Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

[Goincarcrazy]

The EF-S lens that has had some full frame users jealous for a while. Remarkable image quality, hand-holdability down to 1/3 second, and versatile focal length have made this lens the ultimate walk around lens for crop sensor cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF-S lens that has had some full frame users jealous for a while.

Not the educated ones, who would know that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body is out-spec'd by the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS used on FF, since the FF-equivalent of 17-55mm f/2.8 is 27-88mm f/4.5 (becuase the crop factor affects aperture in terms of DoF for equivalent framing), and the 1-stop effect on shutter speed is more than compensated for bu the 1.33-stop improvement in ISO noise with the additional light gathering ability of a FF sensor). So, the 24-105 on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on crop, still has IS, and is weather-sealed with L-quality build to match.

Having said that, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is, IMO, the best general purpose zoom for a crop body (although the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is a good alternative for outdoor use where losing 1-2 stops of light is tolerable).

Here are a few of my shots with the 17-55mm:


EOS 7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM @ 17mm, 1/3 s, f/22, ISO 100


EOS 7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM @ 55mm, 1/2 s, f/13, ISO 100


Rebel T1i, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, zooming during exposure, 1/20 s, f/22, ISO 100

Thanks for looking!

 

[Macadameane]

Neuro, I curious to know what the EXIF data recorded on the zoom during exposure.

 

[87vr6]

The EF-S lens that has had some full frame users jealous for a while.

Not the educated ones, who would know that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body is out-spec'd by the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS used on FF, since the FF-equivalent of 17-55mm f/2.8 is 27-88mm f/4.5 (becuase the crop factor affects aperture in terms of DoF for equivalent framing), and the 1-stop effect on shutter speed is more than compensated for bu the 1.33-stop improvement in ISO noise with the additional light gathering ability of a FF sensor). So, the 24-105 on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on crop, still has IS, and is weather-sealed with L-quality build to match.

I think what they mean by making FF owners jealous is that the closer equivilent lens would be the 24-70 2.8 which lacks IS.. Because if they added the IS to that lens, that would be the choice for a all around lens for FF bodies.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, I curious to know what the EXIF data recorded on the zoom during exposure.

It shows 37mm. I took the shot over a year ago, and as I recall I started at 55mm; I'm not sure if I ended at 37mm, or if I zoomed out furtner and it just used a value near the middle (the midpoint of the zoom range is 36mm). I sense an experiment coming on...

 

[Macadameane]

Neuro, I curious to know what the EXIF data recorded on the zoom during exposure.

It shows 37mm. I took the shot over a year ago, and as I recall I started at 55mm; I'm not sure if I ended at 37mm, or if I zoomed out furtner and it just used a value near the middle (the midpoint of the zoom range is 36mm). I sense an experiment coming on...

Yes, I am extremely curious when that gets recorded. Perhaps at the very end of the shot.

 

[smirkypants]

I'm quite fond of this lens. Colors are so thick you can stir them like pudding. 7D + 17-55 + three strobes (2 gelled).

 

[akiskev]

55mm, f/5.6, ISO 100

Here you can find a 100% crop of the original image.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

You guys are making me jealous! I've been trying to make my EF-S 17-55 work properly for months on my 7D. It front focused very badly at the wide end of the zoom range, but was fine between 28 and 55. Sent it to Canon for repair and they fixed that but now it back focuses at the telephoto end of the range! Sending it back in today, hope they don't charge me again for repair.

Buying lenses is a total crapshoot these days. If you get a good one you should buy a lottery ticket!

Mike in Portland, OR

 

[michael6liu]

Originally bought for my friends' wedding, it is now THE walkaround lens for me. It is noticeably sharper, faster, but also heavier and expensive compare to the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens.

 

[akiskev]

Canon 400d - 17-55 @17mm, f/8
For testing purposes:

edit: full size image removed by host

Image converted from raw to jpeg with adobe camera raw, default settings.

 

[Axilrod]

The EF-S lens that has had some full frame users jealous for a while.

Not the educated ones, who would know that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body is out-spec'd by the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS used on FF, since the FF-equivalent of 17-55mm f/2.8 is 27-88mm f/4.5 (becuase the crop factor affects aperture in terms of DoF for equivalent framing), and the 1-stop effect on shutter speed is more than compensated for bu the 1.33-stop improvement in ISO noise with the additional light gathering ability of a FF sensor). So, the 24-105 on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on crop, still has IS, and is weather-sealed with L-quality build to match.

I think what they mean by making FF owners jealous is that the closer equivilent lens would be the 24-70 2.8 which lacks IS.. Because if they added the IS to that lens, that would be the choice for a all around lens for FF bodies.

I've used both, and the 17-55 on a T2i was sharper than both copies of the 24-70 I've had on a 5D. I was really shocked the first time I used that lens.

 

[akiskev]

17-55 @17mm.

f/2.8

f/5.6

f/2.8 center crop 100%

f/5.6 center crop 100%

f/2.8 edge crop 100%

f/5.6 edge crop 100%

 

[omgitssir]

f/2.8 + IS = WIN


Twilight Reflection by Sir Adam Abille, on Flickr

 

[jeffryTanudjaja]

 

[akiskev]

Some shots with my 17-55. It can't get sharper than that
Cropped and then resized down to 50%.
1st 55mm f/8
2nd 55mm f/5.6
3rd 55mm f/5.6

 

[Marsu42]

Some shots with my 17-55. It can't get sharper than that

... exif is missing - I take it these were shot at f2.8 and are 100% crop pictures? At what zoom range? Personally, I doubt the helpfulness of posting pictures for lens reviews because you can good and bad shots out of most lenses - but at least the basic information should be there.

 

[akiskev]

Exif was there before uploading. I don't know why it was erased.
55mm, ISO 100, f/5.6 50% cropped and then resized from ~1800x1200 to 900x600.
I'm not doing a review, just posting some shots I took with that particular lens

 

[Marsu42]

55mm, ISO 100, f/5.6 50% cropped and then resized from ~1800x1200 to 900x600.

... well, at these stopped down shot settings and postprocessing just about every lens would give you these results - no real need for a $1000 plastic lens - that's why I was asking :-o

 

[akiskev]

55mm, ISO 100, f/5.6 50% cropped and then resized from ~1800x1200 to 900x600.

... well, at these stopped down shot settings and postprocessing just about every lens would give you these results - no real need for a $1000 plastic lens - that's why I was asking :-o

I got it used for 450$. I'd never spend 1000$ for that lens.