Customer Reviews

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras

5 star:		(118)
4 star:		(38)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I received my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens today (12/28/06). It feels heavier by far than the 18-55mm kit lens, but lighter than I expected. Feels good (well-balanced) cradling the lens in the left hand near the base of the lens when mounted to my Canon Digital Rebel XT. I put the lens on the camera right away in a manner that would limit the opportunity for dust to intrude on the back of the lens or into the camera, since I've read about this lens not being sealed as well as "L" series Canon lenses. I may never take it off. 8-)

This lens focuses fast and sure--even in low light, no hunting around to lock onto a subject. Pictures taken with the camera hand-held at 1/10 to 1/15 sec shutter speeds inside with no flash were tack-sharp (Thanks to the IS). With F2.8 and IS, this lens opens up a whole new world of natural low-light photography. Not only are more inside shots possible, you also have the versatility to create gorgeous bokeh. You create these bokeh effects generally zoomed to 55mm (where the kit lens' max aperture is F5.6). Since the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 has a constant F2.8 max aperature, you don't have to worry about the depth of field increasing as you zoom. It is so confidence-inspiring to walk around and set your aperture where you want it to give you the depth of field you want, and not really worry about the shutter speed being too slow. Some of my outside dusk (low-light) shots at 1/6 sec shutter and F22 came out sharp (Thanks again to IS). I almost got vertigo when I first looked at my pics uploaded to my PC--they were so realistic. Images really pop!

The decision to go with this lens instead of some of the "L" grade lenses involved the following criteria:

1. Focal Length Range. I wanted at least the range of the 18-55mm kit lens.

2. Max Aperture. I wanted f/2.8, since f/4 is too confining for low-light situations. Also, f/4 doesn't give you the depth of field limiting ability of f/2.8. Trade-off is size and weight (and price).

3. Constant Max Aperture. I wanted a constant max aperture throughout the zoom range. I don't want to set the aperture and have the camera stop it down due to the max aperture decreasing as you zoom in (as is the case with the kit lens).

4. USM. I wanted the Ultrasonic Motor (USM) feature, since this is known to be the fastest and quietest autofocus technology.

5. IS. I wanted Image Stabilization (IS), since this effectively makes your lens faster, because you can shoot in lower light at lower shutter speeds without fear of blur (provided the subject is still). Also, zoomed-into 55mm, camera shake can be more of a problem than at shorter focal lengths. IS has got you covered there as well. This lens only has one IS mode (no mode for panning).

6. Full Format or Crop-optimized. It is true that going with a full format lens would mean that you could use it on any DSLR (35mm film, APS-C DSLR, and Full Format DSLRs such as the 5D and 1Ds Mark II). However, full format lenses are not optimized for the 1.6x crop of the Canon DSLRs Rebel through 30D. The crop-optimized lenses (designated by the "EF-S" in the model name) are tailored to the smaller image sensors of the APS-C camera bodies. The lens elements and coatings are designed to minimize the ghosting and flare that can come from reflections off of the image sensors in digital cameras. Also, the crop-optimized lenses tend to be smaller, lighter and less expensive than otherwise identical full format lenses. I considered the EF 17-40mm f/4L, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF 24-105mm f/4L. But, none of these had the focal length range I wanted, and two of them weren't fast enough (f/4), and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L was very heavy (2.1 lbs). I determined there was no need to sacrifice performance now for some possible benefit later on if I purchase a full format camera. If I ever do, I would hope there would be full format lenses that have been designed to limit chromatic aberrations and introduce other digital optimizations currently provided by the crop-optimized APS-C format-only lenses. Besides, you can always continue to use your old camera and lens as a back-up, or you can sell them to help purchase the new ones.

7. Grade ("L" series or Advanced Amature). Of course, if all else is equal, take the "L" lens with the red stripe. But, all else is not equal. I'd rather have an optically superior lens that is well-built (although not as well as an "L" series) that meets all my other criteria, and just be careful to keep the dust out. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is expensive (I paid $[...] on [...]). But, I'm sure if there were an "L" series version of this lens, it would be even more expensive.

Conclusion: This is one great lens! There's nothing else out there for 1.6x crop digital cameras that gives you the sweet spot of zoom range, low light capability, depth of field control, image stabilization, fast and quiet auto-focus, and superior image quality rivaling prime lenses. And to put the considerable weight (22.8 oz.) into perspective, it is still 3.8 oz. lighter than the very good digital-only Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, and the Nikon does not even have image stabilization (and costs more to boot). Game, set and match!

UPDATE 2/3/07: I've taken 1000+ pictures. I'm impressed with battery life given that I thought IS would use a lot of power. But, since flash is nearly never needed (due to f/2.8 and IS), battery life has seemingly been extended. I didn't realize how much I would grow to expect a stable image through the viewfinder until I looked through a viewfinder with a lens without IS and saw the image shaking. Note that cameras with built-in image sensors (such as Sony Alpha) don't stabilize the viewfinder. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM autofocus locks-on amazingly fast even in low light. No apparent optical weak spots at any focal length or aperture. Lens hood (optional) eliminated most, but not all, flares from bright sun. I think this is the best, most versatile walk-around lens you can get. I wish Canon would make an EF-S 55-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens to pair it with so I could zoom in closer on distant wildlife, etc.

Folks, I know you want it short. But I am covering quite a bit of information and condensed it so that you can get good information and are able to digest it in less than 5 min.

