Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM : Specifications and Opinions

pubblicata da Pauloneves555 August 31, 2012

Pros: sharpness, speed, detail, f: 2.8, lightness

Cons: only serves to cameras with aps-c sensor, could be firmer in the front segment (fluctuates a bit when in 55mm)

Opinion: this is my lens of choice for travel photos, portraits, nocturnal, architecture, for any service. Mounted on my Canon EOS 50D produces a set of very high quality and performance. The only thing it lacks to be an L series lens is the red stripe, but also did not make sense to Canon to produce an EF-s series lens as a L series. In all the features it provides the lens-end to users of sensor APS-C.

pubblicata da Maxphotoparker February 20, 2014

Pros: All!

Cons: I do not think he has

Opinion: I have used and enjoyed, this lens for over a year. In my opinion he deserves the L without a shadow of a doubt. They make me smile "counter" that many have listed: RN1) will not fit ff (that 's why it's called EF-S!!) RN2) stretches during zooming (even the 24-105 and 24 -70 do and are and have been the delight of thousands of photographers nonostant what!) RN3) plasticky construction (are we really sure that ALL L are metal?) RN4) and not 'weather sealed (even many L "white "I am everywhere and yet we are working without problems) RN5) Price (tell me if you Canon or Nikon at home is something Aperture 2.8 and stabilized with a range of focal lengths similar at a better price) rnParlando serious things (and not discussing the sex of angels) in my opinion, and 'a great goal! focal range that allows you to do a lot of things. A very bright aperture, sharpness already at 2.8 that few have and a stabilizer that does its job well. What can you ask for more in a perspective??? RnIo recommend it to all owners of machines aps-c looking for a proproduct quality to use for sempre.rnLo I sold the 17-40 f4 L USM (very good lens) and gave me the most satisfaction of 17-55 ONLY when I needed a focal length of 17 FF. For ALL other applications (street, prtraits, reportage and travel) I regret to have that wonderful vebduto 17-55 IS USM!

pubblicata da Diego.armando.parafango January 07, 2014

Pros: sharpness, brightness, stabilizer, versatility

Cons: weight, price, building, distortion at the edges, flare

Opinion: I use it for about a year with great satisfaction, 95% perfect clean images and razor sharp images, excellent brightness and is also an all-rounder that lends itself to many uses from landscape to portrait, the street and another, and the 2.8 "is help shots in low light even freehand, good seal on the market of "usato.rnPer known as rigurda the mourners are the price in relation to construction (plasticky) is very high, the weight that is remarkable, that the flare is exaggerated I really suffer a lot, and in my case I find excessive distortion at the edges. rnrnNel whole I am satisfied of the "purchase, unfortunately if one day you decide to switch to FF you are forced to sell

pubblicata da Guidoz November 20, 2013

Pros: Sharpness, brightness, stability, versatility.

Cons: Sucks a lot of dust, which may at this point does not affect the quality diell'immagine. Hood not included.

Opinion: I've used it with satisfaction for almost 4 years before moving to FF and on occasions not regret it. I think it's definitely the best all-rounder that you could want on APS-C. The building is not the best and it shows especially in the effect vacuum cleaner. In terms of image quality, perhaps the greatest limitation is the flare, which however is not excessive for a handyman. In summary: a lens next to the excellence that loses some point only for APS-C designed, and then built "on the cheap" compared to the L series that from the standpoint of purely optical in my opinion it deserves.

pubblicata da G.luca July 23, 2013

Pros: Maintaining focus and always very well impressed, very good all do. Great for weddings.

Cons: The price, in support supplied anything ... Not compatible with bodies ff

Opinion: I was looking for a handyman and although a bit expensive I decided to purchase. It will not be the L series, but considering the results it gives me I am very happy. Always leaves me pleasantly surprised every time about the shots, really the top for an APSC, who knows if it was built as a series L. .. Thanks to its bright lenses, helps me so much work. It has a softness and optimum sharpness. Unfortunately, Canon has chosen not to make it suitable to bodies acting, but we know how these things work in the business world ...

pubblicata da Axel82 May 03, 2013

Pros: IS, 2.8.

