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.
Upvote
0
- Status
Random Orbits said:
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".
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.Random Orbits said:
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."
Upvote
0
T
Tijn
Guest
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.Random Orbits said:
Upvote
0
carlc said:
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.
Upvote
0
Roger Cicala of lens rentals has published some stastics about lens failures. The 17-55mm EF-s was failing at high rates back in 2008 and 2009, but then failures became so low that they dropped to average. Could something have been fixed? We'll probably never know.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0
- Several lenses that have been regulars on the list previously not only dropped off, they dropped way off. The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS has been a fixture on this list for IS and electrical problems since we started but not only is it gone, its repair rate has dropped to 6%, right around our average. Similarly, the Canon 10-22 EF-S has dropped off the list and now has one of our lowest repair rates. The Nikon 24-70, which gave us a horrible time with sticking zoom barrels when it was first introduced, now is virtually trouble free. We’ve eliminated the web-page warnings on all of those lenses. (I probably should point out again that we turn our lenses over pretty frequently, and in all three cases over half of our current copies were purchased in the last 6 months.)
Upvote
0
- Status
