Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras
|  | Add to cart to see price. Why?
Price too low to showAvailability: 30 In Stock
Condition: NewSKU: 1242B002
UPC: 013803064445
Shipping: $8.76
Ships in 1-2 business days |
| Not AvailableCustomer ReviewsReviewed on 2008-07-25 
Great bang for the buck, even at this price!
I just bought my first digital SLR a few weeks ago and chose this as my "walk-around" lens. It took me only one day of shooting to get over the sticker shock: The casual test shots I took were absolutely tack-sharp, and the lens was extremely responsive with both a Canon 40D EOS and a Rebel XSi. I was drawn to this lens for its focal range, since I shoot mostly landscapes, architecture, and portraits. It serves beautifully for all three -- and still lets you get close enough to your subjects to take some macro-like shots. As you'd expect, it performs well in low-light situations, and the nice, wide aperture blurs the background beautifully in portraits. I've been pleasantly surprised at this lens' excellent depth of field, too, and by its superb responsiveness for "action" shots. The image stabilization works well, though at the smallest apertures (f/22) it may still not be enough to compensate for camera shake, depending on the shutter speed. The only complaint I have (and this is just a minor annoyance) is that the barrel sticks a bit when zooming between the 28 mm and 20 mm focal ranges. At first I thought my lens was defective, but I tried a couple of other lenses at the local shop and found the all behaved the same. It's loosened up a bit with use, so I hold out hope this'll disappear over time. All told, I'm extremely happy with my purchase and would buy this lens again in a heartbeat. |  | Reviewed on 2008-07-21 
Pricey, but I like this lens
From what I've heard, the reason this lens doesn't have the coveted "L" series rating is because it's not made to also work on the full frame sensors. I don't know if that's true or not, but I will say that I love this lens anyway. I found it to be nice and sharp, color quality is excellent and the zoom range really works for me. I'm enjoying this lens more than my 24-70L and think it will also be on the camera more. Wish I'd bought this one first because I probably wouldn't have bought the other. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm rather wary about having IS on my lenses, so that's one of my concerns with this one. It seems that people are paying for hefty IS repairs right after the warrantee expires. As a result, I'll probably keep it off almost all the time. It would have been nice to have the choice of buying the f2.8 without it. | | Reviewed on 2008-07-16
My reasons for purchasing this lens and why I like it
I'm a 40D owner, who, like many of you, had a hard time deciding between this lens and the 24-70 2.8 L lens. Reading the "reviews" didn't help me much. In fact, the "reviews" just made me unsure about which was the "right" lens to get. So, I rented both lenses to see it for myself. As I expected, the build quality of the "L" lens was noticeably better and I think many guys get their egos boosted with that red ring around the lens. Besides from the build quality, I think many of the other aspects of the lens such as contrast and sharpness, are quite subjective. I took 8 pictures of a "scene" with each lens, obviously with the same camera/lens settings. Pictures were taken from 6 different locations, at different times of the day. I then looked at the pictures on a Macbook Pro WITHOUT looking at the information on which lens they were shot with. This way, I can put aside my preconceived notions about which pictures are supposed to look better. From each scene, I selected the one I liked the best. Out of the 6 locations, I ended up selecting 3 from the 17-55mm and 3 from 24-70mm. What I learned from my approach was I was happy with the picture quality of both lenses. It all came down to the price--since I don't have a full frame sensor DSLR like the 5D, I decided to make best use of my 40D with the 17-55 lens. I do plan to upgrade my camera with a full-frame sensor camera. So, why did I buy this knowing that it wouldn't work on my upgraded camera? If I were to upgrade to a full frame sensor camera within a year, it would make sense to get the 24-70 lens. But, I plan to use the 40D for at least 4-5 years before upgrading. However, I think it makes a big difference to actually have the wide end that 24-70mm cannot provide for the 40D. For me, it was the wide-end capability that sold me the lens. If I were to get better lenses that would withstand the time better and at the same time allow me to get wide-end I needed, I would have had to spend 3 times as much getting the 16-35 (L) and 24-70 (L). Since my budget is limited, I believe I've made the right decision. AND..I am loving this lens. | | Reviewed on 2008-07-13
Fabulous lens!
Super sharp and gorgeous color and contrast....L-glass quality....so much better than the 24-105 because it's lighter and a reasonable size for a 2.8 lens. Seems very well designed for the 1.6 crop cameras. Image stabilization is icing on the cake. Love it! | | Reviewed on 2008-07-12
Don't believe the hype
Look, it's a good lens. Nice range, has IS and a fast f2.8. It's got good glass inside too, and produces great images.
However, it's built like a cheap lens. It extends easily, every time you pull it out of your bag. No hood. No little protective bag. An IS mechanism that many, not few, but many have reported lasts just past the Canon warranty.
Let me clear up some things here: I'm a big Canon fan. I've gone through 3 Canon bodies, a dozen Canon lenses and every other piece Canon sells. I own 3 Canon lenses right now (all L's) and a Tokina. So this review is from a Canon fan.
That said, $1000 for a 'consumer grade' zoom lens is just beyond reason. Debate it all you'd like. Disagree, tell me all that matters is the end product - the picture. Unless you make money from your pictures however, that doesn't hold water. When forums and photo shop folks recommend you use the IS only when needed because of how fragile it is, that's a warning. When it costs you another $50 to get a hood, that's just sad. A $1000 throw-away or repair lens is not in my budget for my hobby.
The problem with the reviews here is that once you've spent $1000 for a lens, what are you gonna do? Slam it? Not most folks.
Like I said, I admire the images. But like a Kia or Yugo will get you to the place you're going just like a Cad or MBZ, there are differences. I can't recommend this lens. | |
| |
|
|