It is quite surprising how many people are being "tortured" with the question on which lens is the right lens when it comes to finding the perfect lens to upgrade the Canon XTi Rebel kit lens (18-55) or even for the Canon 40D (which is often sold with the 28-135 USM IS lens).
I read about 500+ reviews and many of them I found very interesting but really did not answer my question on what a good lens is for the Rebel XTi... and with good reasons because YOU have to know what you want or need and then make a call. Here were the criteria I used and I hope you can leverage from these:

1. I wanted a lens which has a great picture quality to have a true upgrade feeling from the Canon 18-55 kit lens (during day light that lens is actually very good and with its light weight is a great carry around lens - however in low light or for really nice portrait shots this lens has limitations not to mention its built quality)

2. I wanted a versatile "Walk Around" lens with good zoom range to cover most of the picture I take (landscape and portraits) in addition to my telephoto lens (70-300mm)

3. If possible a low weight lens - however image quality was a higher priority for me

4. I wanted a Canon lens (though there are very good alternatives from Tamron and Sigma - however they have some disadvantages but given the lower price worth considering)

5. I wanted an Image Stabilizer (IS) and a low noise focus motor, i.e. Canon's USM

Many people are looking for a great "Walk Around" lens to avoid changing lenses all the time yet at the same time want great picture qualities. So, your criteria may be different and therefore your choice certainly a good one may differ from mine.
As one disclaimer upfront - I am not going into the professional details, i.e. vignetting differeneces at different aperture values or zoom ranges - to make it simple for many readers in this field who just want to make a good decision to buy a great lens without going through the trouble of returning lenses.

You will find many reviews on the cropped camera lenses (EF-S) and still people often don't get it right. So, if you have a cropped camera like the Canon Rebel XTi or Canon 40D then the cropped factor is 1.6. In other words no matter what lens you put on these cameras you will get the following zoom ranges which are different from the product names for the lenses:
Canon Lens Min Zoom Max Zoom
17-85: 27.2 - 136
28-135: 44.8 - 216
17-55 f2.8: 27.2 - 88
24-105 f4.0 L: 38.4 - 168
Source: Canon's website


I went through the extra burden of testing all the lenses myself and not just rely on reviews. So, I went ahead and rented them for 1-2 days and then made up my own verdict so to speak. I also took pictures in similar conditions, looked at them on the computer and printed them out to compare the lenses:

1) The first upgrade lens from Canon which comes to mind is the EF-S 17-85 USM IS f3.5-5.6 lens. This lens would have been a great kit lens but did not meet my requirements for an upgrade lens. It has a very good zoom range and it is still light weight. But the image quality is not as sharp as I would like it to be. And if you commit to spend more money (like $500 for this lens) then you don't want to waste it by just getting a bit more zoom range and an Image Stabilizer.


2) The first lens I actually tried was the EF 24-105 f4.0 USM IS L (luxurious) lens from Canon and I was really happy about the image quality. I was very close to buy this lens but wanted to check out other lenses first. Following drawbacks for me: it is not a wide-angle lens which is useful for landscape shots or even travels shots when you can't afford walking back 5-10 feet. Plus a wide angel lens can give you a nice effect on the picture itself. Another drawback is the aperture value of f4.0 in low light. An aperture factor of f2.8 is faster in low light (the lower the value the larger the aperture - think the Iris of your eye is getting larger and therefore you can see better in low light) and with a running kid or pet at home that is a true advantage. However, with the Image Stabilizer this would not be a big issue. (For more advanced people you can stop down one step to get enough light into the lens in low light conditions but if the object is in motion that may be tricky.)
A big plus however is the option to use this lens for any non-cropped canon camera. However, I am ok with using the Rebel XTi and if I want to upgrade to another body later then the 40D would be a great way to go. So, I don't mind to buy EF-S lenses. The EF-S lenses have the advantage that they are generally lighter weight than the full frame lenses.


3) The EF 28-135 USM IS f3.5-5.6 lens has a great zoom range (44-216) but does not have a wide angle (basically anything less than 35mm). However, if zoom range is your top criteria then I'd get the 24-105 L lens without a doubt over this 28-135 lens. For example when you are in full zoom and you are not in bright daylight your pictures will not be as sharp. I tried this lens and the image quality is simply not as good as the 24-105 L lens or the 17-55 f2.8 lens. The 24-105 is also more solidly built. It is a lot of metal built with this lens and it is sealed against dust and water. However, if budget is a constrain to you then the Canon 28-135 lens is a better option for you and according to many folks out there considered to be a better choice than even the EF-S 17-85 USM IS lens.


4) The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 USM IS lens was the last lens I tested and chose over the other three lenses. First, my expectations toward a great image quality (like the 24-105 L lens) were fully met. This lens is using similar components like the L lenses (but it is not fully sealed like the 24-105 L lens is) and shoots extremely well in low light conditions. Plus for a f2.8 (main advantage is large aperture which is very useful for taking great shots in dim lights and faster than f4.0 lenses). Also this lens has less weight (640g) in comparison to the Canon 24-70 EF L f2.8 lens (950g). So, you get a great lens with an acceptable weight. Even the zoom range is fully acceptable to me on my Rebel XTi which comes to 27-88mm. I can take very good portraits shots (without hitting someone's nose with the lens if you will) and it has very nice blur as well (meaning a sharp face in the front and with a blurry background). The only drawback is a flare on some pictures at the bottom of the image when you take pictures using its built-in flash due to the larger lens diameter. However you can either put a better (external) flash light or use Photoshop to correct this issue. I am not a professional photographer and for me this is ok. If you are a professional photographer then you are most likely not as interested in this article anyways.

+++Summary+++
The bottom line is that for a true upgrade lens to your kit lens for the Rebel XTi I would recommend the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens. It is worth the investment. This type of lens along with any other L lenses from Canon will always keep its value and you can certainly sell this lens a lot easier if that is the final information you were looking for... ;)


I hope this article helps you in directing your decision on which lens to buy. If you are still not sure about what to do then I can only recommend testing the lenses of your choice in a store or ideally rent them or ask your buddies to lend you a lens for a few days.

