|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on January 28, 2020 Pros: Brightness - Stabilizer - Optical Quality - Focal Extension Cons: Weight - Build Quality Opinion: It is a really remarkable optics, paid new just over 700 euros. I start right away with the real flaw. The construction is not up to what you pay, it is not possible for the lens to soften after a few months of use, descending from itself down. Dear canon I do not understand the absurd choice not to put the lampshade to the whole (which scratches to look at it), but above all I do not understand the crazy choice not to put a block of the zoom extension. Well after the salty we move to the dessert, I tell you immediately that using a simple UV filter, will not enter a grain of powder to the whole (certainly a sheath between body and lens you could even put) - make sure to use filters of the highest quality (I recommend the protects of Canon). Coming to optical quality, it's a lens that can safely solve all 24 Megapixels of your beloved canon aps-c. Surely what you saved on the body has not been spared on optical quality. The lens is sharp from the center to the edges even at full opening, the chromatic aberrations are very contained, the distortion slight and self-correct in the room (or easily correlated in posts with slow profiles). Today it is used at ridiculous prices, don't let it get away and literally throw your 18-55 or 18-135, here we are on another level. Not bad the focal excursion 27-88mm equivalent, but especially Constant F2.8. Nothing like this exists in full frame. Notable is the presence of stabilizer, although not at the level of the most modern. Lens definitely recommended, too bad it's a maximum weight of aps-c! |
 | sent on November 06, 2019 Pros: 2.8 to all focal points Cons: If I really have to find the weight. Opinion: I got to try it through a friend of mine and I have to say that splits!! Always having 2.8 at all focal points is convenient, you can get shots even with little light in the interior, I recommend used that is also on 450 euros with lampshade included. You weigh a little, but if you want quality stuff is so, it's a lens all to have in the kit. |
  | sent on October 20, 2019 Pros: Great all-rounder Cons: Nobody Opinion: I'll be quite succinct: mind-blowing optics. I use it a bit for everything from portraits to landscapes, from macros to streets, with excellent results. On the 7d mark II it makes even better than on the 70d. It is the lens that I use the most, it gives me certainty of result and tranquility in the shot, hardly miss a photo even for the speed and precision of the focus and the excellent stabilizer. Satisfied fully. |
 | sent on April 25, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, Blur, stabilization Cons: Lack of standard lens hood, build quality not responsive to price. Opinion: Little to say.... Optics simply exceptional. The mountains and you no longer detach it from the camera body. Sharp images, "crisp", never disappoint, if not for recurring flare phenomena, but which do not lower the evaluative average of an excellent optics, which also presents a blurry great to be a zoom. Basically to consider a pro for APS-C. The only sore notes are the absence of the lens hood (costs €40 apart) and materials that, however good, do not seem excellent, in relation to the price, which in any case is fully justified and does not regret the purchase. It is a perspective that I will always miss very much in the transition to FF. |
 | sent on February 17, 2019 Pros: sharpness, brightness, weight. Cons: Maybe the fact that they don't update it... Opinion: The usual premise that I would like to do is that I am not sufficiently experienced to make judgments but I feel I am exposing my impressions. I have owned for several months the 17-70 Sigma Contemporary but did not fully satisfy my needs of photography in rooms with little light and the MAF (like any Sigma that respects alas) sometimes did a little ' the cabbage that seemed to him. So, again, thanks to this mythical site (you would love Juza:D) I am documented on similar alternatives and I found this 17-55 Canon tempting. I trusted in the purchase of a used specimen Trovatao to Rce of Padua, which for now, after several shots, is giving me satisfaction! The only flaw of mine is that I find it "soft" in the sense that the zoom drops even with the force of gravity but otherwise I feel strongly to recommend it for those looking for something in the house Canon of this genre! |
 | sent on February 17, 2019 Pros: Stabilization, brightness, sharpness Cons: Non-tropicalized, distortion at 17 Opinion: The diameter of the front lens from 77 mm brings more light from the lenses from 67 or 52, thus allowing the same diaphragm to gain 2/3 stop gains in low light conditions. Opening 2.8 for excellent portraits with nice bokeh. The Stabilizer helps a lot in the indoors and outdoors in low light conditions allowing good results when you are without tripod and flash. The Perfect zoom for travel and street photo. It is the best lens built by Canon for APS-C like sharpness and autofocus speed. Loses compared to the competition only on the price but the surrender you pay. Slight Distortion at 17 Ma for the focal one better than the 10-22. From the best between 35 and 50 mm. To avoid the dust just put a good UV filter Hoya, recommended extremely to protect the front lens. |