Cons: Weight, Price, Unusable on FF.

Opinion: I bought this lens before the transition to the 1D-X ... the lens is decent although the "cons" are perhaps more of the merits. The construction is very bad, the hood is not supplied, and when you mount it on (after you bought it, of course!) DO NOT allow you to use the built-in flash ... . The flare is excessive. Good sharpness and quality of the files even if, compared to the brethren L, there is no comparison! The stabilizer does its job extremely well and aperture 2.8 helps in low light, good bokeh! All in all a good lens, but for those who switch to FF there is only one way: to sell!

pubblicata da Fotoreal April 21, 2013

Pros: Guys this is fantastic ... Af fast, bright, shooting 1/8 freehand, crystal clear. It 's perfect for indoor shots in low light, always wear shooting at home. Highly recommended!

Cons: Little resistance to flare, it costs so much.

Opinion: What can I say? Fantastic! I would not change ever with no other goal. I'll be forced when I have to go to FF. I use it a lot in indoor or photographs street at night. Eye to flare, it's really not very resistant. For the rest, only advantages!! Also great in castles and museums. A TA is already crystal clear. I tried for a whole day on 24 70 f 2.8 a friend of mine ... I am not exaggerating but the difference is very noticeable.

pubblicata da Sabrymanu February 14, 2013

Pros: stabilizer, f2, 8, range of focal lengths

Cons: price based on the construction, lens hood is not supplied

Opinion: I got this lens about a year ago with the 7D and is almost always mounted, thanks to its range of focal lengths in my almost ideal of aps-c, and thanks to the constant brightness of f2, 8, I think of cameras such as the 7D is an almost must.rnPer against the build quality is not up to the price, more than 800 € are a bit too much, considering the fact that you will have to spend more money for the hood and politics Canon have never understood except L.rnIn the series overall very happy purchase. rnManu

pubblicata da Andrea.1.9.8.8 February 13, 2013

Pros: Sharpness, brightness, image stabilization, auto focus, full time manual focus, construction, rings

Cons: Colors a bit cold, aesthetics, extension zooming, lens hood and case not included

Opinion: Great zoom for aps-c, very bright and with excellent stabilizer allows you to extend considerably the shutter. The autofocus is comparable in all respects to that of optics L series, as well as the construction and the fluidity of the ferrules of zoom and focus fuoco.rnLa sharpness is already very good at all apertura.rnrnSebbene is a perspective from many appreciated, I would criticize it in some respects rnnon I like the extension of the front during the zoom and I do not appreciate the lack of hood and custodia.rnInoltre photos taken with this view I have always left a feeling of "coldness" image. rnNon know if it depends on optics or camera body, but I also have 5DMKII and 24-105 L, and coupled with this I find that the photos are more "hot" and pleasant ... but maybe that's just my impression ... rnrn

pubblicata da Stecca December 24, 2012

Pros: Image quality (very realistic), stabilizer, coercion, use manual focus accuracy.

Cons: Price, missing hood, missing custody weight.

Opinion: On average, good, excellent sharpness immagini. Without the lens hood you create reflections on the lens, then obligation to acquisto. L 'goal is a lot of weight but at the same time quite a sense of solidity and precision also use the focus ring Focus manuale. Secondo me the best results and gives them to f4 lens with a 25 to 35. Da advice though perhaps not worth the price ...

pubblicata da Bzanna3 December 03, 2012

Pros: Sharpness, stabilizer, auto focus, aperture, versatility

Cons: Price, plasticky construction, dust barrel.

