Advice on ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 IS

[Random Orbits]

However, I'm not sure if the 17-55 makes sense in your case because you already have the range covered.  From what you've written, it looks like you need faster glass for shooting indoors.

You didn't actually read what he wrote did you? I think he said the problem was that the framing was too tight with the 50mm and he couldn't back up far enough to fit everyone in the frame.  50mm is like 80mm on a 7D, so that is pretty tight. 

Caric I think you'll love the 17-55, like neuro said it's the best general purpose zoom for the 7D.  The optics are definitely "L" quality and the IS works great, go for it.

Axilrod, I did read the OP's post, which states that he owns the 24-105L (also look at his signature).  I'm assuming he chose the 50 f/1.4 over the 24-105 because he needs faster glass for indoors, but the 50mm is too long.  He covers the 17-55mm range with 3 lenses already:  10-22, 50 and 24-105.  The 17-55 would give him a one stop advantage, which does not give him much for 1k.  I'm suggesting that he looks for a faster wider prime (i.e. 35L or 24L) for shooting indoors.  What's wrong with that suggestion?

[neuroanatomist]

Before I pull the trigger on the 17-55 does anyone know when it was introduced and are there any rumors of a pending upgrade or replacement?

It was released in 2006.  No credible rumors of an update.

[Sauropod]

I own the 17-55 and the 15-85.  For my uses (and as Aglet noted) the 15-85 is what typically resides on my 7D as it is a great walkabout lens. I spend a tremendous amount of time in light-challenged museum basements and was finding the 15-85, though adequate, just wasn't giving me the results I wanted.  The 17-55's 2.8 is handy in such venues.  However, I find I end up with more unusable blurry shots because I think, "This lens is 2.8 so I can take that near darkness shot no problem!"  Shots I'd never even attempt with the 15-85 have come out on the 17-55 so I can say the 2.8 does work.  Working in museums I sometimes find I miss the extra 2mm on the wide end.  I own a 50 1.4 and find I can't use it for most shots as I can't get far enough away to compose the image. 

As for dust I live in Phoenix and have taken the lens outdoors many a time.  Maybe I am just lucky but I haven't had any dust issues yet and I've used the lens for well over a year in all manner of environs.  Though I don't recommend shooting in our August monsoons I don't hesitate taking it with me on a desert hike.

The resale value of the 17-55 seems to hold up well in my local Craigslist pages so I'll say if you can swing it buy it, use it for an extended period of time, then resell it.  It should be overall less expensive than renting.

Hope this helps!

[GMan]

I shoot a lot of indoor activities often in a grade school gym.  This includes 7-8th grade basketball, school musicals, and fund raising events that feature a live band.  Low light performance is a must.  My main body is a 60D, which is very similar to the 7D for low light performance.

For indoor events, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is an excellent compliment to the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II.  I have both and use both for all of the above scenarios.  With low light, I want my lenses to deliver sharp, corner-to-corner images at wide open and both lenses deliver.  The 70-200 is superior for sports, but both are used heavily for other events.  The long lens lets me stay in the background and isolate the subject more with the tighter perspective.  But, for closer quarters, the 17-55 can't be beat.

I considered the 24-70 2.8L, but ultimately chose the 17-55 for the IS and I'm glad I did.  If you're paying for a sharp lens, don't dull the image with camera shake.  With low light candids, shutter speeds often live between 1/60 and 1/30.  This range is generally fast enough for subject movement, but can still be affected by hand held camera movement even from the steadiest shooter.

In addition, I have found numerous times when I needed the extra-wide range between 17-24.  You can't always backup in a crowd.

There are two “quirks” with 17-55.  Some complain about dust, presumably from being sucked in through the vents near the front element.  I use a Hoya HD clear protector to avoid this – a tough filter that doesn't introduce additional glare.

The second quirk is that some copies have a “hitch” in the zoom ring between the 20-24mm range.  You will feel more resistance when the zoom ring approaches this range.  When you're playing with the lens and trying to determine whether it will bother you, the hitch feels huge.  But, when I'm using the lens, I forget all about it.  Maybe video shooters will notice it more, but I'm so focused (sorry) on getting the exposure right and on the subject that I've never noticed the zoom hitch in the field.

A nice-to-have for the crop-sensor body is the 35 2.0.  Now that I have the 17-55, my 35 isn't used quite as often, but it's nice to have when I need a faster shutter speed in low light – or want less DOF.  It's known to be soft in the corners on FF bodies, but the 60D crops this out.  I find it to be quite sharp wide open.  It's also nice when you want to lighten the load for grab shots.

From me, an ideal indoor event setup is a 60D with a 17-55 2.8 IS, and a 7D with 70-200 a 2.8L IS II.  Don't have the 7D yet, but soon.

[eskoeunmo]

its a great lens! you won't regret buying it. i'm actually selling it because i just preordered the 5diii.

[KKCFamilyman]

I have both. I use the 17-55 indoors preff w/o flash and the 15-85 when i need the extra reach or outdoors since its more versatile there and the low aperature does not matter in sunlight.

[D.Sim]

If you're planning on sticking with the crop bodies for a while, go for it.

[Marsu42]

I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation.  The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...