Good luck and enjoy taking great pictures to treasure your memories!

Uwe

11-3-2008 Update:

I now have a single spec of dust inside the corner of this lens under the front element. Hope this is not a trend. I am now using this lens mainly in dust free in-door environments and my Canon 24-70 F/2.8 which is sealed for outdoor dusty areas.

I just got this fantastic low light lens last week. Will be adding more comments as time permits.

This lens has quickly become one of my most used lens. It's the lens I would choose if I could just choose one to shoot a wedding with and I'm free to approach the bride and groom during any part of the ceremony. It's also THE one lens I would choose to take on a vacation, it's that versatile. I love the part where I can walk into a dark cathedral and hand hold a shot at 1 second and it's razor sharp. What a lens!!!

Pros:

Sharp even at F/2.8
No internal dust so far
Great zoom ring location and size
Very pleasing shots with nice Bokah
Auto focus perfect! Silent quick lock even in dim conditions
Image Stabilization let's you get those shots you couldn't get otherwise.
Auto Lens Vignetting correction using peripheral Illumination control see Auto Vignetting comments below:

Cons:

Cheap plastic construction
No dust yet but I am concerned
Some Chromatic Aberration (CA) at 17mm
No included lens hood? Give me a break Canon!
Really poor zoom feel grabs between 23 and 35mm
Front of lens extends inward and outward when zooming in and out

I bought this lens to take low light portraits during weddings. My initial impression is that this lens will be perfect. I even managed to pull off a 2 second exposure that was pretty sharp hand held which I would never be able to do otherwise. I will use it at the extreme in 55mm for nice bokah and a softer shot then keep it between 20mm to 48mm for the sharper shots.

What a disappointment to pay over $1,000 for a lens and have such a poor feeling zoom. It grabs at each end and just plain feels cheap. Makes my Canon 17-40 F4 L lens zoom feel like it's perfect as it is silky smooth. But, the 17-55 F/2.8 IS does something I could not do with the 17-40. I was at a bar the other night shooting a benefit auction using just available bar light and already at 1600 ISO and the Canon 17-40 wide open just could not get the shot. With the 17-55 F/2.8 IS not only do you have the faster aperture F/2.8 but I can get shot after hand held shot at a half a second something I could not come close to with the 17-40.

All in all though except for the zoom and construction this lens really does rock when you look at the photos. Between 20mm and 40mm it is sharper then the 17-40 at any comparable F stop. So don't let my cons keep you from getting this lens. If you need low light shots in the 17-55 range this is your only option in a zoom. It's a shame that Canon does not offer an L lens that's 17-55 F/2.8 with IS. I would have gladly paid $1500 for an L lens. In the long lens range there are tons of choices from Canon that are L lens. It's true what they say Canon owns the long lens but come up a little short with the wide angles

I do my first wedding next Saturday with this lens, time will tell if it's a keeper. Will post updates in the coming weeks.

3-25-2008 Update

What a great lens, after reviewing wedding photos yesterday with my clients I have to agree the photos just pop in color and the sharpness is crazy with this lens between 20 and 50mm even wide open which is what I shot most of the time. The bokeh though not as good as my Canon 85mm F/1.2 and Canon 135mm F2 is still pleasing and unlike the two primes I can stand in one place during the wedding and zoom in and out for different points of view.

What ever you do don't even confuse this F/2.8 IS lens with the basic kit lens. It is truly except for the lack of weather sealing and poor zoom feel an L lens in photo quality!

4-8-2008 Update

Still no dust thank God! I am taking it to a local park to photograph our company party this weekend and it's very dusty there. Should be a good chance to see if the lens is going to be a dust hog or not. The zoom even seems to breaking in a little and is now just a little smoother, nothing like my L lens zooms but better then when new. Still loving this lens and in fact if I had to choose just one lens to do a wedding this would of course be it, it's the most versatile and easiest to use by far!

5-21-2008 Update

Still NOT one single spec of dust in this lens. I have been using outdoor at the park and on outdoor weddings the last 5 weekends in a row and not a single spec of dust despite being in extremely dusty Mesa Arizona. I am constantly amazed at what this lens can get away with in low light. We were shooting the reception to an outdoor wedding well after sundown and I was hanging in there with my Canon 40D and a 85mm F/1.2 L II at 3200 ISO shooting close ups. My daughter was shooting at the same time covering the wide angle photo ops with this Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS and was getting shots here and there at 1600 ISO with her Rebel of the crowd as long as people were still even up to the point of a full second exposure. This was well after it was too dark to be taking photos without flash but we were still getting photos (we hate flash too unflattering and flat) Simply AMAZING!

6-30-2008 Update

This lens still has not a spec of dust! And it has become one of my most used lens. It's the lens I would choose if I could just choose one to shoot a wedding with and I'm free to approach the bride and groom during any part of the ceremony. It's also THE one lens I would choose to take on a vacation, it's that versatile. I love the part where I can walk into a dark cathedral and hand hold a shot at 1 second and it's razor sharp. What a lens!!!

9-5-2008 Update

This is by far and away my most used lens now. It's the lens that stays on my Canon 40D 90% of the time. I just went with my wife to the Arizona Museum of Natural History and wanted to take photos inside without using flash. I love that natural look and hate the flatness of flash. I shot almost the entire museum at F/2.8 and ISO 800 sometimes ISO 400 without a monopod or tripod. That's something I could not have done with my Canon 24-70 F/2.8. As a plus the 17-55 EF-S IS F/2.8 lens is much lighter then my 24-70. If it feels like I am gushing over this lens it's because I am. And it's a dead spot in Canon's lineup. As of this writing they don't have a single wide angle L lens with Image Stabilization and that's a crying shame. Also I tried shooting some fireworks this weekend WITHOUT a tripod!! I managed up to 3 seconds exposure by leaning against a light pole and got some decent shots. Again without the IS there is no way you could get such shots. My only regret is that I didn't get this lens earlier Oh and it would be nice if it was sealed, but I still have not a single spec of dust on the inside!!

