EF-S 17-55 IS build quality?

I?m thinking about buying this lens along with a 400D and a 70-200 f4, but i

have been reading some mixed opinions about the build quality of this lens,

specially about getting dust very quickly into the lens.

I work as a fly fishing guide, so the equipment will be in the field most of

the time. I like to take care of my photo tools, but you know that outdoors

dust is a problem even if you are very careful and the critiques about dust

worries me.

What are your experiences with this lens? That problems is for some samples or

is common to every lens?

i have thought about the 17-40L or the 16-35L, but the extended range, f2,8 and

IS of the 17-55 are very usefull for the kind of photography i do.

here there is a photo gallery so you can see what kind of pictures i take, so

any suggestions is really welcome!

http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/Alejandromartello/?start=all

 

thanks,

Great reviews of both lenses can be found here:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-

Review.aspx

 

Foster

I shot with one (on a 20d) for much of the summer in and around Jerusalem. It's certainly not sealed for the elements, and the manual focus ring had a habit of getting gritty in high-dust situations. I haven't noticed any dust between the elements, though, and the zooming motion itself, while not completely internal, didn't seem to suck up any extra dust. The nice thing, given its range, was that I never changed lenses through the trip, and thus never had any dust-on-sensor issues. The 17-40 and 16-35 will have seals (but won't seal completely at the back with a 400d) but you may end up with more dust in the camera from having to change lenses more often.

Alejandro,

 

I would get the 24-105L 2.8IS. Sure you loose 7mm on the short side, but lets face it - barrel distortion is heavy below 24mm anyway. I shoot a lot of indoor low light stuff and am forced to go below 24 mm and dispise the results on a 1.6X dslr. (17-85 IS)

 

On the upside you'll pick up the 55mm - 70mm gap with a 24-105. Course, it's a whole lot more $ than either lense you asked about. Over the long haul it will pay for itself. I'm a fly fisherman and know that the 'catch' wiggles around a lot, ergo higher shutter speeds are needed. Accordingly, IS would not be so important for fishing guide photography. Generally, IS is not very effective for wide angle to normal length lenses, because all to frequently the subject matter is moving and requires a higher shutter speed to eliminate movement blur.

 

BTW, I'm looking for a fly fishing guide for a trip next year, and would welcome a 'fly fishing + safari photo' combo that uses my brand of gear. Contact me offline if you're looking for clients!

 

Kickin portfolio Alejandro!

 

Casey

Aljandro,

 

I've hauled my 17-55 IS all over Colorado this summer, from canyons to mountain tops. Even during snow storms. The range is great, the build is fine, the optics are top notch, and the IS works really well. Mine has not sucked any dust or snow yet. Would buy it again in a heartbeat.

I wrote a review very positive some weeks ago, but i have to add a remark, ad you guess what about... About dust inside !

 

I don't want to rewrite my review, and I agrre in all with the review of "perspective", so just add my experience about this dust vacuum cleaner...

 

I never experienced that on a Canon lens, even the worses... Dust came inside after about two weeks of use in non-dusty (at all) conditions.

I prefer not imagine what it will happen in dusty conditions.

 

It is clear now with all the reviews on this problem that it is not because of a bad copy. It is a problem of conception and sealing.

Some people said imprudently there is no difference with the L lenses, sorry, but for sure, here, there is.

 

Don't send it back to the seller for an exchange, you will get exacly the same problem with the new copy.

 

There is no only dust, but it seems little withe artifacts too on the internal lens.

 

I showed the lens at the Canon agreed repair store in Paris (Vilma) and for them, "it is not a problem"... because we can't see the dust on the pictures...

Not covered by the guarantee, and 80 USD for clean that with 2 weeks of immobilisation...

Incredible... an unacceptable for a lens at this price.

 

It is a real and very serious problem, and my conclusions are for sure as "perspective" says, Canon has to re-engineer and fix this problem, so it will take time, not sure of the results, and no other solution in this range if you need a Canon quality image, and the IS.

 

Canon must give an answer and some explanations to the customers about that, if they don't want to see the selling curves of this zoom coming down very fast, and managing the bad feedbacks of the customers.

 

for the moment, I keep it, because I need all the other features, and I am satisfied with the image quality. Real a great confort in walkaround ad reportage use, outside and inside.

 

pics and samples of my first review (completed) are here on Pbase :

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55

 

I don't shoot the dust, you know what it is.

 

I know we are the first buyers of this zoom (I waited for a long time) and like we said in french we must "essuyer les plâtres", that's to say, be beta-testers, and discover the problems in daly use.

So we take a risk, and we know that, we have to assume it, but Canon must assume too and give an answer, or at least, offer a free first cleaning for the first buyers.

 

Last week Customer service Canon answer is : "There is no problem of dust inside 17-55 or any other Canon lens, because our lenses are all tested after manufacturing "

 

hum...

 

So there is not any problem on the 70-300 in portrait mode because it was tested after manufacturing, no ?

 

I'm I right ?

 

After some months of use and some users experience feedback, it seems that the problem is really dust atifacts coming from inside the lens, because they appears just in the first month of use, and not increase after, so probably not coming from outside in a vacuum mode.

So not so bad...

 

despite this problem, the lens is a perfect walkaround reportage use, good pictures even in low light, very useful and confortable, no concurrent, i keep it.

> Dust came inside after about two weeks of use in non-dusty (at all) conditions. I prefer not imagine what it will happen in dusty conditions.

 

Oh my goodness, I just bought the lens for a trip to India. Maybe I should keep my 17-40/4L that it should replace ...

 

Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im falschen ("Wrong life cannot be lived rightly" - Th. Adorno).

Yu want to have IS in the wide range but omit it from the tele range? That is not a wise decision IMHO. My recommendation to you is to think about the 70-300 IS instead of the 70-200/4 (that is, assuming you can not afford the 70-200/4 IS).

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

thanks all for your adivices and sharing your experiences.

looks like there is, still here, a mixed bag of feelings with this lens and that?s why i find really tough to decide what to do.

 

Patrick, do you really feel that the dust was in fact into the lens before you bought it? that would be a really weird "factory feature"!

Yakim, i decided IS only on the short lens because i take 85 or 90% of my photo in the 17-55mm range and only use teles for portraits and some scenery and wild life shots. Spending +$1200 in a lens that will be into the bag most of the time is not very wise in my situation.

thanks again and will keep reading,

best regards

"--lets face it - barrel distortion is heavy below 24mm anyway. I shoot a lot of indoor low light stuff and am forced to go below 24 mm and dispise the results on a 1.6X dslr. (17-85 IS)"

 

I sold my 17-85IS because of the heavy barrel distortion on the wide end. It's not an issue with my 17-55IS, which for me is the best and most useful lens I've ever owned.

 

I have yet to see the dust in any of my lenses show up in a photo.

<p> I still think you need to consider the 70-300 IS instead of the 70-200/4. I had both and if I am forced to decide between them I'd go for the former as an <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EsnE&tag=">IS lens lets you shoot in conditions where a non-IS lenses can't</a>. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>