17-55 2.8 IS owners please.

[tdigi]

I recently sold off my 20mm 2.8 because I want to replace that length in a zoom. I found that switching to

the 20 difficult and I was missing the 20 - 28 range as well( I have a 28-75 tamron )

 

I shoot events where I need to get a bit wider then the 28 will allow ( on my 40D ) and I was set on the

17-55 2.8 IS but I have a hard time paying $1000 for a Non L lens even thought I hear the optics are

amazing it still is lacking in build quality and I will most likely have a full frame camera in the near future.

The 17-40 is also a lens I am considering but F4 seems a little slow for me. The 16-35 sounds good but

very expensive for 1 extra stop.

 

I have considered many different options but I would be interested to hear from owners of the 17-55 2.8

IS.

 

If you have the 17-55 EF-S what is your opinion of it?

[rogernoel]

I have written in this forum, many times, my delight in using this lens. I have a 30D and the 17-55 2.8 is on the camera most of the time. I bought it when it first came on the market and I have never had a problem with it. My only complaint is that it is extremely heavy. Many of my recent shots on this forum were with that lens. Click me on and take a look and judge for yourself.

 

As for not being an L lens, so what. Don't think Canon will ever make L lenses for the small sensor camera. Yes, it is pricey, I paid a grand to B & H when I bought it and was unhappy with having to spring for another $50 for a lens hood. I use a Hoya polarizing filter on this most of the time as well. Good Luck

[ray_tribendis]

Had mine for almost a year. VERY happy with it. I also am NOT a pro, so the "less than L" construction is fine with me. I use a Hoya polarizer & bought a hood on Amazon for less than the Canon price. I use a 20D soon to migrate to a 40D

 

Ray

[PuppyDigs]

Comparing my 17-55 with my 24-105 L I find little diff in build. They both feel solid and

well made. The zoom ring on the L optic is slightly smoother and I prefer the barrel

cosmetics. Inside the L-optic are dust skirts on the nested barrel to resist dust and water

drops, gaskets under switches and an o-ring on the mount to seal better. To me the 17-

55 has 90% of the build quality of the 24-105 L. Basically it lacks the seals and pretty

paint.

 

Now if I compare my old EF 28-135 IS USM to the 24-105 L there is a much larger diff.

The 28-135 is loose as a goose and lightly made. Really prone to sucking to suck as well.

Some have complained the 17-55 is dust prone due to air vents under the front retaining

ring. If you use a filter it stays much cleaner.

[sanjay_chugh1]

I've had this lens for a few months and don't regret the purchase. Although I did think about it a lot before making the purchase as it was a lot of money.

It's my main lens most of the time and I am very happy with it.

Also, I am not considering moving to FF for many years so that was not a consideration for me.

[wgpinc]

TG,

 

I have and use the 17-55mm 2.8. I got it with the rebate and B&H coupon deal which lowered the price a bit. Very sharp high IQ lens and as said before 90% of the L build. If the money is an issue you might consider the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. I demo'd one and it was very good, and it would be a very good match for your 28-75mm 2.8. Good luck!

[eigtball]

Don't own it yet. I am picking one up with my 40D in a few weeks. I can let you know how I like it then.

[tom_spalding]

I've had this lens for about a year and absolutely love it. No, it's not quite L build quality, but it is definitely L image quality. The IS really helps improve IQ on hand-held shots.

 

A caveat on using a polarizer with this lens - at the wide end you will probably get some "banding" in shots that include a lot of sky.

[davyjo]

I own the 300mm f4 L IS,

70-200mm f/2.8 L IS,

AND the 17-55mm IS

 

This is a very nice set of lenses for my 30D and XT. I don't feel at all limited by the 17-55mm. It is a wonderful lens.

[brian_goodman]

I have had my 17-55 IS for two years now. Have done some very nice Gallery Landscape work with it. Sold my 17-40 F/4L after using the 17-55 for a few weeks. Have never regretted that. The build is not an issue at all. Going strong.

[steve santikarn]

it's the IS on the lens that won me over the other wide angle zooms.

[eric_lawson1]

Bought it, hated it, got rid of it for a 24-70L. Now I'm happy. Problems were, I couldnt get a good "sharp" copy, not nearly "to me" as good of build as any of my L's, and the focus ring is right in the way when I hold it. On my L's the focus ring is in a differnt place.

[frameman]

I've had one and rate it highly, 9/10. It is the only option for APS-C sensor Canon's to get a

quality 27mm lens length. No problems with it but suggest that n a 400D a battery grip is

used to help balance the weight factor.