Opinion: I've had it a short time, less than a month. Bought it used, the price is already too high also used, let alone from new. After trying on my camera body (600D) the 24-70 f2.8 Sigma, which gave me problems with AF in low light, as soon as I mounted this I noticed the difference in performance from Sigma. This lens behaves in every way like bianchino stabilized 70-200 f4, produces files worthy of the same clarity and quality of bianchino. I must say that the stabilizer is great, I was able to make a shot at 1/4 sec. without noticeable blur. rnLo to use photos of my travels, in indoor, outdoor, night, street ... is very versatile, a perfect all-rounder! rnAl the time of purchase I returned the 18-135 f3.5/5.6, which gave me some satisfaction, however, but do not regret it, not even its range of focal lengths wider! rnIl 17 - 55 is really a versatile lens, handyman and very, very sharp. It is hard to remove it from the car!

pubblicata da Alcarin September 13, 2012

Pros: handyman high quality, excellent reportage night

Cons: resistance to flare, construction, weight, distortion at 17, relatively limited focal range

Opinion: (1) Construction: low quality, all plastic like many other ef-s objectives. Also suffers from zoom creeping and there is a tendency to suck up dust, even if in my example is not as strong as I've heard elsewhere: it is dusty inside only during a safari. (2) Optical quality: superb, for me it is perfectly usable already at room temperature. What is certain is that in some f2.8 flaw is known, the sharpness is good but not stratospheric and there is a visible decrease in quality towards the edges. Diaframmando properly the optical quality is excellent, the purple-fringing is very low. From my point of view, however, usabilissimo in all conditions and almost all focal lengths. Why almost? Because personally I find the optical characteristic most odious of this goal, the presence of a pronounced distortion at 17 mm and its surroundings. If I get the chance, in fact, often prefer to use the 10-20hc @ 17 mm rather than shoot at 17 with the 17-55, which gives the image distortion in my opinion unpleasant. (3) Operation: silent autofocus and good / excellent, selection keys, precise and solid. No problem in these respects. The IS is absolutely cutting edge and allows various safety stop times lower than the minimum considered canonical. (4) Review: It is absolutely excellent perspective in relation to the overall quality. And 'in fact a true all-rounder, and during my travels where the claims are photographs must be smaller than in the shots prepared and reasoned, can not be replicated and never leaves the lens. I personally believe that the scope of its preferential use both the reportage is also defends pretty well in the half-length portrait, where the opening relatively high and the relative proximity of the subject is already quite get blurred backgrounds, and the bokeh is nice. I find it very usable even in close-up photography. Where it really excels, however,, Is in the reportage night where the range of focal lengths, combined with the large aperture and image stabilization makes it possible to use the machine in a manner not unlike as you would during the day, giving photographs of great impact. As a handyman is therefore highly recommended to me. The flaws are many and great, of course it is a compromise like all things of this world: (a) the focal length limited to 55 mm (about 85 mm eq) can be used in a manner inconsistent ups and various products, so if you are lovers of this type of photography you take a superzoom or be prepared to bring along another angle. (B) the weight is impressive is a barrel stocky and tough, I find it uncomfortable for example, mountain outings and replace it in these cases with the 18-55. (C) distortion at 17 mm, here you can not do anything, unfortunately, I consider the real flaw in this vein. (D) poor build quality: here, surely a better quality would have been better, but I can not recommend quest'ottica for this reason, after all I've never had problems with soundness of any kind. (E) resistance to flare relatively low, attention to this aspect ... look good shots after they are made, you might see cute little ghosts, rather ricomponente and redeemed avoided as far as possible the stray light. If you do not find it too cumbersome bought and used the hood, although personally I prefer to 'defend' the flare slightly changing the shots ... I do not find an insurmountable problem. (F) is EF-S and therefore fit only aps-c, and this is obvious considerations are pleonastiche. Therefore, in summary my opinion is that there is no optical handyman best you can mount on a aps-c, essentially 'all-powerful' and the highest levels of comfort and operability currently achievable with a non-pro SLR reportage night. The alternatives then are a few: I do not like the 17-40 on aps-c, you lose even the ability to make bustsas it should. The 15-85 can entice to the handful of millimeters more, but in general, the use is substantially similar to this here 17-55. If you prefer a 18-200 then it means that you have other needs: go elsewhere. His only rival is the 5D + the 24-105, that means that I can be considered a configuration 'handyman' best. Users of aps-c sensors warned ... if you want a handyman to report and if you have the budget, buy it.

