 2006
EF-S version of EF27-40L with IS -- the ultimate...Strengths: Fast USM AF + f/2.8 + Bullet-proof IS = shooting in all kind of conditions without hassles/tripod/flash. Weakness: Pricey, not dust/weather sealed, flare control could be better. The first thing you will notice is the sharpness of this baby. It's sharp @ f/2.8 through the range, and much sharper than EF17-40L through f/4-f8 especially in the corners. Amazingly it still holds its ground till f/16, that’s nearly Macro lens territory. Sharpness wise this thing is nearly as good as 50mm prime lens, certainly in the best group of L league. 100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
ecwleung
- Jun 19, 2006
Excellent but expensive lensStrengths: Sharp, wide aperture. Image stabilizatin helps in low-light handheld work Weakness: Expensive. Slightly heavy. Doesn't come with lens hood. Very sharp lens with beautiful bokeh. Wide aperture provides a bright viewfinder. Solid construction despite some plastic parts. No obvious vignetting, chromatic aberration or distortion on everyday use. Image stabilization at f/2.8 allows night-time photography without tripod with excellent shots. 100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
klut
- May 24, 2007
Very solid EF-S lensStrengths: sharp, UWA to normal zoom coverage Weakness: price, size (it's pretty bulky), EF-S mount only, no hood This is one of the best EF-S lenses available on the market at this time. Lens is pretty sharp throughout, although it vignettes somewhat at 17mm. The price is a killer - $1000 for a non-L lens is just expensive. Build quality is average as well - it's not bad, but can't be compared to L lenses. I often use this lens as a general walk-around lens, although it is a bit too bulky for my taste. There are a couple of comprehensive reviews available on the web, so if you're considering buying one, check them out and compare to some other EF-S lenses. One site that comes to mind is www.slrlensreview.com - has a handson review, 100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
JPS02138
- Aug 27, 2006
Great lens!Strengths: Fantastic build quality - very fast focusing - Image Stabilization!! Weakness: lots of vignetting around 17-20mm The perfect lens for going wide back up to portrait range. This is truly an L lens, but not marketed that way for Canon's silly reasons. It's massive, but f/2.8 all the way through with IS is wonderful for wedding photography and landscapes. 100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
guitarstop
- Aug 23, 2006
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR CamerasStrengths: Fast Lens, able to take action pictures indoors w/ out a flash, Sharp Crisp pictures. versatile focal length Weakness: Priced as an L lens w/ out the build quality. Relatively Heavy I am currently using the Digital Rebel body. I had been using the kit lens 18-55mm, 50 mm 1.4 and 55-200mm. I mainly take pictures of Martial Arts events, and weddings. I found that I was using the kit lens the majority of the time. I sold my 3 lenses to purchase the EF-S 17-55mm f/ 2.8 IS USM. 95% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
rbmealey
- Jun 6, 2006
Just what I've been waiting for.Strengths: f/2.8. Image stabilization. All the usual strengths of USM lenses. Weakness: Price. Wish it was 17-85. Or even 17-70. I got this lens just in time to shoot a wedding this weekend and a couple of outdoor portrait sessions since then. I was previously using the EF-S 17-85mm. The f/2.8 makes a world of difference shooting indoor weddings and at dusk when light is the best for portraits. The constant aperture is a "must have" as far as I'm concerned because the variable aperture on the 17-85 was frustrating when using manual exposure or aperture priority settings, which are what I use about 95% of the time. 94% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
nikeek
- Jul 2, 2006
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 ISStrengths: Equivalent of 27-88mm on a APC-S camera with f2.8 and IS Weakness: Expensive If you look at reviews from the-digital-picture.com, the 17-55mm IS compares favorably to 16-35L, 17-40L and 24-70L: 83% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
gudeng7
- Sep 7, 2006
A great walk-around lensStrengths: Great optical performance (comparable to L series), wide open at f2.8 for background blur, IS is a huge plus. Weakness: Price is too high, no lens hood included, zoom barrel not smooth enough, construction not as good as L series, fit only EF-S mount cameras. I have been debating for a long time whether I should go for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70 f2.8L. The EF-S 17-85 is a big no-no because of its poor optical performance. 83% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
khuang
- Jun 13, 2006
