Canon EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS -- good or bad?

[Gene Moore]

I recently upgraded two of my Canon lenses to higher end models, one was the EF 70-200 F4.0 IS and the other, the EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS. The longer 200mm zoom was all I expected it to be, sharp and able to produce deep colors. As it should be for $1000, right. The shorter wide angle to mid-tele lens turned out to be a huge disappointment!

Here is an example shot against my EF 50mm F1.8:
http://chaseday.com/lenstestEFS17-55.htm

There seemed no way to get this lens to focus correctly and when I did compensate for the front focus issues it was still marginal at best. That is, acceptable sharpness in the center, very poor about 25 percent from the edges. In disbelief I kept trying all kinds of test images, finally giving up and sending the lens back to B&H. NOW here is the kicker....during the RMA phone call I told the B&H rep specifically what was wrong with the lens. When I finally got my paperwork back (it's a slow process) the documentation stated the product was returned because: "the customer had changed his mind." That leads me to wonder who will get this lens next!!!

So, anyone else in the forum have this lens, is it good? I read how sharp it is, but not mine. Did I just get a bad copy, or is this $1000 piece of glass way overrated. See this flicker article:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_17-55mm/discuss/72157606295313903/

Maybe I should try to rent one before buying. All my other Canon lenses work fine, even my once owned kit lens was better that the 17-55.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Gene: On my todo list is a massive wide angle zoom test with my lenses and a few from my friends. This will include:

Canon 17-40 f/4 L
Canon 18-55m f/3.5-5.6 IS (the new kit lens)
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

I'll probably test all @ 17mm for comparison purposes. Stay tuned!

 

[Darren Addy]

It is quite possible that you just got a bad copy (did you consider just asking for another copy?)

It sounds like optically, people are pretty happy with this lens. The main negatives that I've read are that there is a LOT of distortion at the wide end (correctable in PS if you want to mess with it) and that Canon may have pushed the focal length at the wide end beyond the lenses real capabilities. People REALLY seem to complain about the build quality of this lens and say it (in particular) has a problem with dust. NOT what you want to hear when you've dropped a grand on a lens.

Overall, it sounds like you did not get a typical copy of the lens.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=2

 

[Matt Bullock]

I agree that you may have a defective lens. If you want image quality to match your 70-200f4 lens and don't really need the extra stop and IS, consider the 17-40 f4L. It's an excellent lens and a little over half what the 2.8 costs. Images from it are impressive at least. As far as comparing lenses. You can really only do that fairly when shooting with a remote or timed shutter and a tripod. Too many things in the mix when shooting handheld. I'll be interested to hear how it works out. Matt
And btw, here's an excellent link for photo gear shoppers that allows you to search images by manufacturer, specific camera body model or specific lens model. http://www.pbase.com/cameras

 

[Gene Moore]

It is quite possible that you just got a bad copy (did you consider just asking for another copy?)

Sure, but I think I'll wait a bit. Would not want another one just like this one. Also there has been much discussion about quality since Japan shifted to China for its lens assembly. Especially Sigma appears to have bad quality problems while some lenses are great.

People REALLY seem to complain about the build quality of this lens and say it (in particular) has a problem with dust. NOT what you want to hear when you've dropped a grand on a lens.

The build quality was one thing that surprised me....it was almost exactly the same as my EF 10-22 Canon wide angle which is pretty good. The days of heavy brass and steel lenses is pretty much gone. Tokina is one of the few that still make boat anchor lenses.

I belong to the Canon Digital Photography forum (although I seldom post). I noticed looking through the 100 or so pages on both the EF 17-55 and the EF 24-70 that the 24-70 images were much sharper and better overall quality. Of course that's an "L" lens and it does appear to make a difference.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Pardon my asking Mr. Moore, but did you get satisfaction over the lens issue yet?
Did you buy it from a reputable retailer?

I would think that the dealer that sold you the lens would be falling all over themselves to maintain another happy customer - that pays high profits within the lens market - in order to maintaini the possibillity of another future purchase from you. They can afford to keep you happy - all they need to do is make the Canon factory Rep take it back and give them another unit. Good business to be in - actually.

I am still considering getting the same lens you have - or getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 from Adorama. I starting to lean more twards the 24-70 right about now - I already have a 10-22mm covering the Ultra wide angle range.

If Canon don't make you happy with your lens, you can always honestly tell them that Nikon's are starting to look better all of the time! They are a very competative lot!

 

[Greg Campbell]

For a thousand bucks, the very notion of a "bad copy" just seems wrong.

If Canon's production tolerances and QC efforts are so sloppy that sub-standard lenses are making it out the door, what are the chances of another random sample being any better?

 

[Dick McGowan]

If Canon don't make you happy with your lens, you can always honestly tell them that Nikon's are starting to look better all of the time! They are a very competative lot!

I don't know how many times someone used to say that to me a day when I worked at THD... and it made me happy to think that our competitor would have to deal with them and not me! I would be wishing they had said that in the beginning of the heated conversation, so I could have assisted them in getting there. I don't care where their money goes, and the guy on the other end of the Canon line doesn't either. And buying it from a reputable dealer seems irrelevant since it comes new in the box. And I think Gene probably bought it from BH or someone he's been buying through for years. There are good and bad copies of all sorts of lenses, unfortunately, for even the "L" series lenses.

