Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE

[pj1974]

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a lens that is (or was) suitable for some. With these combined features it is easy to see that it is attractive for many APS-C (crop sensor) DSLR photographers:
• 3 stop effective IS
• Fast, reliable USM AF
• Good image quality (sharp, decent contrast, etc).
• f/2.8 aperture (which yes, means exposure is f/2.8, but equivalent DoF different than cameras with different sensor sizes, eg LF, MF, 35mm, 1”, micro 4/3, ‘compacts’, etc)

I expect the reason the 17-55mm is no longer listed on just ONE website (Canon’s USA site) is a mistake, update omission or other issue, rather than a replacement being imminent (but hey, feel free to surprise me!) 
Now commenting on the ‘other’ aspect of this thread, ie about alternative lenses and/or features…. For me the 17-55mm f/2.8 never quite matched what I want in a general purpose lens / travel zoom.
• Greater zoom range at both wide angle and tele end
• When I want ‘fast’ I want faster than f/2.8, eg f/1.4 – f/2 on APS-C (that’s why I use primes).

The above are the reasons I bought the 15-85mm instead of the 17-55mm…. and I haven’t looked back. For other Canon photographers, the 17-55 suits their shooting style better.

The 15-85mm suits my purposes better with its greater zoom range. It also has fantastic IQ (basically a match for the 17-55) – uses 72mm filters, has great USM and a 4 stop effective IS to boot.

If there would be an EF-S Canon 15-85mm f/2.8, naturally I would love that (but it would be larger and likely more expensive to maintain the same IQ). Nearly always trade-offs…. So I don’t hold my breath, but of course I’d love a lens like that, or even better a 14-70mm f/2 USM IS with a 72mm filter size! What a lovely dream.

Canon has been making many great lenses lately: primes, zooms, L’s and non-L lenses… kudos to them. Looking forward to what the future holds… particularly (hopefully) the announcement of a new Canon 50mm prime sometime soon.

Paul 8)

 

[preppyak]

The fact that the 17-55 has come down quite a bit in price actually makes it competitive with the 3rd party options that take up the f/2.8 crop space.

I cant imagine an updated 17-55, with new IS, STM, better sealing, and better optics (as all Canon updates have) going for anything less than the original list of the 17-55. Which was $1179. Cant see the market for it over $800 with options like the Sigma 18-35, and a lens like the (full-frame) Tamron 24-70 going for around the same price.

It'd have to either extend the range (17-70, 15-55, etc) or be <f/2.8

 

[tyger11]

I cant imagine an updated 17-55, with new IS, STM, better sealing, and better optics (as all Canon updates have) going for anything less than the original list of the 17-55. Which was $1179. Cant see the market for it over $800 with options like the Sigma 18-35, and a lens like the (full-frame) Tamron 24-70 going for around the same price.

It'd have to either extend the range (17-70, 15-55, etc) or be <f/2.8

Those three lenses aren't really all that equivalent, though. The Sigma doesn't have IS, and doesn't go out as far, adn the Tamron isn't anywhere NEAR as wide as the Canon. Those things may not matter to you, but to some of us, those features are what makes the Canon such a great deal (in addition to the fine IQ, of course). Lenses appeal for different reasons.

I'd definitely like to see an updated version with 14 or 15mm on the wide end, STM, and an aperture ring.

 

[rs]

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

• For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
• For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens is f2.8, and there's no getting away from that. And it also has a focal length range of 17-55. And when shot on a crop body at ISO 5000, it is shot at ISO 5000.

While these cold hard facts are indisputable, it's only if you want to compare to different sensor formats that you have to start doing maths. If you don't, stop reading here.

While you can say it's the equivalent of a 27-88mm lens, due to the physical size of the entrance pupil (which can't alter at a given focal length and aperture setting), the equivalent aperture changes. (Take the lens set to 55mm, f2.8. The entrance pupil is 55mm/2.8, or 19.64mm. If you insist on calling 55mm 'equivalent' to 88mm, that fixed entrance pupil size means that at '88mm' the aperture ratio is 88/19.64, or 'f4.48'). Equivalent ISO can be calculated by multiplying by the sensor area ratio.

