17-55 2.8 Build Quality?

[phill_tornroth]

We bought the 17-55 over the 16-35L because the reviews we read suggested that

the price difference wasn't worth the difference in quality for us (the extra

focal length doesn't hurt either)..

 

That said, today it arrived and I'm very happy with it except for when zooming.

I find the zoom fairly rough.. it's got a specifically rough spot in the middle,

between 20-35 or so.. smoother at the edges.

 

Is this typical for this lens? They're backordered everywhere so I don't know of

someplace I can go try a couple out.

 

Thanks in advance...

Phill

[PuppyDigs]

Mine is pretty smooth but not as silky as my 24-105 L. These lenses contain lots of plastic

parts and mechanical movement varies greatly with age, use and temperature. For example,

the zoom get loose-as-a-goose when shooting in the hot Hawaiian sun. Some of my older

lenses zoom by themselves!

 

If you're used to old manual zooms modern plastic fantastic will always feel cheap and rough.

[eric_lawson1]

It was on the one I had for a short time before I sent it back to B&H. Mine was also a bad copy for IQ but the build quality was no where near what it is on my L's. I was very disappointed in that lens, much happier with my new 24-70L! Some say the 17-55 is only not an L because it is not for full frame, I say that?s just not true. It's not an L because it's NOT and L!

[phill_tornroth]

Eh. That was my fear. I'll have to play with it for a couple of days and decide whether or not the 16-35 is worth the jump. We upgrade our lens system with the 17-55 and a 70-200L lens.. it's hard to tolerate the 17-55 when you've just had the L in your hands....

 

The 24-70L isn't wide enough for what we're looking to do with this lens.

[alan_green4]

same thing with mine -- zoom ring has uneven smoothness. i don't care, though. optically, 17-55 is superlative

[m_barbu1]

I agree with Eric, but I'm afraid we are a lonely few, here. FWIW, I love my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

[colinsouthern]

"it's hard to tolerate the 17-55 when you've just had the L in your hands...."

 

I've long held true to a personal rule of "L-Series or Nothing". A few weeks ago I took a closer look at some non-L series lenses - I have to say that, in terms of build quality, the others felt like junk - no other word for it.

 

I have the 16-35/2.8 & the 24-70/2.8 - both absolutely beautiful lenses. I'll be hanging on to these for a VERY long time.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I'll be hanging on to these for a VERY long time.</i></p><p>The only thing that would cause me to get rid of mine is Canon coming out with f/2 versions. That, or financial insolvency. ;-)</p>

[bobatkins]

Do you look at and fondle your lenses or use them?

 

What's the image quality like? What's your slowest speed with IS on?

 

Can your alternative lenses match them?

[alan_myers]

Hi Phill,

 

Just use it a bit before deciding. It will probably smooth out quickly, it's likely only that it's brand new and not "broken in" yet.

 

I've got three zooms in my Canon kit, all of which are L's. Two out of three of them have sloppier zoom rings than I like, personally.

 

But, I was spoiled by lenses in the good/bad old days of film, way back when photographers were real men and their lenses were built to take it. ;-)

 

Seriously... Anyone remember dampening grease, which was carefully selected and used to fine tune the feel of lenses focus and zoom rings by manufacturers and service techs?

[yakim_peled1]

>> it's hard to tolerate the 17-55 when you've just had the L in your hands....

 

I traded two L lenses for two EF-S lenses: 17-40 for 10-22 and 24-105 for 17-55. No regrets at all. BQ is not up to the same standard? Yes, but I feel I got enough compensation in other areas. The 10-22 is wider and has better flare resistance than the 17-40 and the 17-55 is faster than the 24-105.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[bob_osullivan]

Oh Thanks a lot Phil! :-)

 

I never noticed before, but when I read your post I had to go try mine. And sure enough, it's a bit in that same 28-35 area.

 

Now since I never noticed on my own, I'm going to forget about it and chalk it up to a slight cam tolerance issue.

 

If it's IQ is good, and you can get used to the feel, I'd let it go. This is a great lens!

[wes_baker1]

I just gave my mom my old 28-105 that I bought in '94. It's been all over the world in some pretty foul environments, and I've taken at least 25,000 shots with it. It has gotten a little loose, but it's still the same optically as it was when it was new. I would love to have had an L lens instead, but the price difference (esp. in '94) saved me enough for one of those exotic vacations.

 

I'd say, if you have plenty of spare cash, buy the Ls, but if you don't, go for the cheaper, optically excellent 10-22s and 17-55s of the world. There are many good reasons to buy Ls. If you shoot wide open a lot, if you print at large sizes, if you rely on your equipment to make a living, they are the obvious choice. But if you're an amateur, and like me, you shoot most of the time at f/8, the benefits are less compelling.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Do you look at and fondle your lenses or use them?</i></p><p>Isn't that why the L zooms are cream-colored? ;-)</p>

[greg thompson]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ILCg

 

Old post about same topic.

 

The zoom is a little stiffer in the mid range especially when new, but smooths out over time. It will always be a little stiffer in the mid ranges though.

 

It's a great lens for all you 17-55 haters out there, I wouldn't part with it for a 24-70 L, unless I had a full frame. If they added IS to the 24-70, I'd probably shift to a 5D. But who cares what I think.

[alan_green4]

you know, i took another look. the zoom ring action on my 17-55 has smoothed out (i've had it for maybe three months). zoom action is even now. at first it had a very tight feel in part of the zoom range -- that's totally gone.

 

however, the zoom ring is 'light' feeling and is very under-damped at the ends of the range

 

re: bob atkins' comment, have to agree. the L build is only of practical use if you shoot in terrible weather (say, the superbowl during an ice storm), or there is a good chance of impacting the lens (as in a war zone with bullets flying past). otherwise, the build of L lenses is simply 'a nice thing'.

 

the fact is the 17-55 outshoots most L glass in its range (and outshoots most primes in its range as well). sorry. you may not be able to drive nails or do some impromptu underwater photography with it, but it stands up to normal use. i don't believe there is a single canon lens that has the reputation for falling apart under normal use. is there?

 

bewailing the 'poor' build quality of non-L lenses tips your hand just a bit.

[ken schwarz]

The zoom ring should be tight enough to prevent creep even if you point the camera up or down. In mine, there are no particularly tight or rough spots in the zoom range. Still, it isn't as smooth for fine adjustment as the focus ring; it will "bind" and "give" when you try to turn it very slowly. In any event, but it's not been bothersome at all when shooting. The only time I wished for "L" build quality was when I was shooting in very dusty conditions in Monument Valley and worried that fine dust would infiltrate the lens' optics or its zoom and focus mechanisms. Even under these incredibly bad conditions, the lens did well, but some contamination did make the manual focus ring a little rougher than it was before. I've always used a protective filter, and perhaps this is why there is zero dust inside the optics--a common complaint directed against this lens.