9-12-2008 Update Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS vs Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L:

I am taking photos tonight of a stage special and again will need to use both my Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS lens and my Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L lens since my daughter and I will be shooting at the same time. I can't help comparing the two again. The 17-55 feels much lighter but at the same time feels so much cheaper in the hand between the cheap plastic feel the grabbing in the center of the zoom and the plastic build. The 24-70 feels like a heavy quality jewel that will last two life times or more and it's weather sealed. Still if you have to carry the 24-70 around for a few hours you wish for the lighter weight of the 17-55. The 17-55 has a wider view but the 24-70 has more reach. The 17-55 seems sharper throughout the range but seems to have just a little less contrast and slightly cooler colors then the 24-70. The zoom on my 24-70 is now almost broken in and feels smooth as silk and totally professional the 17-55 zoom feels like a cheap plastic toy. The 17-55 has image stabilization and the 24-70 does not so I end up using a monopod for most dark shots with the 24-70. The 17-55 is an EF-S and will not fit a full frame camera, the 24-70 will. I'm thinking forward to the future when I will be adding a full frame Canon camera body to my collection and I think the 24-70 will be perfect on that camera.

9-16-2008 Update:

I've noticed this lens has some Chromatic Aberration (CA) at 17mm. When in a clean room taking photos of semi-conductor manufacturing equipment you have to zoom wide to get everything in the photo and that's when I noticed this lens especially under fluorescent lighting taking photos of highly reflect surfaces has a problem. So much so that I retook the photos with my Canon 17-40 F/4 L lens and was astounded at how much better the photos looked. Normally my 17-55 F/2.8 IS looks better then the 17-40 but in this case with macro and up close mechanical photos zoomed out to 17 the 17-40 really looked much better. When out shooting landscapes in daylight this has never been a problem with the 17-55 IS F/2.8. So take note if you take macro shots at 17mm under fluorescent lights you may want a different lens. Otherwise the 17-55 F/2.8 IS is an absolute stunner!!!

11-3-2008 Update:

I now have a single spec of dust inside the corner of this lens under the front element.

Auto Vignetting peripheral illumination control:

Canon has this super sweet Auto Lens Vignetting correction that works with this lens both in camera with JPEG's and in RAW using peripheral Illumination control in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) when using newer Canon digital EOS cameras (Canon Rebel XSi, 40D, 5D Mark II etc.) . No more vignetting when shooting wide open!!! When shooting Raw open the file(s) in DPP and click on NR/Lens Lens Aberration Correction / Tune and click on Peripheral illumination. The cameras listed above have already picked up the amount of vignetting based on focusing distance, zoom setting and F stop from the lens and the camera has saved the information with the Raw file. You can then adjust the amount under Peripheral Illumination if you don't like the amount automatically suggested. If you shot JPEG then you get the auto amount. SWEET!!!

Conclusion: In the end I will just have to keep both of them.

Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS Ultra sharp, great colors, great low light, poor zoom action
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Rebel XTi Kit lens Muddy, slow, pile of junk
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Fantastic colors, sharp zoomed 17 to 24mm, ultra smooth zoom action, light weight
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Fantastic colors and contrast, sharp zoomed 40 to 70mm, zoom a little stiff at first, heavy, repair prone!
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Good budget portrait lens, light weight, disposable, sharp from F/2.5
Canon EF 85mm F/1.2 L II The best portrait lens for female and children clients, buttery smooth Bokeh, heavy and expensive it shares sharpness with 135mm
Canon EF 135mm F/2.0 L The best portrait lens for males and tied with Canon 85mm F 1/.2 for sharpest lens I own, buttery smooth Bokeh
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L fantastic colors, sharp for a zoom, very versatile ego boosting and attention getting and heavy! My favorite zoom lens!!!
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L great IS, super colors, sharp for a zoom, extremely versatile, variable Bokeh, even more ego boosting and attention getting when extended and 400mm reach!!

My next lens purchase I'm saving for right now: _Canon EF 300mm F/2.8 IS L the finest lens ever

This is a tough review. Many of the other reviews have touched on issues that may, or may not apply, and pretty much follow the lead of the internet photo pundits in content. They are legit issues, but not that important from my current perspective.

OK, here it is... First, I'll answer the concerns about the halflife of the crop sensor camera in general. It's a non issue, as I see it. Nikon is committed to crop sensor cameras for at least a generation. Canon is in the same boat with their crop sensor cameras. Witness the latest Rebel XTi. It boosts Canon APS sensors to over 10 MP, includes new chip set, and makes the thought of a continued series of APS sensor cameras with new tech features a no brainer. Sure, Canon will be marketing full frame sensor bodies. Sure, I will buy at least one in time. Then again, my APS sized crop sensor cameras will always be the choice for certain jobs, and will keep all of my current and future "S" lenses employed for decades.

I own some L lenses, and some full frame non L lenses, but my S lenses are the key to making APS sensor bodies excell. I already own two APS bodies, and if the new Rebel XTi is an indicator, I will own more in the future. Buying S lenses is not a sideshow, nor a dead end. It is just different.

If you desire a full frame camera in your future, choose lenses wisely. Buy what you need for the APS sensor bodies, and buy the rest to suit both bodies. If you never buy a full frame sensor body, no big deal, as the APS cameras will keep you very happy for years to come.

Meanwhile, I'll buy the next gen full frame Canon DSLR because I'm addicted to camera tech, but in the meantime, I won't starve my desire to fill out my APS body lens choices, as I know they will be around for many years to come.