But, as I said, equivalence is only useful if you want to know how two different systems compare. If you only shoot one sensor size and/or have no interest in how your system is equivalent to anything else, it is irrelevant. As I said, f2.8 is f2.8. 55mm is 55mm. ISO 5000 is ISO 5000.

 

[Lee Jay]

The support page is still there.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/professional/lenses/ef_lenses/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm

 

[FTb-n]

Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

Looking at it like that, I guess a 2.8 on a "full frame" really isn't a 2.8 when compared to using a real 2.8 f stop lens on a medium format or large format camera.

I like this line of thought. So, I originally bought my 70-200 f2.8 II for use with my 60D. Eventually, I upgraded to a 5D3 and now my 70-200 feels like an f1.8 lens. Wow!

 

[ahsanford]

I expect a decent update for 17-55mm F2.8. It could be a STM version launch price below $800, and not sucking dust inside.

Huge opportunity to make an L lens (or for FF purists, L lens quality) in the EF-S mount. This was the crop luxury lens when it came out, and I think 7D2 users would prefer an EF-S native sized 17-55 F/2.8 USM IS II over slapping an ultrawide EF mount L zoom on and calling it a 'standard zoom' after the crop factor.

But make it STM and it's absolutely dead on arrival for me. I don't shoot video, so STM is simply a cheaper and slower way to autofocus, and moving from USM to STM would be a downgrade as a result.

- A

 

[x-vision]

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

I'd rather see Canon make an EF-S 15-60/4 IS.

I used to have the 17-55/2.8.
It's a great lens but too big and heavy. Mine had the dust issue as well.
So, I sold it and replaced it with the 17-40/4L - and now I miss the extra range and the IS.
Not the f2.8 aperture, though.

So, I say replace the 17-55/2.8 with a more compact and lightweight 15-60/4.
That would be a lens I'd buy (assuming high image quality and a price of $700-800 max).

 

[ritholtz]

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

• For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
• For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens is f2.8, and there's no getting away from that. And it also has a focal length range of 17-55. And when shot on a crop body at ISO 5000, it is shot at ISO 5000.

While these cold hard facts are indisputable, it's only if you want to compare to different sensor formats that you have to start doing maths. If you don't, stop reading here.

While you can say it's the equivalent of a 27-88mm lens, due to the physical size of the entrance pupil (which can't alter at a given focal length and aperture setting), the equivalent aperture changes. (Take the lens set to 55mm, f2.8. The entrance pupil is 55mm/2.8, or 19.64mm. If you insist on calling 55mm 'equivalent' to 88mm, that fixed entrance pupil size means that at '88mm' the aperture ratio is 88/19.64, or 'f4.48'). Equivalent ISO can be calculated by multiplying by the sensor area ratio.

But, as I said, equivalence is only useful if you want to know how two different systems compare. If you only shoot one sensor size and/or have no interest in how your system is equivalent to anything else, it is irrelevant. As I said, f2.8 is f2.8. 55mm is 55mm. ISO 5000 is ISO 5000.

Thanks for great info. DPReview is the source where I came across this equivalence thing. They mention it in every crop camera review. As soon as I realized this equivalence comes at the expense of either slower ss or higher ISO, It felt something wrong to me. I stopped thinking about upgrading to FF.

 

[Dfunk99]

Held one in my hand one day for about 10 minutes - zoom stunk & the lens was waay too heavy! I'll take my 17-40L over this clunky lens Any day!!

 

[Bullwye]

afaik this is the only EF-S zoom lens with fixed aperture. So I do not think Canon will just drop it. btw, german product page is still alive

 

[Joey]

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

• For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
• For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens is f2.8, and there's no getting away from that. And it also has a focal length range of 17-55. And when shot on a crop body at ISO 5000, it is shot at ISO 5000.

While these cold hard facts are indisputable, it's only if you want to compare to different sensor formats that you have to start doing maths. If you don't, stop reading here.

While you can say it's the equivalent of a 27-88mm lens, due to the physical size of the entrance pupil (which can't alter at a given focal length and aperture setting), the equivalent aperture changes. (Take the lens set to 55mm, f2.8. The entrance pupil is 55mm/2.8, or 19.64mm. If you insist on calling 55mm 'equivalent' to 88mm, that fixed entrance pupil size means that at '88mm' the aperture ratio is 88/19.64, or 'f4.48'). Equivalent ISO can be calculated by multiplying by the sensor area ratio.