Execellent general purpose zoom lensStrengths: large constant aperture, image stabilization, execellent optical quality Weakness: expensive, heavy, no lens hood included This lens is to replace my 17-85mm lens which has small aperture and low image quality. This large aperture IS zoom lens covers the range of 16-35mm and part of 24-70mm lens. Image quality is similar from other reviews. Only works on APS frame cameras. Best zoom lens for indoor family shooting. 67% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
touristguy87
- Aug 2, 2007
a good marker on the road to the perfect EF-S lensStrengths: Speed and focus accuracy, image quality, sharpness, moderately priced Weakness: 55mm is a little short but for about 80% of the shots that I want to take it is long enough First, I would rather have something more like a 20-135. Beyond that this lens is the best that I have tried out of the 17-85 F4 and the 28-135 F3.6. I think the F2.8 is almost required to get decent focus accuracy and reliability. It may not need to be a *constant* F2.8 but at least at the wide angle it should be F2.8. The short porch is very nice, makes it easy to shoot whatever you are standing in front of, the 28-135 is just too long for this. The only thing this 17-55 leaves me wanting is another 2x or so of zoom range. It would be great at 20-100, even. Wide-angle at night only works for close-up subjects, and the 55mm limit means a lot of walking around to get a good crop on the shot. And you can't use "digital zoom" if you don't get a good focus, so with the Rebel XTi and just about every lens that I've tried, I can't rely on getting a good focus at high zoom. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But otherwise, I think this lens is worth the $900, the 17-85 is worth the $400, I'd stay away from the 28-135 and the kit lens is not all that bad for "free". What I really want, now, and I guess I'm going to have to wait for, is a good-quality 20-120 or so, F2.8-F4.5ish lens with IS. There is no point in getting a lens that will not focus reliably. Now as far as speed...I've shot this camera handheld at night at full zoom and gotten good shots, plenty of times. Pick your poison: ISO1600 RAW to ISO400 jpeg, it'll do it for you. 50% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
Reply by member: touristguy87
Aug 16, 2007 (excerpt from my review of the 24-105 F4) wow, for once, after another night of shooting, I'd pretty-much just have to repeat what I just said, except to add more emphasis on the limit of this 400D camera and 24-105 F4 lens being focus-quality more than speed. I tried an ISO100 shot from a rest, it was hardly any better than the ISO800 shot handheld, in fact, one attempt was worse than handheld because the focus accuracy was pretty bad. And I mean, that's another mark on the F4 lenses. They need the multipoint focus as the light gets bad. You get shots that are "ok" but clearly not sharp and in focus, and they flat-out look out of focus when viewed at 100%. In terms of light, with decent night light you can shoot this lens at IS01600 handheld and get good results, when it is dark? It's too dark to do it. Doubling the speed for the same exposure, or getting another EV step, helps a lot, when you're shooting at 1-10s F4. So, ok. With the 17-55 F2.8 its limit is really the available light, as it is focus-limited, and 55mm even on a 1.6x FOV crop camera is just way too short. I did an experiment with this last night, starting at 100mm I walked down towards a target that I had shot at half viewfinder size. It took me 5 blocks just to get down to 70mm on the lens. I think the 24-105 F4 simply gives you more in trade than you lose, by switching from the 17-55 F2.8. You can always use that mini-tripod for the rare night shot that you just can't get handheld with the F4, and of course you will lose some 55mm shots that it isn't fast enough for, but you get so much more with the extra zoom during the day...all at F4. I regret losing the wide-angle more than losing the F2.8 but still that is a major penalty for shots that you are forced to take at 24mm instead of 17-24mm. Of my 500 keepers from yesterday, with this lens, about 190 were 24mm and about 150 were 55-105mm. That would really be more like 2:1 or so but still. You aren't going to get shots over 55mm with a 17-55mm lens, and the 24mm short end means that you have to take some shots from an angle or from long-distance instead of straight on. It does mean that there is a greater chance of more "junk" getting in the shot, it does mean even more of a stability penalty in low light. But it's like buying a $5k moped or a $5k used Nissan Sentra. One just flat-out does not make sense unless you live in Monaco, or Newport News, or something. Maybe your girlfriend would never be seen in a used Nissan Sentra. But you sure as hell aren't taking her on a trip to the beach on a moped, unless you live just off the shore. But to be honest with you I can't really decide which is the best all-around lens. They're both great lenses.