OK, back to the lens at hand. It's a fine lens by any standard. People who bashed it's build quality might have been led astray by internet influence, but I can't imagine any complaints coming from people who used the lens over time. It is a very well built lens, with very smooth control surfaces. It's not made of metal (the lens mount is), but it is a supurb quality lens. It is light. It is solid in construction. It is smooth. It's optical quality is nothing less than outstanding, and it is a pleasure to operate.

Did I mention that it has IS? That is what places it above anything else on the market today. The 17-55 S IS is finely tuned glass. It is built well, and competition simply doesn't exist at this point in time. Sorry, but it's true. Where is the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lens that can best the optics, focus speed, smooth controls, and IS of this lens? Hmmm... They don't exist.

This lens isn't cheap, but it is the perfect addition to an APS sensor body as a standard zoom. Did I mention that it is f/2.8 from one end to the other? You can't beat this lens with a stick. Buy it.

This lens, along with the 10-22 S USM make a powerful package for a Rebel owner, or a 10,20,30D owner. I added a 50 f/1.4 USM, a 100 f/2.8 macro lens, and the 70-200 mm IS L f/2.8 zoom to round out the package. Notice that only two lenses are "S" lenses, and the rest can be used on any Canon body. The S lenses were key though, as they let my 30D take awesome ultra wide angle shots to mild telephoto, while the full frame lenses allow it to get extreme on the far end with high quality results.

Full frame might be in your Canon future, but APS is here now, and here to stay. You can buy a few S lenses today, use them for years to come, and buy more L lenses as they are retooled to include the IS feature. Other than the S 10-22 USM, I wouldn't buy a non IS L (or near L) lens at this point in time. I suspect that they will all be gone within a few years, and replaced by a better, all IS lineup.

One last thing.. Several people have complained about dust problems with this lens. So far, I have not had any dust problems, and even though dust on the elements will not likely degrade the image, it is irritating to see. If my lens develops dust issues, I will post an update right away.

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a professional photographer by any means. I am a guy who is into photography, who has a penchant for gadgetry and who appreciates quality. This lens fulfills my desires on all three of those levels. You won't hear me talking about "creamy bokeh" or any of the other esoteric stuff that some reviewers rely on for filler material. This is a regular guy's review for other people in my same boat.

OK first of all, this thing is expensive. I paid $980 from Amazon and kicked and screamed the whole way. I had agonized over literally 1000 reviews (most of which were very favorable) before making the final decision. I had pros and semi-pros advising me, and in some cases insisting that I buy this thing. I don't know though---a thousand bucks? For a hunk of glass? I felt my gag reflex kicking in a little as I broke out into a cold sweat. Oh sure I wanted it, but did I need it? As most of you know, need is a relative thing, and I can usually rationalize myself into "needing" something with fairly little effort. Usually. A thousand bucks though? The one thing that finally pushed me over the edge was that I joined a couple photography forums and noticed that these lenses were selling on the used market for around $900--and not only that, but when one did pop up for sale, it usually only lasted about a day before it was SOLD! So, I guess I didn't really have that much to lose.

When it came (3 short days later), I could swear I heard a Heavenly choir singing and saw a little divine glow eminating as I unboxed that ravishing beauty. And there she was, the culmination of about 60 hours of research, 30 emails, 8 phone calls and me parting with almost 1000 of my very favorite hard-earned dollars. Would she be worth it? Only time would tell.

For a few minutes, all I could do was stare. It is a good looking piece of equipment and I'll tell you this too, it's pretty big. Like a soup can. And not one of those condensed soup cans either--more like a "Chunky" can. I'm talkin' BIG. Despite its size and what feels like a much more substantial build quality than most Canon L-lens disciples would have you believe, it is not unweildy or particularly problematic in the weight department. I have it slapped on the front of a Canon 50d and could easily carry it around all day long if need dictated.

Back when I was agonizing over this decision and balking about the price, I was trying to rationalize my way into another (less expensive) lens. I looked at the Canon 15-85mm, but it was MUCH slower than this one, didn't have any reviews to speak of and still cost somewhere in the $8-hundo neighborhood. I also thought I could just go with the 17-55mm kit lens and really save myself a whole bunch of money in the process. I mean afterall it's the same focal range, right? Right...sort of. I'm here to tell you right now in as plain a language as I can muster, those two lenses do not even reside on the same planet as one another! It's about like substituting a Honda Civic for a Ferrari---sure they both get you from A to B, but that's where it ends. A Ferrari does things that a Civic can only dream about and a Ferrari instills a certain pride of ownership--particularly in someone who appreciates the fine quality of the marque. A Ferrari can go 200mph, and while that is not always necessary, or even desired, it is still an option. This lens is a Ferrari.

The proof is in the pudding (or is it putting? I can never remember) and this baby delivers. On my first day of shooting I was just walking around taking pictures of anything and everything that was in front of me at the time. I wanted to see if f2.8 is really worth all the hubbub and drool from the Photophiles. Trust me, it is. I captured a shot of my dining room in almost total darkness with only the light from an outside street lamp shining through the window--and the pic turned out GREAT! I later got a picture of my kids outside at night with NO FLASH that I would have never been able to capture with one of those other lenses. I've had this lens for about a week now and in that time have shot almost 600 pictures. Exactly ONE of those pictures incorporated the flash--the rest were shot in natural light. The shot with the flash was just an experiment and probably would have looked better without it anyway. I even shot about 150 of those pictures at my children's Christmas program--again--no flash and every picture turned out perfect. Awesome!