The 17-55 is said to have a "weak" IS motor which breaks just outside Canon warranty - I don't know if this issue is fixed with the newer 15-85 which I'd prefer. The 17-55 is more prone to lens flare, too - and this is an issue with wide angle lenses when shooting outside. And concerning construction quality: Since the 17-55 is the most expensive, it is most obvious that Canon marketing kept the plastic quality to prevent ef-s lenses entering "L-territory".

[Random Orbits]

I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation.  The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...

The 17-55 is said to have a "weak" IS motor which breaks just outside Canon warranty - I don't know if this issue is fixed with the newer 15-85 which I'd prefer. The 17-55 is more prone to lens flare, too - and this is an issue with wide angle lenses when shooting outside. And concerning construction quality: Since the 17-55 is the most expensive, it is most obvious that Canon marketing kept the plastic quality to prevent ef-s lenses entering "L-territory".

Got mine in 2008, and never had an issue with IS.  I'm also not aware that its IS motor is "weak," so that is news to me.  And I don't agree that the 15-85's build quality is significantly better.  I'm actually having more problems with a "L" lens built in 2011 than my 17-55 ever had.  Lenses that have larger apertures cost more even with the same build quality.  A lot of people think that the 17-55 is a dust magnet, but I wouldn't say that any other ef-s zoom lenses have better dust resistance.  It wasn't designed for all weather conditions and doesn't claim to be.  People who use it under inclement conditions should know that they are risking failure. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation.  The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...

Most of the posts we see about it are from those who don't own one, or those who read what someone said who also did not own one.
 
I certainly preferred my 17-55 to the five different 24-70's I owned and subsequently resold.
 
None of the EF-S lenses are that old, the 17-55 came out in May 2006, so its almost 6 years old, which is relatively new in the world of lenses.  Lenses are not like bodies, 15 or 20 year old lenses are common and still work well.

[Marsu42]

Got mine in 2008, and never had an issue with IS.  I'm also not aware that its IS motor is "weak," so that is news to me.  And I don't agree that the 15-85's build quality is significantly better

For the record: I didn't say the 15-85 build or iq is better than the 17-55, actually iq-wise it's clearly but slightly the other way around - apart from flare. But I'd get the 15-85 because its value (price/iq releation) imho is better and I don't need 2.8 on this zoom range.

Concerning the alleged weak IS motor on the 17-55: I read this at a couple of places because I was thinking about buying it, here's one example and you can of course use Google yourself: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=484061

"The 17-55 has a weak IS motor and dies after hard use. You have to use it ONLY when needed, and it should last forever. Overuse it and it'll break. I was the first on POTN to report this back in 2006. Many identical cases have popped up since then. I have found a rather consistent way to tell if it's on the way out. Half-press the shutter so IS is activated, and slowly zoom from 17 to 55. If it's starting the dying process, you'll likely see a jump in the viewfinder between 28 and 35mm. If it isn't, then you're good. It's been mostly pros who've subjected the lens to rigorous use that have failed 17-55 IS motors, so the casual shooter may not need to worry. In any case, I suggest any 17-55 user ONLY turn on IS when you actually need it. So in other words, shooting under 1/50 with NO flash and no tripod."

[Tijn]

I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation.  The 10-22, 17-55 and 15-85 have similar construction quality but it seems like the 17-55 gets panned the most...

Probably because the 17-55 has image quality good enough to be "L"-rated, and more importantly a price high enough to be "L"-rated; but it lacks the build quality. Therefore people are more likely to complain about build quality: because it's so expensive.

[neuroanatomist]

Allow me to cut to the chase...

I never understood why the 17-55 has such a bad reputation

... people are ... likely to complain about...

...almost anything.   

[ScottyP]

Thanks everyone, very good advice.  Before I pull the trigger on the 17-55 does anyone know when it was introduced and are there any rumors of a pending upgrade or replacement?

It came out in 2006.

[ScottyP]

Using a 7D I was wanting the new 24-70mm, however the price and no IS has me looking for options.  I shoot a lot indoors and enjoy fast lenses, ie. 70-200mm f2.8 II, Sigma 50mm f1.4, ef-s 10-22mm f3.5 and ef24-105 IS.

I am trying to decide if the 17-55 would work for me.  I rented this lens over Christmas and just felt I had to get in everyones face to get good head and shoulder shots.  Maybe I did not give it a chance so thus my plea for help today.  Then this weekend I did two shoots with the 50mm and I could not get far enough away to do groups (more than 4 people) and I started thinking about the 17-55 again.

My hope of getting a 5DmkIII was delayed by the intro price and to be honest my 7D is treating me very well.  So the concern of buying another ef-s lens is waning and I am now enjoying the anticipation of a new 7D.  Maybe!!!!

I have read the reviews on the 17-55 and I am aware of the dust issue, the weight is not a concern and I thought the overall sharpness on my rental copy was very good.  So any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Many thanks.

This is pretty funny.  I am in exactly the opposite position.  I own the 17-55 f2.8, but I am thinking of purchasing the 70 - 200 f2.8 II.

I love the 17-55 and my copy has no "hitch" whatsoever between 20mm and 24 mm, or anywhere else in the range.  I haven't a speck of dust in it.  It is bright and sharp and I am very happy with it.  The $1000 price was high, but now seems cheap compared to the 70-200 IS II which you already have and which I may make my next lens.