pubblicata da Giallo63 September 12, 2012

Pros: Sharpness - High constant aperture - efficient stabilizer - quick AF

Cons: blur the edges at short focal lengths and apertures to high - noticeable distortion at short focal - construction is not adapted to the optical qualities - no lens hood - Price

Opinion: E 'by far the best EF-S from the point of view of optical quality. A noticeable drop in sharpness peripheral areas, however, present at the shorter focal, ovviabile with an iris of at least a couple of stops. Although the distortion is quite noticeable, but overall this goal allows to enhance the APS-C Canon high density (15-18 MPXl) who send in crisis several other objectives, particularly EF-S. The construction is good but not excellent, and in particular lacks tropicalization, which is not unusual for a certain transit of dust between the lenses, conveyed by the tolerances of the telescopic sections of the zoom. The price is undoubtedly high, but the optics has not competitors to their quality level. Even compared to 17-40/4 L used on APSC, the 17-55/2.8 IS, in addition to the obvious advantages of a stop of opening more, greater excursion canvases and stabilizer, has a sharpness in axis slightly greater, even if it yields step in peripheral areas (the rest of the 17-40 covers a much larger size).

pubblicata da Fat Mike July 17, 2012

Pros: Sharpness already at room temperature, comparable to some fixed quality with the versatility of a zoom, f2.8, stabilizer, autofocus very fast and quiet

Cons: high price, not compatible with full frame camera bodies

Opinion: And 'the goal more "serious" and expensive for my modest outfit, and I use it mounted on a 550d. When I bought it I was in doubt because of the high cost, but every time I use it I repeat that I do not sell anything, except to move to a full frame camera body. In his hand is quite large and heavy, but if you think it is a f2.8 stabilized, it is normal to be so. The building in my view is not plasticky, of course, for what it costs you might expect something more, but call it "plastic" I find it totally exaggerated. When it starts to use it you realize that on many occasions (indoors or outdoors after sunset) the combination f2.8 + stabilizer allows you to make freehand shots unthinkable for people like me who was accustomed to slow more " dark. " The sharpness is then L (I tried the bianchino of a friend and I did not notice much difference) and the bokeh is very pleasant. I noticed, as mentioned by other users, who suffers from a lot of the flare, which is why I equipped with original lens hood (a little 'too big but nice solid) and try not to use it in landscape photography. I have not noticed this trend, however, lamented by many, to infiltrate dust. For me, a goal recommended, the use of which has made me a certain "dependence" :). Rating 9

pubblicata da Luke88 March 15, 2012

Pros: Sharpness at room temperature, stabilizer, autofocus fast-accurate-quiet building, bright

Cons: Price, weight, missing hood, range focal

Opinion: I bought it after selling 17-85 with which I could not find the right feeling. At the time, the hypothesis valutavo 15-85, as the range of focal lengths, it seemed closer to the previous purchase, then interjected a friend who made me feel the tokina 16-50 f/2.8 making me fall vittama brightness 2.8. At this point, having regard to the price difference is not excessive between the Canon 15-85 and 17-55 for the second inclined preferring the focal range of the brightness factor. Since then I have spent 6 months in which I could test the lens on many occasions: parties both indoors and outdoors, Christmas, theater, wineries wineries, etc. ... Thanks to the combination autofocus precise, opening 2.8, and stabilizer, I was able to shoot even in situations of very low light without the aid of flash obtaining sharp images without blur and with times of 1/5s. to 55 mm. Personally I would not trade with any lens and even though the cost is high and worth every euro spent, if one day I were to sell it, but not much since we lose the good market secondario.rnAltro interesting factor: in my moI found the good resistance to flare (despite what you read), and to date no speck of dust (visible to the naked eye) has ever penetrated into it (and you can not say that the cellars or the clay courts are exempt from the dust factor). I lucky? The new models are a little 'better? To these questions I can not answer your question, but enriches the value of the telescope itself to me! Rnrn