But, as I said, equivalence is only useful if you want to know how two different systems compare. If you only shoot one sensor size and/or have no interest in how your system is equivalent to anything else, it is irrelevant. As I said, f2.8 is f2.8. 55mm is 55mm. ISO 5000 is ISO 5000.

Thanks for great info. DPReview is the source where I came across this equivalence thing. They mention it in every crop camera review. As soon as I realized this equivalence comes at the expense of either slower ss or higher ISO, It felt something wrong to me. I stopped thinking about upgrading to FF.

If you use a crop camera, then you change to full frame, you WON'T have to use slower shutter speed or higher ISO. That's the whole point of the discussion above. An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens irrespective of the sensor size. The exposure doesn't change. Only the field of view and depth of field that the lens provides vary when you change sensor size.

 

[AvTvM]

EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was the main reason I stayed with Canon and did not switch to Nikon when the D300 came along, while the 7D was not around yet. Back then and still today Nikon only has one constant aperture f/2.8 DX zoom ... back the clunky, heavy mediocre optical performance, 17-55/2.8 without VR in it, at a ridiculously high price. Nikon never updated it and the rest of their DX lens lineup is second rate to Canon.

I started out with a 350D plus crappy 18-55 (first version!), next got the EF 28-135 (poor), then Tamron 28-75/2.8 (optically good, but not wide enough), then Tamron 17-50/2.8 (very good, but no IS and zoomring turned the wrong direction, which i hate), then finally the 17-55 came. Expensive then, but wirth every cent to me. Excellent IQ, good IS, extremely fast Ring USM AF drive ... except for weathersealing a real "hidden L" lens. It was the most used lens on my 40D and on my 7D for 6 years. It helped me capturing countless family events, weddings, children at home, at play, at various sports, outdoors, indoors, in poor light, without and with strobes - did i mention how much i like fixed aperture f/2.8 zooms? Street shots, concerts, cities, travel, urbex expeditions, men at work on wintery airports de-icing planes? That EF-S 17-55 did it all and did it well, without fail. It delivered crisp, sharp images, faithful color, hardly any CA, and little, easy to correct distortions. My copy collected very little dust (pun) inside and out. I really loved that lens and was rather sad having to sell it recently for as little as € 420.

It is by far the best and most useful EF-S lens. Along with the excellent and underrated 60/2.8 Macro (unless one wants to capture moving critters and needs more working distance) and the EF-S 10-22 (which I had only wished to be constant f/4).

I do not believe Canon will drop the 17-55. could the further improve it? Sure! A 16-80/2.8 with further improved optics and a latest generation 4+ stop IS would be fantastic. I don't think it will ever come though. APS-C DSLRs are on their last leg now and will be replaced by Mirrorless bodies and native new EF-M lenses.

Looking forward to seeing a stellar EF-M 16-80/2.8 IS STM - with mirrorless hybrid AF systems STM is the best suited AF drive - and an equally good Canon EOS M1 "Pro" camera.

Until then i'll continue with the "lowly and dark but nicely sharp" EF-M 15-55 IS STM in the EOS M. And the 24-70 II on my 5D3. But ... both combinations are not as versatile as that mighty EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was.

 

[Lee Jay]

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

• For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
• For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight?

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens is f2.8, and there's no getting away from that. And it also has a focal length range of 17-55. And when shot on a crop body at ISO 5000, it is shot at ISO 5000.

While these cold hard facts are indisputable, it's only if you want to compare to different sensor formats that you have to start doing maths. If you don't, stop reading here.

While you can say it's the equivalent of a 27-88mm lens, due to the physical size of the entrance pupil (which can't alter at a given focal length and aperture setting), the equivalent aperture changes. (Take the lens set to 55mm, f2.8. The entrance pupil is 55mm/2.8, or 19.64mm. If you insist on calling 55mm 'equivalent' to 88mm, that fixed entrance pupil size means that at '88mm' the aperture ratio is 88/19.64, or 'f4.48'). Equivalent ISO can be calculated by multiplying by the sensor area ratio.

But, as I said, equivalence is only useful if you want to know how two different systems compare. If you only shoot one sensor size and/or have no interest in how your system is equivalent to anything else, it is irrelevant. As I said, f2.8 is f2.8. 55mm is 55mm. ISO 5000 is ISO 5000.

