| Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras | 
 enlarge | Brand: Canon
Category: Photography
List Price: $1,700.00
Buy New: $987.99
You Save: $712.01 (42%)
New (32)
Avg. Customer Rating:  75 reviews
Media: Electronics
Batteries Included: No
Optical Zoom: 3.2
Maximum Focal Length: 55
Minimum Focal Length: 17
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.5
Dimensions (in): 5 x 5 x 3
Legal Disclaimer: Warranty does not cover misuse of product.
MPN: 1242B002
Model: 1242B002
UPC: 013803064445
EAN: 0013803064445
ASIN: B000EW8074
Release Date: March 31, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Big and heavy ... but the best you can get for cropped sensors October 4, 2008
I've been using this lens for about 6 months on 40D in a variety of conditions. Fairly dusty hikes and light rain. This lens has not failed to impress me. Sharp and fast. And I'm quite spoiled: I've sold 17-85 as it did disappoint me a few times in several respects and I own some of the sharpest primes. Also it has virtually no chromatic aberrations or distortion.
The only significant drawback of it is the size/weight. It's just too big for casual photography. It does inevitably attract more attention than smaller and more compact zooms. Funnily most people expect it to be some sort of 20x superzoom and can't believe that it's just about 3x zoom. Also it's long length makes it a bit problematic to use with flash. When extended it creates a large shadow on the picture.
It is also rather expensive ... but once you put it to some use you'll not regret the money.
Finally I'd be certainly happier if Canon has included the hood. A $2 piece of plastic that they charge $30-40 when bought separately.
 Dust !!! September 19, 2008
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
First the positives. The lens optically is a good lens, it does sharp images, nice colors and all that stuff. But the big problem is dust that gets inside of the lens. After 9 months of usage there is so much dust inside that it makes the lens basically unusable. Do not undervalue this problem like I did. Or make sure you may eventually return the lens if there is a problem. The lens already came with 3 dust dots inside which wasn't such a big deal but you should see it now. I have 70-200 and 24-70 both L line there is no dust problem. There is no dust problem even in my kit lenses. I am surprised that Canon can release such lens, because this is not a cheap lens.
At the beginning I could not decide whether to get 16-35 f2.8 II L or this lens. But Since I have Canon D 30 I preferred to get wider lens. No I would go for 16-35 even at the cost of lower zoom range and extra cost.
Now I have to figure out how to return the lens, I bought it in the US from BH photo, but now I am in Europe, so it is a bit complicated.
Pricey, but worth it. September 18, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I bought this lens to use with the Canon 40D. It covers the wide end very well. The IS is fantastic; you can shoot hand-held down railroad tracks from the passenger side of the car while crossing them! AF is fast and quiet, and f/2.8 allows you to use this lens in almost any situation. Image quality is outstanding. Colors are vivid, images are super sharp, chromatics are imperceptible. I have no vignetting at all wide open.
Downside: size, weight, and cost. The size and weight are insignificant when the image quality is taken into account. The cost, while high, is in line with other lenses of this quality. If you want the best wide angle zoom lens for your xxD or Rebel, this is it.
 I sold mine after one shoot, chromatic aberation the worst of all my lenses! September 11, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I wanted so badly to love this lens. True, it delivers performance that is pretty darned good (although not as nice as I had hoped) but the chromatic aberration is just unacceptable. Heck, shooting a brides dress in low contrast shade with a lens hood and no filters should not create bright, heavy bands of cyan, magenta and yellow. See the photo I added at the top for a typical example.Chromatic aberration was what kept me away from digital photography for so many years and this is the only lens I have that is this bad.
True, the discoloration can be removed in photoshop. You can do anything in photoshop, does that mean you want to? Personally, it took me over a day to remove the aberrations in 500 photos from one wedding shoot. Unfortunately the adobe lightroom chromatic aberration removal tool did not work for the level of distortion this lens has, forcing me to use photoshops saturation levels adjustment with masking.
Don't believe the hype, this is not an "L" lens in build or performance. Take your $1000 elsewhere...
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS September 10, 2008
This is a fantastic lens. The build quality is very good - the only noticeable difference between this and an L is the lack of a red ring. It's not quite up to my 70-200 f/2.8L, but what is? I have only 1 concern and 2 complaints about the lens. The concern is that it is an EF-S and not an EF. It's a not-insignificant investment for most people and will not work on full frame cameras. On a personal level, I'm not convinced that this will ever be an issue for me (especially with the 50D coming) as I won't by a SLR camera (which there was a true Canon equivalent to the Nikon D700) that doesn't have a pop-up flash, which I find very convenient for fill flash and saves me the effort of having to carry a separate flash unit all the time. The complaints are the lack of a lens hood and case in this price range. IMHO, this is inexcusable. However, the reality is, there is no other equivalent lens in the Canon family. I gave up waiting for an L (and thus an EF mount) version - and I don't regret it. The images are beautiful and it is the perfect complement to the 70-200. Additionally, with the huge installed EF-S base, the mount isn't going anywhere; which will preserve resale value if I ever do trade up to a full frame body. Go ahead and live a little. This lens is worth the splurge.
|
|
|