pubblicata da Emil Sinclair December 20, 2011

Pros: Sharpness, stabilizer efficient, quiet operation.

Cons: Missing the lens hood. Construction plasticky, not up to the price. For the rest, no cons.

Opinion: After 10 days of use, I realized that 55 of longest focal length is too narrow. Not that I can say that it is a goal to be discarded, even the sharpness of this lens is its strong point. That said, the goal in question was useful as a handyman standard. I understand that 17-55 is a focal length that do not particularly like. Given back and taken the 24-105.

pubblicata da Stdemuro November 15, 2011

Pros: Excellent quality, fast autofocus, stabilizer, light

Cons: Soft edges, made of plastic, not tropicalized.

Opinion: I used this lens for almost three years and I think that is a valid replacement for the classic 24-70's full size. Very sharp in the center from the larger aperture, has a certain softness to the edges, which is recovered in a position to close at least one stop, thus losing the benefits of openness. The picture quality, color rendition, sharpness in general, resistance to flare indisputable, but the build quality leaves much to be desired for frankly a lens for almost € 1,000! The stabilizer of the previous generation and then compensates for a maximum of 3 stops, then in reality are about 2.5. I do not agree instead on previous comments in relazne the focal range that I frankly a little "tight". Find it much more interesting than a focal 17-70 or better yet 15-70 even at the cost of slightly lower opening, I think both absolutely technically feasible, without going through a slow "impossible." However, it is definitely a lens to be seriously considered in a kit APS C

pubblicata da Preben Elkjaer October 01, 2011

Pros: Image quality, autofocus, image stabilization, 2.8 fixed focal range (equivalent to 27-88 on FF).

Cons: Construction in relation to the price, resistance to flare, lens hood not included.

Opinion: Canon at home, is the best all-rounder ever for APS-C. The sharpness is already very good at room temperature, the autofocus is fast and accurate, the stabilization is very good, very good image quality, the range of focal lengths is by far the most "general". Excellent interior thanks to the 8.2 drive, great for portraits, is also extremely effective in the outdoors: a lens that never staccheresti quality and versatility. The only weak points are the construction, certainly solid but considering the high price (900-1000 euro on the new, in practice such as the 24-70 0 24-105) could expect a little 'more. It 'best to use it with a UV filter always mounted because some speck of dust can infiltrate under the front lens. Suffers the flare, but not so dramatically. The lens hood unfortunately, as in all the lenses do not "L", must be bought separately. And, given the cost, Canon could certainly make an exception.

pubblicata da Lufranco September 25, 2011

Pros: Sharpness, Stabilization, Auotofocus, Focal Range.

Cons: Resistance to Flare, Built in relation to the price, weight, price.

Opinion: And 'no doubt the lens that most use. It 's just perfect, clear already from TA, dwarfing many of the fixed lens (except for some L). Mount a stabilizer 3 stop allowing shots unimaginable, but also has a fast autofocus and very reliable. E 'a lens that environmental conditions in part, represents the perfect lens for matrimonialisti and various professionals who do not intend to use FF. It never fails and always makes you take the shot home. Simply does not exist either on aps-c nor a lens on FF equivalent. The biggest flaw is that its NOT resistance Flare. It suffers a lot, and this is not suitable as a lens to the landscape. Finally, for what it costs could be built a hair better, if only a guarnizioncina to keep out the dust before they could put it there.