When I saw the quality of the images I was getting with this thing set at a WIDE OPEN aperture (traditionally yielding softer images) I almost cried. I mean I've had good gear in the past, but this lens takes the cake. Speaking as a person who is not affiliated with Canon in any way , shape or form AND has absolutely nothing to gain by giving a review, I can tell you without reservation that this lens gives me joy. Joy! I paid $980 for about $100,000 worth of joy and in turn have captured memories that are priceless to me. I'd say all in all, that's a pretty good deal.

If you are reading this review, you may be in the same position I was in about 2 weeks ago. You like the lens, but aren't quite convinced yet. Do I spend? Do I wait? Do I settle? Believe me, I know a grand isn't easy to come by these days and I also know you are being more careful how you spend, but I have had very few occasions in my life in which an "investment" like this has paid me back so much in so short a time. This lens will bring you joy too, and in this day and age that is even harder to come by than mere money. Buy this lens--you can thank me later.

This is an amazing lens. I used it for 1000+ pictures on a recent trip to Egypt. It never came off my 20d. The low light performance is stellar as is the sharpness. The weight of the lens has been described as a detracting factor but I found it nicely balanced. The build quality has also been questioned by some but other than a significant problem with dust intrustion, this is built well (not like a tank mind you, but well).

Now for the negatives: this lens does suck in dust. I went to Egypt with one little teeny fleck of dust (provided by Canon...). To be fair I used it in some of the dustiest conditions I have experienced (I needed to wipe the lens barrel several times to get rid of talcum like dust in Luxor) and it came back with many.many more flecks inside.

Thus my recently purchased 17 55 looks like an aged lens that has been thru the wringer.

These flecks have not affected image quality so far but do affect customer perception (remember photography is also about "gear" ;-). I think Canon does need to address this topic aggressively, if only as a cosmetic issue. One pays Canon $1000+ for this kind of lens to get customer service after all. If I were Canon, I'd issue a recall and get this sorted out via a proper dust seal and cleaning to maintain my leading brand image.

The only other small beef I have have is also directed at Canon: they need to stop doing silly things like charging $50 for the hood and "pretending" that L series are only for full frame lenses. There are going to be tons of 1.6x cameras out there, Canon needs to wake up and admit that they need 1.6x L grade lenses. I can imagine that some MBA told them that they could maintain "price differentiation" and "value addition" by their decision to keep L targeted only at full frame but this is a very myopic strategy.

I was and still am a Canon fan. With this lens, they have come close to sweet perfection but too bad that they let a dust seal steal away a perfect 10 score :-( The dust problem is real, please be aware of that as you consider this otherwise excellent lens.

I've owned and used this lens, on a professional/working basis, for nearly three years. I must say, these reviews gave me a good chuckle.

A bit about me as a photographer.. I've owned Canon 10Ds and 20Ds, 5Ds and 1Ds. I currently shoot with a 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, and yes, I keep around a 40D because 1) They are great cameras and 2) They go places I don't want to take my other bodies. To keep that 40D doing everything I want while packing light, I need one or two lenses that "do it all."

My choice for those two lenses are the 17-55 2.8 IS and something else, usually an 85 or 135 prime.

Materials: For a plastic-bodied lens, Canon did a good job with this one. I really have no complaints, and when handling the lens, I don't personally feel as though I'm using an inferior product. By contrast, I also shoot with various L lenses including 35mm 1.4L, 85mm 1.2L, 70-200mm 2.8L, and 300mm 2.8L. The focus and zoom rings are smooth and accurate, the switches stay where you put them, the body is resistant to scratches and scuffs. For the price I am very happy with the materials used.

Construction: Again, good materials and solid construction. No rattles, no creep of the zoom when I angle the thing down while hiking or moving around (although that might be just my copy). Three years of hard use and everything fits tight and works the way it did when new. The 77mm thread size is great, I can share filters with my L lenses as needed, saves a bit of money there. Also, the front element is fixed, doesn't rotate, so you can use a circular polarizer.

Sealing: For a non-L lens, I am actually impressed by how well sealed this lens is. It might be that the 40D fit is a bit better than the Rebel or other lower-end bodies, but on the 40D the seal is excellent. I've had the rig out in heavy downpour, blowing rain, salt water, and haven't noticed any moisture creeping into the sensor box, rear lens, or lens body.

Handling: This is a comfortable lens to use, not too heavy and good size/balance overall. The plastic body makes it a bit lighter than the heavier L lenses, so it is more balanced on a plastic-body Rebel or 40/50D, or even on a 7D (which I've never used for more than a few minutes so I can't speak directly to that). I am a bigger guy, but a smaller person should have no problem hiking with this lens all day around their neck. The 2.8 aperture provides a very bright viewfinder compared to say the f/4-5.6 kit lens for wide-zoom f/4L options.

Color/Saturation/Conrast: Really superb all around. Here's a quote from Canon:

"By optimising Super Spectra lens coatings and lens element shaping, Canon's engineers have been effective in suppressing flare and ghosting ­ more prone to occur with digital cameras due to reflection off the image sensor. By increasing light absorption, coatings reduce reflections off lens element surfaces to deliver crisp, undistorted images with natural colour balance."

There's a bit of flare with this lens, I can't necessarily agree with that point (although no more than to be expected in a wider-angle lens, and easily mitigated with the lens hood or by not shooting into the sun). Being a more modern lens, and using UD (ultra low dispersion) lens elements (just like those fancy red-ring lenses), the optical quality of this lens can (in the hands of the right photographer) exceed that of legacy L-glass.