By member:
jaredkdavisandfam
- Jun 24, 2006
Decent lens for $600Strengths: IS, Fast focusing, constant 2.8 Weakness: Price is obsurd for what you get. I returned it - Overall It performed as a great lens - great but not excelent. I know its not L glass - but canon forgot to remember this when they priced it at around $1200. I ended up returning it for a cheaper sigma 18-50 2.8. Pictures from this lens are not up to par with my 50 1.4, or even my 50 1.8. The sigma I replaced this with seems to be a little slower at focusing, doesn't have the IS, or the USM. However Sharpness and colors of the sigma are on par, if not better than this lens. For 1/4th the price the sigma makes this thing look awful. 45% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
By member:
jyarza1
- Jul 8, 2007
Great walk around lensStrengths: constant aperture, IS, USM, IQ Weakness: vignetting, pricey I love the constant aperture and IS. It's awesome for indoor handheld shooting. I wasn't used to such a wide aperture so it's easy to overdo the shallow DOF and have part of you subjects face (eg ears) out of focus when that wasn't your intention. It also takes great landscape and night photos. However, as expected for very wide angle lens there is some vignetting at the wide end but not usually a problem. However, becomes a major problem when using the lens hood between about 17-20mm against a bright uniform background (eg blue sky). it also seemed like the polarizing filter might have made it more obvious (?). Anyways, not a deal breaker of course but just something to be aware of. Others on the web have reported problems with dust. I have not had any dust problems after a month or so and I don't do anything special to prevent it. Overall a great lens. Blows the 18-55mm kit lens away. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful? Top
productwiki.com - Feb 15, 2011
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a fast zooming lens designed specifically for the Canon EOS 30D, 20D, 20Da, Digital Rebel XT and Digital Rebel. This lens has a large f/2.8 aperture, giving it increased light gathering abilities for distant targets. The aperture is circular and produces a shallow depth-of-field, naturally blurring the background and keeping the subject the focus of... Top
testseek.com - Nov 4, 2008
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Testseek.com has collected 14 expert reviews for Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the average expert rating is 75 of 100. The average score reflects the expert community’s view on this product. Click below and use Testseek.com to see all ratings, product awards and conclusions. Top
cameralabs.com - Jul 1, 2007
Camera Labs – Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM review
Ultimately while the EF-S 17-55mm makes a great premium zoom for EF-S body owners, you’ve really got to be into either portraiture or low-light photography to justify its higher cost. Most general photographers will be better served by the longer range, not to mention cheaper price of the EF-S 17-85mm. And if you like the sound of an f2.8 zoom but not the high cost, consider the Sigma 18-50mm... TopAdvertisement
|
|
|
Canon EF_S 17-55mm f2/8 IS USM lens
Strengths: The best walk around zoom lens for 1.6 crop. Extremely high optical quality. F2.8 + IS allow low light shooting that even FF does not have yet.
Weakness: Some flaring when shooting at a bright light such as spot light or sun.
Optically speaking, this lens beats or matches all the L's and primes that Canon made. I think is is the sharpest zoom lens Canon has made. Based on my testing, it is one step sharper than all of these lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 IS, 50 f/1.4. It is two steps sharper than my 17-40L. Comparing to the ef-s 60mm macro, in my opinion the sharpest prime that Canon made, it is very close in optical quality. When I use my 17-40L, I need to do some moderate sharpening with Photoshop CS2. With this lens, minimal sharpening is needed. My tests are confirmed by numerous other users, the Digital-Picture.com and Photozine. After using this lens for one week, it has displaced my 17-40L as the general walk around on my Rebel XT. Before I bought this lens, I thought of buying a FF and 24-105 F/4l one day. This lens postpones that decision indefinitely. One weakness of this lens is there is some flaring when shooting at a very bright light such as a spot light or the sun.
Is this lens too expensive? The Nikon 17-55mm has a better build, a lens hood but no IS at about $1,150. I bought mine at Badgers Graphics for $1,069 plus $44 for a lens hood, for a total of $1,113. If you consider IS worth the same as the better build plus a lens hood, then the Canon is priced close to the market. I personally like the IS feature better. This lens weighs at 22.8 oz, certainly not light, but the Nikon weighs almost 25.6 oz. I don't think you will regret buying this lens.
100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful or unhelpful?