Canon 17-55 f2.8

[williamsquire]

<p>I posted a thread asking the community about lenses and which one should I get as an upgrade from the kit lens. Thanks for the input and suggestions.<br>

The general suggestion from this community and various other sites etc is that the Canon 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens and only falls slightly short of the L series. Now the only real issue I can find that is stopping me from buying this is the following:<br>

For the price which is considerable high and lacking a hood there are a lot of users complaining about dust and how the lens is like a vacuum for it. But all this info I have found is between 2006-2008. So is this still an issue with this lens, I hope not considering it's been out for a while and still costs over $1000.00. If it is still an issue does the dust cause issues with the quality?</p>

<p>Also where can I purchase hoods other than instores that cost $65++ and filters. Any good sites that have these accessories at cheaper prices. I know I will need a hood as lens flaring is supposed to be bad with this camera.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your time!</p>

<p>Squire</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I would suggest that you test the lens (and the 17-40 f4L) and decide which one you prefer. The L series is better made but slower and lacks IS. The comps suggest that the 17-55 is sharper at the edge while the 17-40 is sharper at the center. I had the 17-40 but replaced it with the 16-35 II it is a fine lens but does tend to be softer at the edges. I used mine on full frame and APS-H only as I sold it before I bought a 7D.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Try the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as well. just as good optically, though it lacks USM and IS which you may or may not find useful.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I use a Canon 17-55mm lens. A lot of what you say about it is what I call internet gossip and chatter. It is a great lens, one of the main reasons I keep a small sensor camera, along with the 10-22mm. If you have a problem buying a $65 lens hood for a $1000 + lens then maybe you need some alternatives. I think for a lot of reasons I could be happy with one of the two Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lenses. I would probably favor the non VC version because it is lighter, cheaper and possibly sharper than the VC version. But I think either of them would be okay by me. I have tried the non VC version in the store and the image quality was hard to distinguish from my 17-55mm Canon lens, and it was lighter, maybe a better match for my T2i. It comes with a hood. Sigma and Tokina also make decent lenses in this space. Good luck! </p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>I used this lens for several years and never had a dust problem at all. I always used a protective filter; perhaps this helped. I forgot all about the extra charge for the hood once I saw what beautiful pictures came out of this lens. I know it's expensive, but you are getting what you pay for.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think if you've made a decision to go with the EF-S, go with it and don't start the cycle all over again. I can't imagine that the dust problem is all that bad. Especially given all the "fans" it has on P.net.</p>

<p>For a lens hood for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 do an eBay search for EX-83J which is the code for that lens hood (for the price you'd think Canon could throw in a danged hood, cheapskates!). Instead of the Canon-sold hood you will find a number of available "clones". The cheapest right now is US$ 4.89 with free shipping from China. Usually takes a week or so to arrive here.<br /> The clones seem as well made as the originals to me, but even if they weren't you can buy a lot of $4.89 hoods for what Canon charges for the EW-83J (<em><strong>ca. $50 = 10X</strong></em>!). Adorama sells their own copy for about $12.</p>

<p>Filters for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 are standard 77mm, I think, but while the cheapies may work for seldom used special effects, any filter that you are going to be using regularly will need to be decent. I know of no evidence that the better multi-coated Hoyas and probably Tiffen) filters are any worse than the expensive B+W or Singh-Ray filters; but, alas, I also know of no evidence they <em>are</em> as good.</p>

<p>There is something very strange here since all filter manufacturers themselves and testers seem to have avoided any real, double-blind tests of effects of filters on image quality. You'd expect the expensive ones to show tests showing they are better, or cheaper filter makers showing tests that they are just as good. Maybe they're <em>all</em> lousy? If so, I've seen no evidence of marked loss of IQ with the Hoya filters that I tend to use most often.</p>

[mr._b]

<p>The dust 'problem' hasn't gone away. It does make the inside of the lens look unseemly but it won't affect image quality. I bought an off-brand hood for the lens as I rented it a couple times and one was not included...it worked but I would consider the Canon hood as part of the price of the lens when you consider purchase. This is a lens I thought I might buy but I could not bring myself to spend $1000 on a lens with unremarkable build quality. It does take awesome pictures but in your hand it doesn't feel anything close to the asking price. For now I'm content with the 17-40mm f/4.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The 17-55 dust problem is mainly due to the presence of 3 large air vents just under the retaining ring cover of the front element. During focus and zoom operations the elements move thereby displacing air and drawing it through these vents.</p>

<p>You have 2 choices: clean it anually or wear a UV filter to effectively block airflow through the vents. I choose the latter (Hoya Pro 1) and, since buying this wonderful lens in 2006, suffered no dust problems whatsoever. It's been with me from Europe to Asia and back a few times and is very clean.</p>