Sharpness: f/4 to f/8 is the sweetspot for most lenses, and the same is true for this one. If you're the type that spends hours peeping at ISO charts, this review isn't for you. This lens is sharp at 2.8, especially outside of a meter or so, edge to edge and corner to corner. Crop sensors have an advantage in this arena. Inside a meter, the sharpness is acceptible but not ideal. Hey, a lens can't do everything well. For landscape, at say 30mm and f/8, this lens will blow your mind, especially if you're moving up from a kit lens. If you're using a flash for events, then anywhere in the zoom range (except the extremes) at 2.8 is totally printable up to 16" on a long side, with only 8MP resolution sensor. Put your camera in Av and have fun. Again, if you're a chart person, you'll be able to find some distortion, edge blurryness, things of that nature, all totally correctible by either stopping down a bit, or a few keystrokes in post if you're that hardcore. For the average user, hobbyist, working professional, none of these things are show stoppers. You'll probably never notice.

The aperture is a circular 7-blade affair, produces high quality bokeh especially for closer subjects.

Focusing/AF: Not as fast as the 70-200 but close. If you know how to use your AF it's as fast as you need it to be for the types of subjects and scenes this lens is probably going to be used for. Being a 2.8 lens, you'll be getting the most out of your cross-type AF points, even when not at f/2.8. Tips: Manually select your AF point, and get that point over a high contrast area.

IS: At first I was skeptical of putting IS on a lens with a maximum focal length of 55mm. If you can't handhold at that distance, you need to seriously think about your photography technique and maybe take a lesson or two. That said, with the 3-stop IS I can hand-hold for 2-seconds with this thing and still get a very good image. For those not familiar with IS, IS will not stop fast moving subjects. IS is a tool to help you reduce camera shake, especially during longer exposures (slower than 1/30sec) in low light. If you're shooting action, there's almost no reason to have IS on other than to drain your batteries faster (and if you're shooting action professionally, 1) you know when to use IS and why, and 2) you aren't doing it with this lens, so I won't go into it any deeper here). This IS is useful but know how it works and don't just leave it on all the time to get the most benefit.

Vignetting: Some people see vignetting as a negative, a flaw from design or a compromise. I see it another way, as a creative tool. There are a set of conditions that have to be selected to get a lens to vignette on a particular body. If a creative photographer wants light falloff, then they set up to create that effect. If they don't, then they find another combination of settings. Being able to force vignette is a feature.

"The dust issue" This is the one that really made me laugh. Yea I have dust on the inside of my objective glass. Probably 12 or 15 specs, some of them fairly big like a grain of salt. How they got in, I have no idea. I don't use filter glass on the front to protect it, so maybe it came in the front but I doubt it. Maybe it came in between the rings, or was ground up plastic from the internal mechanisms, or maybe something else. I know one or two of them are "genuine Canon factory dust" because they were there when I unboxed the lens. Am I worried? Not in the least. I've never noticed image degradation from those specs, and probably never will. If I do, I'll send it to Canon for cleaning, as I do with my bodies every couple years. It's worth the small investment. Many photographers overstress the issue of dust or scratches or fingerprints on the objective glass, seriously, it has minimal if any impact. What's much more important is keeping the back glass clean and clear. Dust? Non-issue for me, and it should be for you too.

How could Canon improve this lens? Metal body, red ring, better sealing, probably some minor motor tweaks to make it faster/quieter, include the soft pounch and hood. How would that impact the price? Probably $500-750. Would it be worth $1500 to buy a lens that covers 17-55mm on a Rebel or a 40/50D 1.6x body? No, I don't think so. This lens is a bit of compromise, but let's remember the people it's aimed at.. serious hobbyists/amateurs, low-level professionals. Somebody who has a prosumer level SLR and is ready to spend some bucks to get a really sweet lens, but isn't going to 1) shell out $2000 for a top of the line body nor 2) use/abuse their kit the way a professional would. So Canon left out some of those really high-end features that would only bloat the price with minimal benefit. I think it's a good decision overall. The people who want better will wait for the mythical 24-70 2.8L II with 4-stop IS that might be coming out in Fall. Er, next year. Oh, maybe in 2 years.

Negatives... well, one negative is a really weak magnification factor (0.17x at 55mm). If you're looking to take macro shots, or product shots, this lens really isn't going to do it for you. If that's your thing, money is probably better spent on the 60mm macro, which is also a really good portrait lens. I really can't think of any more negatives to this lens.

Finally.. resale value of this lens has remained strong, despite what many have said. This is a great 2nd lens for the relative beginner, as well as being a great "standby" for a working professional. If all else were to fail, get lost in shipping, not be available, whatever, I grab my 40D and 17-55 to get the job done.

If so then this lens is your best choice for a quality wide angel lens on your 1.6 form factor DSLR. Otherwise consider the 17-40 L, which offers unbeatable value compared to this lens and others.

But make no mistake about it this lens offers performance at par with the best Canon wide angel lenses. The lens produces sharp images with low chromatic aberration and average distortion. The elements coating produce excellent contrast and colors. Vigentting, however, is week spot on this lens as it can be noticeable wide open, but it isn't too hard to correct. Thanks, in part, to its wide aperture focus is fast and precise. Overall, this lens is at par with other quality wide angel lenses, but it stands out with two awesome features focal length and IS.

FOCAL LENGTH: If you used the 18-55 kit lens before and then switched to some wide prime or zoom you probably never looked back except for one thing, yup its those extra few mm on the telephoto end. They do make a difference; having used the 17-40, I found the lost 15mm a little annoying to give up at times. This lens takes care of that. With the 1.6 crop this lens will offer you a field of view of 27-88 (or think of it as a 28-90), which is an excellent focal length for walking around and taking pictures.

Having a hard time visualizing what those extra 15mm can do for you? Then consider the difference between my 17-40 L and this lens. At 55mm the object of interest in an image will be almost one and a half times as big as it would be on 40mm. For example, at 40mm if a tree is 1 inch in an image it will be almost 1.5 inch at 55mm (1.375 inch to be exact).