Gene et al,

When you purchase any Canon products, such as lenses or bodies, never fill out the warranty information unless (or until) something goes wrong. My XT was out of warranty and the Canon guy told me they have no idea of knowing when you bought it, just when it was manufactured. I sent my XT in well over the 1 year warranty it was covered under. I would send it back and hope they calibrate it correctly.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I think Canon's record is better then a lot of other manufacturers. How many times have I read about whacked-out Sigmas? 1 out of 3 are good - on average. Some people have been fortunate enough in getting good copies though. I won't take a chance on them ('Sigma'). Tamron is a bit iffy - too. Nah - I'll take my chances with Canon and a good retailer - that is as safe as it gets.

I bought my 10-22mm from Rockbrook Camera in Omaha, and they gave me written backing.
I bought my 50mm f/1.4 refurb from Adorama, and they told me over the phone that if there was any problem I could call to the same guy who sold me the lens and he would see to my satisfaction - & written backing. I'll probably buy my 24-70mm f/2.8L from them as well - probably by the end of the month.

Greg is right - too. It surely would be a crime to buy a bunk $1000 lens -Adorama (or B&H, etc..) couldn't maintain a good reputation for very long if they did that with any of their customers. It cost only a bit more to go with a good dealer, but in the long run you get a solid product and the reputation of the seller. Good lenses don't lose much value - I bet I can sell my 50mm for as much as I paid for it at this point. I'd seen the same lens on eBay for more and it was used, and there were a flock of people lined up to buy it.

There are disreputable shops though. I had a nasty run-in with 'PhotoDynasty'. They are a bait-and-switch operation that uses a number of phoney "Doing Business As..' internet camera shop names. BEWARE! Why, I had to call up my credit card company and cancel my credit card just to keep that crook from accessing my funds. It ain't pretty. The old saying is true - if a deal is too good to be true - then it isn't good and it isn't true.

I hope no one minds me tellig the truth about internet camera scams. Look up PhotoDynasty and read about their bad rep. That is the TRUTH.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Greg is right - too. It surely would be a crime to buy a bunk $1000 lens -Adorama (or B&H, etc..) couldn't maintain a good reputation for very long if they did that with any of their customers.

It's not the retailers job to open products and test them, is it? It's Canon's rep, not the retailers. It happens all the time.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

''..It's not the retailers job to open products and test them, is it? It's Canon's rep, not the retailers. It happens all the time.." -Mike Hollingshead

Absolutely.
They don't have to do a thing about it - either. But, unless they want to keep their precious reputation and customer base, they will.

BTW - Didn't you like the Wx/situation in SD and MN today?

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

''..It's not the retailers job to open products and test them, is it? It's Canon's rep, not the retailers. It happens all the time.." -Mike Hollingshead

Absolutely.
They don't have to do a thing about it - either. But, unless they want to keep their precious reputation and customer base, they will.

BTW - Didn't you like the Wx/situation in SD and MN today?

The stormless one? lol No I didn't. Didn't have much going for it. Typical cold front.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Just didn't get enough elements lining up - saw it on SREF

 

[Gene Moore]

For a thousand bucks, the very notion of a "bad copy" just seems wrong.

Hear hear....this post sums up just how I felt.....LOL.

It just may be possible, even with CAD aided design, that lens/camera combinations have become too complicated. Look at the element design for a wide-angle to tele zoom, then add macro focus and auto focus to the mix. On top of that the camera's alignment must be bang-on with the lens or the whole thing won't work right. Reference all the front or back focus threads in photography chat rooms.

Yep, I'll probably try another one in due time, or an EF 24-70 F 2.8. Got to fill that gap from 22mm to my 50mm with something that's faster than F 4.0.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

At least you do indeed get a tank for the thousand bucks. And if your copy is bad, it's not like you are stuck with it.

I had a Canon 100-400mm L I sent back after I got it. I sent it back and exchanged it for another copy. I'm not sure if it was bad, after I've now had the second copy for a while. It's just the damn focus is extremely tight and finicky. Pin sharp auto-focus just seems impossible, as tough as it is to simply manual it to the perfect sharpness. I just wouldn't be surprised if I wrongly sent it back as a bad copy. But anyway, I figured better safe than sorry, and only had so much time. Then again I think about it more, and I really tested the crap out of the first one and was finding it impossible to get sharp images with. The second copy is fine, but still so damn touchy on manual focusing to the perfect spot.

But anyway, the $1400 that thing cost, I feel was worth it. I gave it the hardest durability test one could while just using it(ie not borrowing a steam roller to test it out with). While running on a dusting of snow, covering solid ice over dirt(frozen ground), I fell on mine. It was extended and sticking out below my jacket, as my camera hung from my neck. I had one hand holding a tripod, the other tucked up the sleeve frozen. I fell forward, so the lens sticking out leaned and kept pointing straight at the ground. It hit first, then I slammed onto it all....straight down. Hit so hard it was about impossible to get the filter holder ring to unscrew, the threads had all pinched together. I still shake my head that can happen to a lens, with all those elements inside AND image stabilization....and everything come out perfectly fine. The thing works like it did the day I got it. Anything less than that build durability and I'd been buying a new lens. Thank god the cokin p filter holder and 3 ND filters were attached though. I doubt the end glass would have been ok. Probably would have been like the filters were...broken and largely missing. Hell it's amazing it didn't break while trying to get the filter ring to unscrew, as big of a task that ended up being. The fall was about like being tackled in football, lol. I was literally running when I slipped. Then bam onto the cam and lens.