  | sent on February 11, 2019 Pros: AF USM, constant brightness, professional appearance:) Cons: I would say the weight (but x a similar optics there), and the price (if taken used in excellent condition you save a 30-40%) Opinion: After a thousand ideas and tests (Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 15-85 (really sharp), 18-135 STM, USM etc.), here I am finally reviewing the lens that I will keep to 99% on my EOS M50 with EF adapter (except the sea that I will use the 15-45, you never know:)) Well what about I finally found the lens that is for me, it will be cumbersome for a body of the M50, but I find it very well, indeed much better as a grip than with the 15-45 EF-M. Well now everyone knows this goal, has a constant brightness and sharpness from 20mm to 55mm decidedly good even at f/2.8 and more stabilized, as soon as you close a hair is really very sharp. I open a small parenthesis, I also had the Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 And there is no comparison logically with the canon, the canon also costs 3 times as much:(, the autofocus noise is disturbing and unusable x video (and do not want to make video with a constant f/2.8???), and less sharp de The canon both at the edges and at the center, I would say at least one stop. I thought I had found the perfect all do x me in 15-85, which I think is really good and sharp, has nothing to do with the 18-135 (as sharpness is like seeing with and without glasses), but then as soon as I arrived and tried the 17-55 I gave up having that length I n more than focal, but it was love at first sight. This lens is clear that you can not call it handyman vista its short excursion, but paired with a fixed luminous and a tele and you are in place x always! |
 | sent on October 26, 2018 Pros: AF USM, capillary sharpness, brightness, focal range Cons: Chilly colours, tropicalization Opinion: is the best standard zoom lens ever produced by Canon, fast, reliable, stabilised and amazingly sharp. On FF There is no fee, the 24-70 F4 is is much more modest and problematic, the 2.8 II has the same "stamp" but is not stabilized, was the reason for my return to APS-C! The flaws are in the lack of tropicalization (it's a professional canon zoom, it deserves the L) and the colest colors compared to the other canon. For those who say that it is a vacuum cleaner advice to have it cleaned every couple of years, we spend thousands of bodies and optics and then we lose ourselves for 4 pieces of maintenance to keep the stuff in order or to make it calibrate, however they are the second specimen and no problem of PO Lvere, in case I just put a filter. No home produces an equal, it's the definitive lens, it will sell you many close focal lenses. |
 | sent on June 18, 2018 Pros: Very sharp Cons: Distortion at 17mm Opinion: I have it since 2006, to this day the stabilizer has me a bit of trouble and so sometimes I keep it disconnected... Unlike what I read here, the lens hood was supplied... and it's also pretty big....! Too bad for the construction.... because at the optical level is excellent, mine I have already cleaned from the dust accumulated inside the front lens...! For the last thing the price too high for the construction typology. |
 | sent on January 10, 2018 Pros: nice lens, sharpness, stabilizer. Cons: a little expensive, good construction not at the top, hood to part distortion to 17 Opinion: it's the lens I use the most for the focal versatility in my kit. With my 80d makes me very good photos both indoors being a 2.8 that outdoors very clear. There is no comparison with the standard lens 18 55 the bottle bottom. even if a little old is very good and for apsc is the top. I had the sigma 17 50 2.8 before that costs less than half and that's okay but that tended to make a mistake a little more the focus with respect to the canon especially in low light. Great!!!!! |
 | sent on January 03, 2018 Pros: Extraordinary sharpness, fast autofocus, brightness, stabilizer Cons: Lack of hood, impossibility to block the focal length, slight problem of dust extraction Opinion: It 'a lens that I loved, unfortunately does not mount on ff and I had to sell it. As soon as it was assembled (I was from 18-135), a world opened up to me. Although not excellent in construction is a truly extraordinary goal, maybe slightly expensive, but anyway you put it and do not take it anymore. Very good for portraits, I think it's the best zoom lens for aps-c |
 | sent on September 29, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, definition, brightness, opens the world in the eyes of a neophyte Cons: EF-S, weight, construction materials, barrel extension not lockable Opinion: Perfect for APS-C, I replaced the kit 18-55 IS after not even a year of use. Another world, under the right conditions, the photos have a stunning sharpness. Too bad for the good construction but not the excellence, a pity for the barrel that opens too easily to the maximum extension if held to the neck by walking, a block would be ideal; but above all it is a shame that it is a damned EF-S, I bought it willingly thinking that I would hardly have gone to FF and now that I want to do it I have to have it replaced and replaced (and I know I'll probably regret it). Protected by a protective filter Canon terrorized by the vacuum cleaner the frontal element, never came a grain. Being 77mm the filters are a bit more expensive. The history of the hood is not known by now, Canon only puts it exclusively and indisputably and unquestionably for the L series: purchased compatible for 15-20 € and never had difficulty. rnThank you very much if you do not go to FF for the next 10 years, or if you want prgive it a few months and sell it with its pretty 95% guarantee. |