Remember every time you double the focal length (ex: 35mm to 70mm) you double the size of the objects in your image. In the same token you are also cropping by half, so the total image area would be half of that in the wider focal length. So do you need the extra 15mm this lens offers vs. another lens like the 17-40 or the 16-35? I would say yes, but that alone would not justify paying double for this lens. The next features, however, would make the price more acceptable.

IMAGE STABILIZATION: That feature is defiantly worth a couple hundred dollars in my opinion. It makes taking sharp pictures so much easier by as much as 3 stops. If you plan to use this lens as a walk around again this feature will come in handy because you will be able to shoot in almost any situation. Plus the high aperture makes it even better in that area. That's one thing I would hope I can get from my walk around lens.

All in all those two feature plus its high IQ makes it one awesome lens that offers many great new improvements over the previous wide angel options. Then what explains the 4 star rating? Sadly Canon used cheaper materils to make this lens. The lens feels pretty solid but doesn't have the quality build of a $1000+ lens. If you have used any L lens before you will be some what disappointed. I am not asking Canon for weather sealing here all what I am saying is that for that kind of price Canon should have used less plastic and more of the high quality magnesium they use on the L lenses. Plus they should have included a hood with the lens!


UPDATE MAY 27: I cam across several reviews that compare this lens to the infamous 24-70 2.8 L. Most reviews point to the higher image quality the 17-55 produce. I don't own the 24-70, but if those initial reviews prove accurate then that would make the 17-55 2.8 one heck of an amazing lens. With that in mind crop body users can finally feel special.

It's an amazing lens. Up to now, I've been using the 28-135mm and have been very happy with it. Now I can't image when I'll use the 28-135 again as the 17-55mm is now my daily walkaround lens. You can refer to other reviews for the technical reasons that make this a superior lens (L grade glass, f2.8, IS).

What a great wedding lens! Stopped down a bit this lens is sharp! Wide open you can take advantage of the creative applications afforded by the shallow depth of field. This lens is supposed to be prone to dust issues but mine is clean after ~2000 shots.

Build quality of the 17-55 seem fine to me. The lens has a good solid feel and feels nicely balanced on my 350D.

To sum it up, I expect to get sharp beautiful photos out of this lens for many years to come. I recommend it to anyone who wants pro image quality on a crop sensor camera. Nice things cost money and this is a very nice thing!

UPDATE - DUST

Dust problem has appeared in full force. I've posted a pic to show what I mean. I will send it to Canon and I'm sure they will clean it without argument, they're a good company. It's still dissapointing at this price level. I couldn't possibly sell this lens right now if I wanted to, so I'm glad it's good enough to not want to sell. Allegedly only *some* lenses suffer from this and I got unlucky.

Ok if you're like me, you've been reading review after review on this lens. And if you're like me, you're getting sick of reviews that point out the obvious faults with this lens, over and over again.

Here's one. "This lens is an EF-S and it only works with a 1.6 crop body wah-wah-wah!" OMG! If I didn't own a Rebel, 20D, 30D, or 40D, I wouldn't even be shopping around for this! "But if you upgrade to a full frame body this lens will be obsolete." Give me a friggin break. If I was going to drop serious coin to "upgrade" to a 5D, then obviously I've got enough dough to get it. Maybe I should save a little more and plan on getting lenses with it too. It's as if they think this lens has a resale value like a Kia. Why couldn't I decide to sell it along with the 40D if I was going to "upgrade" to a 5D?

Here's another. "B-B-But it's a $1000 and it doesn't feel as nice as an L lens." Tell me what L lens you can get that as a usable zoom of 17-55, that's this fast, and has an Image Stabilizer? Well let's see here.. there's the ever so popular 17-40 f/4L but it doesn't have an IS and it only zooms to 40. Even 55 is sorta on the short side. And it's not as fast with an aperture of 4. Next! Ah. The 24-70 f/2.8L There we go. This is WAY better than the 17-55. But wait, at it's widest it's 24mm which on a crop body is actually 38mm. If you're like me, you like to take landscape and group photos. 38mm? Come on! Not gonna cut it. Also, where's the IS?

Fact is. EF-S are a new breed of lenses designed specifically for 1.6x. L's are not designed for 1.6x cameras. And L's have been out a long time so you don't see a good walk around lens with IS. Maybe someday but not now. The closest L in this range is going to be the 24-105 f/4L IS but again it's not wide enough for a 1.6. It's friggin awesome for a full frame and if I ever get a 5D I'd probably get one of these as well. But I wouldn't even consider it on a crop body.

L's are great, fantastic lenses and they have the cool red ring around it that screams, "I'm a professional" but as you can see, they're not designed for 1.6 crop yet. And what professional uses a crop body as their main camera anyways? Right now, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is as good as they come.

BTW here's another. "The 17-55 is a dust magnet. It's a freaking vacuum cleaner!" Ok.. so Canon spent their $1000 on the glass, IS and plastic. Maybe if they used magnesium and weather sealed it you'd be a happy camper. But would you be happy spending $700 more? How about just $500 more? Maybe. Maybe not because for some people like me, we can live with a lighter lens that needs to be babied a little more. How many people actually have photos with dust showing on them? I've never seen 'em. If so, maybe you should sell that lens and "upgrade".

In the past, people had to "upgrade" due to the lack of lens choices. And Canon knows this. They're not stoopid. They know that if the lens choices grow too much too fast for their "amateur" cameras, then their "professional" cameras won't sell. If you own a 30D or a 40D you know that the body is capable of making you money. Shoot.. even a Rebel XTi is pretty darn amazing. I don't expect Canon to create an L lens for the 1.6x because of their marketing strategy. If they made a fast, ultra-wide zoom w/IS in their L lens.. people will just stop buying 5D's imho. Thanx for reading. Carry on.