<p>Here's how to clean it if you hate filters.</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/1755_is_surgery</p>

<p>My 17-55 review:</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm</p>

<p>Personally I don't care much for hoods--too bulky for travel, block the popup and make using a polarizer difficult-- but the hoods from my 17-40 and 24-105 fit and do not vignette.</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>I bought the Canon 17-55mm lens in 01/07/2007 . It was exactly a grand then and the hood was $50 and I have never had any problems. In fact , I just purchaed the Canon 7D becaue I wanted to stay with that lens, rather than go FF. I was not happy paying for the lens hood, but after 3 1/2 years I have gotten over it. Ha ha. I think it is a good choice. Good luck with your decision. </p>

[ilya_e]

<p>People who never used that lens without a filter would say that it is an "internet gossip and chatter". Really? I don't use UV filters on my lenses (only rarely) so dust was a huge problem for me. And that was the reason I dumped it. The build overall was terrible for a $1K lens.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I almost never use a filter on mine, and after several years I can see some minor dust collection, but it's certainly not a problem. I also found an aftermarket hood for $25. It fits a bit loose, but works fine. The build quality does seem marginal for a $1000 lens, but I've dropped mine a couple times and it seems durable enough. Focus is fast. IS works great. Image quality is very good. My biggest criticism is that it suffers from ghosting flare in contra light.</p>

<p>I believe Tamron's latest offering included their brand of IS. Could be a good option.</p>

[williamsquire]

<p>I ordered the lens from Henrey's should be getting it Wed. Bought a $5 hood off the internet because IMO $65 is WAY OVERPRICED for plastic. Im the meantime I will continue to read this thread to see what people say.</p>

<p>Also whats the deal with UV Filters. I mean I can buy them from $10-$100 but is there a real difference?</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Judging by your questions I'd say that you won't see any difference in IQ so buy any UV filter you like. But I'd recommend B+W MRC F-PRO. I am guessing you won't have any problems with 17-55 if you do use a UV or so I've heard. Besides dust and build it's a very good lens.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I find the build of my 17-55 2.8 and 24-105 L to be very close: same type and thickness of plastic, same mount and same ripping fast AF. The L optic has a prettier paint job, dust skirts on the nested barrel and gaskets on switches and mount. Other than that, they feel very similar in hand. Well, the wider MF ring of the L is nicer but that's ergonomics not build quality.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As for the question about filter quality. Here is what I wrote just a few lines above your post. It's just as true as when I wrote it earlier today at 1PM:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>while the cheapies [filters] may work for seldom used special effects, any filter that you are going to be using regularly will need to be decent. I know of no evidence that the better multi-coated Hoyas and probably Tiffen) filters are any worse than the expensive B+W or Singh-Ray filters; but, alas, I also know of no evidence they <em>are</em> as good.<br /> There is something very strange here since all filter manufacturers themselves and testers seem to have avoided any real, double-blind tests of effects of filters on image quality. You'd expect the expensive ones to show tests showing they are better, or cheaper filter makers showing tests that they are just as good. Maybe they're <em>all</em> lousy? If so, I've seen no evidence of marked loss of IQ with the Hoya filters that I tend to use most often.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some things are classic truths, but if we're not careful here this could become an endless loop. ;)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>William - I would avoid the cheapest filers Hoya is fine. The cheap Sunpak and Tiffin filters are very poor manufacturing quality - the glass is usually lose in the mount but as JDM says I have no evidence they degrade image quality.</p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I own the lens, and it's my favorite. That said, there are some things you should know.</p>

<p>It's not sealed at all, and later models are just as dust prone as early ones. I took it backpacking once on the dusty Idaho mountain trails, and it got absolutely filthy inside. I had to send it back to the factory service center in Irvine for cleaning. In retrospect, if I had kept it (and the camera it was attached to) in a gallon Ziploc until ready to use, it probably wouldn't have gotten dirty at all.</p>

<p>I hate UV filters by the way. Unless you get a really expensive one, you will get back reflection off of strong lighting, which usually shows up as a green blotch on your photos. They're also usually a PITA to clean. I protect my lens with a hood, indoors or out, and nothing comes between my lens and my subject.</p>

<p>I also don't think that the filter will help that much with the seal on the lens. It's gonna pull in dust no matter what due to the concentric tubes.</p>

<p>The other major problem with the lens is that the image stabilization system tends to fail more often than it should, which makes the lens literally vibrate in place. After years of service, my lens exhibited this failure. Canon knows how to fix it, so a quick trip to the factory service center in Irvine (out of warranty of course) was all that it took.</p>

