value of 17-55 EF-S IS?

[sam_s7]

<p>I have the following lenses:<br /> 28-135mm Canon is (was I think a kit lens I bought used)<br /> 18-250 tamron LD DiII<br /> I recently was thinking I could get far better imaging from a better <br />lens with my 50D or former Rebel Xti by using an L series lens.The <br />photo store salesperson explained that the Canon 17-55 EF-S IS, is <br />essentially the same LD glass used in their L series lenses but <br />Canon won't designate it as an L lens, a great lens, and made for <br />the APS C sensor unlike the L series lenses. So he talked me out of my <br />interest in an L lens (sensible?). I humored the salesperson by <br />taking a few shots with this lens and my own - he wanted me to take <br />those images home to evaluate and then return to buy the lens if I <br />wanted it. I instead decided to view a few reviews online in the <br />store and make a better test by taking the lens home. So I bought <br />the lens, then tried testing it more thoroughly the next day. Truly <br />my ability to do this is not scientific, nor was it conclusive. I <br />figure the lens is really no sharper than my current lenses, but the <br />constant F2.8 may be a great help in some of my indoor circumstances <br />where I would decide not to use flash purposely).<br /> <br />Apparently the Canon 17-55 EF-S lens is from about 2007. I was told <br />I could buy this "new" but a used one was a big savings (about <br />$200). "New" (unused) it is almost $900. Fact is I feel pretty <br />stupid having bought it on an impulse and sales pitch from the guy <br />at the camera store. Compared to what you have "It will blow you <br />away..." was the message. I get that the opportunities for a 2.8 <br />constant aperture lens are a big deal over what I already have <br />(excepting the focal length range as a fundamental difference).<br /> <br />After buying this used lens I noticed when viewing into the lens <br />some dust on the inside. I believe I've heard that L series lenses <br />are dust sealed. I read about the zoom mechanism quality being best <br />in Canon's L series lenses. I do not really know about the quality <br />of this lens otherwise from any really independent source. I <br />realize lenses are a complex item, number of elements, type of, etc.<br /> Now I'm thinking that I may have been better off buying something <br />else, but the store may not allow exchange of a used item.<br /> Lesson learned, I hope I will take plenty of time in the future to <br />evaluate. Meanwhile any comments about this lens and this "deal" <br />would be appreciated.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The salesman was correct: the 17-55mm is basically an L lens for all practical purposes but EF-S lenses cannot be labeled such. No lenses are dust sealed although L lenses are often water sealed. Don't worry about a few specks of dust.</p>

<p>If you got $200 off the street price that is probably about right. You only need to worry if the performance is demonstrably sub-par, in which case you may want to try and return it.</p>

[eric_altherr]

<p>That is a nice lens. Used they go for 575-675.00. I have had excellent success with used lenses, and rarely purchase new.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I expect you will see substantial improvement in clarity over both of your other lenses if your skill allows you to approach the limit of the other optics. However, unless your technique is very good, in decent lighting, you are unlikely to approach that theoretical limit.</p>

<p>As we often say (in perhaps other words), a good lens and camera does not a good photographer make. However, a better lens often makes a good photog better. How much of an improvement you will see is largely dependent upon your ability to capitalize upon that higher 'upper limit'. </p>

<p>I would have followed the salesman's advice and thought it over before purchasing it, and, given the price difference, perhaps not bought it new at all. While buying used can be hit or miss (IME - I've bought 3 lenses used that failed, or were optically not up to par with another of their units), as long as the seller offers some sort of refund policy or warranty, I wouldn't worry to much. Canon's abyssmal 1yr (compare to 6yrs on a Tamron for example) warranty is such a small fraction of a lens's usable lifetime, that, with the exception of out of the box problems, it has virtually no benefit (at least IME).</p>

[Burnsie]

<p>Sam,</p>

<p>I have a 17-55 on my 60D for a few years now. I replaced my earlier Canon 18-55 kit lens and later a 17-85 Canon. </p>

<p>I usually shoot in manual or constant aperture mode. For my handheld landscape shots (usually at f8, outdoors in sunlight with around ISO 100 light levels), the previous 2 lenses and the 17-55 were essentially the same. I kind of expected that. But indoors without flash at only slightly higher ISO levels, the 2.8 option in the new lens is a big advantage for me. Indoor church settings usually don't allow flash and a tripod is clumsy, so I was previously stuck with getting a lot of blurred or high noise shots. Teh 17-55 gives me a lot more flexibility in low light. </p>

<p>Dust really won't affect the images, but I put a UV filter on the front of the lens when i bought it new and leave it on all the time, unless I need a polarizing filter. It prevents dust from coming in when you zoom in and out. There are small openings in the front of the lens that dust comes in from air getting sucked into the lens during zoom action. The UV filter prevents that from happening.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I bought a 17-55 2.8 IS in 2007 and it has no visible dust user the front element. I used a clear B&W filter to help seal the front since I shoot on the beach a lot. If the dust bothers you, it's easy to clean: pop off the front retaining ring and you can get at the wee screws and free the front element for interior cleaning. Here's a great "how-to":<br>

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

<p>If your 17-55 isn't a couple notches better than your 28-135 USM or 18-250 tamron, you either bought a defective lens or need to test it under controlled circumstances.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>If I remember correctly the 17-55mm is NOT dust sealed. that's why it is not rated as an 'L' series lens. It is an extremely sharp lens and makes a great walk around, however many user have complained about it being a dust vacuum.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>No Canon EF-S lenses are designated as L-series lenses, and none have L-series build quality and environmental sealing, but several have optical performance comparable with L-series lenses, specifically the 17~55/2.8, 10~22, and 60/2.8.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I understand that although the criteria for an L Series Lens can be somewhat fluid in so far as technological advancements will decree that only the most advanced lens type / raw materials are allowed contention: one criterion which has remained solid since the inception of "L Series" is that: the L Series Lens MUST be able to mount to ALL cameras of that particular Series.<br /> <br /> Apropos the Canon EOS Series: no EF-S lens will mount to every EOS Camera, hence none will ever be able to awarded an "L" label, no matter what technology it has or how close to optical perfection that it is.</p>

<p>I echo the others' comments that the EF-S17 to 55/2.8 IS USM is a very, very good lens.<br>

<br /> <br /> WW</p>

 

[james_earley]

<p>I bought a used 17-55 but had to return it as the AF became very jumpy, and the images were VERY soft, no doubt due to the lens being faulty.<br>

I was put off by the Canon. I looked at other alternatives and decided to go for the Sigma 17-50 instead, also f2.8 (I wanted a fast, constant aperture lens). I'm very happy with the Sigma which performs just as well (better in some respects, worse in others) than the Canon. Overall I preferred the results, and it is usefully more compact.<br>

Probably, at f5.6/f8 you won't see any difference in practical use, but you have the benefit of f2.8 and probably some other advantages over your other lenses, i.e. less distortion I'd expect.<br>

I would stick with your lens - a good one should be very good - and get more used to using it. </p>

<p> </p>

[sam_s7]

<p>Will not buy used lenses again due to this experience. At the price I paid, I would have been better off with less questionable issues than new including; wear issues (dust, operational issues) , returnability, warranty. fact is the store claimed they have a no return policy on used equipment. They took it back reluctantly. In my estimation whether the dust was of minimal issue, it appeared the IS did not work. I have another IS lens and it's very apparent in the viewfinder when it's working. The frame locks when sensing motion. I saw nothing in the viewfinder when testing this lens. The store person held the camera and lens up to her ear and said she could hear the IS motor running "it works!". I'll stick with new from now on. Thanks for your comments but at this expense, like I said, too stressful for me.</p>