Thanks for great info. DPReview is the source where I came across this equivalence thing. They mention it in every crop camera review. As soon as I realized this equivalence comes at the expense of either slower ss or higher ISO, It felt something wrong to me. I stopped thinking about upgrading to FF.

If you use a crop camera, then you change to full frame, you WON'T have to use slower shutter speed or higher ISO. That's the whole point of the discussion above. An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens irrespective of the sensor size. The exposure doesn't change. Only the field of view and depth of field that the lens provides vary when you change sensor size.

And image noise. So, DOF and noise change just like changing fstop and ISO on full frame. That's why the discussion above from rs is absolutely correct.

 

[photonius]

Has anybody seen that the 17-55 is completely gone from the product page from canon usa? I noticed yesterday that the price was missing and if you clicked on it that you got redirected to the home page. Now it's completely missing from their product page.

Well, as we know, CANON USA has its own idea what to sell and what not (see EOS-M).
Presumably they want to keep flogging the EF 28-135 on crop instead of the 17-55, maybe more profitable... ;D

 

[FTb-n]

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

I'd rather see Canon make an EF-S 15-60/4 IS.

I used to have the 17-55/2.8.
It's a great lens but too big and heavy. Mine had the dust issue as well.
So, I sold it and replaced it with the 17-40/4L - and now I miss the extra range and the IS.
Not the f2.8 aperture, though.

So, I say replace the 17-55/2.8 with a more compact and lightweight 15-60/4.
That would be a lens I'd buy (assuming high image quality and a price of $700-800 max).

I must disagree.

The 17-55 f2.8 is to crop bodies what the 24-70 f2.8 is to full frame. With the introduction of the 7D2, Canon has made it clear that it is committed to the crop body market. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a great lens on full frame and on crop. Canon needs a companion short lens. The 17-55 f2.8 should be replaced with a Mark II version to upgrade the USM, the IS system, and to improve the build quality.

The fixed f2.8 is critical to the success of this lens. It may not be for everyone, but for low light events with crop bodies, it's a must. Plus, bodies like the 7D and the 7D2 can leverage f2.8 lenses for quicker AF. In my experience, the 17-55 f2.8 on the original 7D focuses much quicker than the 24-105 f4 (even when on the 5D3). I think the f2.8 speed of this lens is a reason for the improved AF response.

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

 

[ahsanford]

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

Agree. Crop shooters are stuck with a 16-35 f/2.8L II or third party zooms to get an f/2.8 lens wide enough to be considered a 'standard' zoom.

I'll go a step further. The 7D2 is not a toy. Many of its owners see crop as a strength and not a weakness for what they shoot (i.e. stuff that is further away) and have cabinets full of high-end glass. Yet for closer FLs, they are stuck with UWA L zooms as their best standard zoom option.

How about one -- just one -- great L lens for crop?

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs. How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM? Make it awesome. Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it. Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would gladly get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A

 

[FTb-n]

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

Agree. Crop shooters are stuck with a 16-35 f/2.8L II or third party zooms to get an f/2.8 lens wide enough to be considered a 'standard' zoom.

I'll go a step further. The 7D2 is not a toy. Many of its owners see crop as a strength and not a weakness for what they shoot (i.e. stuff that is further away) and have cabinets full of high-end glass. Yet for closer FLs, they are stuck with UWA L zooms as their best standard zoom option.

How about one -- just one -- great L lens for crop?

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs. How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM? Make it awesome. Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it. Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would gladly get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A

+1
A 15-55 f2.8L IS would be great. They could also go longer, but with the 70-200, it isn't necessary. The gap between 55 and 70 is nothing. Going shorter, however, would great and would truly make these two lenses the Dynamic Duo for crop.

 

[LonelyBoy]

How about one -- just one -- great L lens for crop?

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs. How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM? Make it awesome. Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it. Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would gladly get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A

To Canon, "L" specifically requires that it works with FF. There will never be an EF-S lens tagged "L". It can be just as good optically, but it will not get the red ring.

 

[rs]

To Canon, "L" specifically requires that it works with FF. There will never be an EF-S lens tagged "L". It can be just as good optically, but it will not get the red ring.

There's one exception I know of - the PowerShot Pro1