<p>On the other paw, the image quality is absolutely beautiful. If you own a fine lens, you should send it back to the factory once a year anyway for a cleaning, as well as to check adjustment and functionality. If you use it in reasonably clean environments, it's a wonderful lens. If you are into photographing sciroccos, black blizzards, or dust devils, use a sealed lens instead.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[beautox]

<p>I've had this lens for two years and the IS failed recently. It cost about half of the current value of the lens to get fixed, something I was not impressed by. Since then I have heard many stories of this happening to this lens, so clearly there is a design fault. I am selling mine as I don't want this happening again.<br>

Also I am not so very impressed with the IQ. You have to pixel peep to tell the difference between this lens and the 18-55mm IS kit lens.<br>

Also the kit lens seems to nail focus more often than the 2.8.<br>

When I upgraded my kit 55-250 to a 70-200 I was blown away by the improvement in not only sharpness, but color and contrast. But when I upgraded the 18-55 to the 17-55 I was pushed to tell the difference on some shots.<br>

Not a good buy imho. Just my two cents..ymmv</p>

 

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It cost about half of the current value of the lens to get fixed...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, the Canon factory service center charges about a hundred bucks to fix the IS problem. If you took it anyplace else, you got ripped off. Lot's of places will charge a ton extra just to bubble wrap it and send it off to Canon.</p>

<p>In my experience, this lens has much better IQ than the 18-55mm, particularly at wide apertures. If you're interested in lab results, photozone.de has excellent lens reviews on just about anything out there.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[williamsquire]

<p>@JDM</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. Thankfully I never just rest on one opinion and value the opinion of multiple sources hence me asking others for input.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>William,</p>

<p>No my apologies for assuming that you hadn't seen my comment. I guess all of us (or at least some posters I have seen recently) sort of assume that if <em>we</em> say something and someone disagrees or whatever, it means they didn't understand, so we say it over again, louder. LOL :)</p>

[beautox]

<blockquote>

<p>Bob, the Canon factory service center charges about a hundred bucks to fix the IS problem. If you took it anyplace else, you got ripped off. Lot's of places will charge a ton extra just to bubble wrap it and send it off to Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I DID send it to Canon directly. But I live in New Zealand and I guess that Canon NZ charge a lot more. The bill said it was half for the parts, half for labor. It was quite quick though, only took a few days.</p>

<p> </p>

[dustoff]

<p>Quote: <br>

<em>The 17-55 dust problem is mainly due to the presence of 3 large air vents just under the retaining ring cover of the front element. During focus and zoom operations the elements move thereby displacing air and drawing it through these vents</em>.<br>

Actually I believe the intake of dust particles is not due so much by the front glass element as it is by the air pressure effect created by the inner and outer barrels when zooming in and out. A weather "resistant" lens would be manufactured with an inner gasket to eliminate (or at least minimize) the accumulation of fine dust particles within the lens body. I seriously doubt that merely screwing on a UV filter (or similar) would ultimately minimize, to much of a degree, the accumulation of dust particles within the outer lens glass. </p>

[jimstrutz]

<p><em>"I seriously doubt that merely screwing on a UV filter (or similar) would ultimately minimize, to much of a degree, the accumulation of dust particles..."</em></p>

<p>Roger, I agree that it seems unlikely, but there are a number of people that have done this and reported good results from it. Speculation can be a good place to start, but experience trumps it. Perhaps with these vents closed, most of the air is forced through the camera body or another gap in the lens that has something acting as an air filter. Personally, I don't use a lens filter and have had very little dust accumulate in my 17-55, but after a couple years I can now see a few specs in there. It doesn't seem to be any worse than any other lens I own.</p>

[dustoff]

<p>Appreciate your input, Jim. Like the fellow who started this thread, I am sitting here in a quandary over whether to shell out the big bucks for the Canon 17-55 or simply settle for the Tamron 17-50 /f.8 with the VC. Although I am not a pro photographer by any stretch, my thinking is that go with the best (that I can afford) rather than settle for less. I "thought" that my indecision was settled after reading all the great reviews about the Canon........... but then along came this thread and the big issue over dust in the lens. Maybe my third choice should be; don't buy either one. I have the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM but was hoping to get more "speed" out of a lens and the 17-55 seemed like a good choice. Guess I need to keep in mind that any zoom (other than maybe the big bucks weather sealed <strong>L</strong> series) is going to eventually get some dust particles inside the lens - including the Tamron. Your experience in owning the 17-55 has me leaning back toward the Canon.</p>