 | sent on March 31, 2017 Pros: Image quality, brightness, image stabilizer Cons: constructive quality, cost, block impossibility focal length, vacuum cleaner Opinion: Lens breakneck quality! A perspective that you do pay dearly, but it's worth it buy it. Qualitatively it returns images of the same series of optical L. Unfortunately, the hood must be purchased separately. Build quality is very bad. You have to be very careful otherwise the lens becomes vacuum. There is the possibility of the focal length of the block so probably after a few months of use will end up with the lens fully extended to 55mm because of the location of your neck reflex and the force of gravity. Too bad that Canon has not thought about improving some aspects to make this the best optics. Despite the many flaws but I would advise it to APSC SLR owners who want to make a major qualitative leap. |
 | sent on March 30, 2017 Pros: Truly outstanding. Sharpness scary even at TA, fine detail, bright, accurate colors, lightning-fast AF, reliability, fixed aperture to f / 2.8 IS. Cons: I do not come off more by reflex, I do not think is unmatched. It makes it hard to think about switching to FF where those focal and the quality (fixed part) you have to spend a lot for the 24-70 f / 2.8 II. Opinion: I have this goal for 3 years and I am delighted, though not exceptional building is more than satisfactory for each use type. With a fixed aperture to f / 2.8 it allows you shooting at night or with little light and fantastic prohibitive with the darkest objectives Dodging you often use the flash. It has a truly exceptional sharpness, very difficult to find equal on APSC. Using it always with UV filter Hoya far no speck of dust inside the lens. For me its yield is also higher than the famous white 70/200 L, tested and all of which have the smooth series f / 4. If you un'apsc it is a real shame not to have it. Highly recommended. |
 | sent on March 30, 2017 Pros: Almost everything: incredible clarity, construction even if very good plasticous, lightning autofocus, 2.8 aperture aperture useful with little light or some portrait, very good stabilizer. Cons: Lens not supplied, some dust comes in even if kept out of the box (but nothing to worry about). Opinion: The absolute best goal for aps-c, if you do not have a ff you can take it does not equal. I also had the chance to compare it for good with a 24-105 L, but there is no comparison, the 17-55 is much more powerful and sharp. The only goal limit is the fact that it does not go full frame and this can be binding on the choice of acqusto, but to have better but comparable results on ff you have to spend thousands of euros for a 24 70 2.8. II |
 | sent on March 17, 2017 Pros: Crisp with AF very fast high build quality with IS performance Cons: Usable only on aps-c, no hood series Opinion: Using this lens for some time and I can express my very good impression from the first scatti.rnLa quality is excellent and although it has not the red ring of L series gives eccezionali.rnOvviamente results can only be mounted on aps-c, but not there is no equivalent to FF that incorporates both the aperture to f / 2.8 that IS.rnLa color rendering think is indisputable. I had the Tamron in the same band (f / 2.8 VC) which, although good, could not compete with the canon, even on engaging dellAF low light. Well ', the cost is significant but really worth the money you pagano.rnSarò maybe I was lucky but my copy never did get a single grain of dust: no vacuum effect using the zoom, among other things, soft to the point giusto.rnLa flaw lies in choosing canon not to the standard lens hood that will be but not fitted with velvety, but costs as if it were gold plated. An absurd price disparity to be a piece of focal plastica.rnL'escursione makes an obiective handyman then both photos you possibly video thanks to the fact that you have an IS system which, although not recently from a technological point of view, it gives a great help in situations estreme.rnConsigliere to this lens to anyone who had the opportunity to invest some penny, because i see that the used prices are invitanti.rn |
 | sent on March 11, 2017 Pros: honestly no one Cons: It costs too much and sigma 17-70 2.8 C is objectively better. It is as reliable as a grain of the lens and is likely to enter the elements in the barrel. The materials used are the worst ever touched. Opinion: I had it for 2 months and then sold it after testing the Sigma 17-70 2.8 Contemporary DC OS "STABILIZED". light, very bello.rnsinceramente I write only because of the fact that unfortunately there is a character limit in order to submit the review but I would stop sicneramente soooooo primarnnon I recommend buying. for me are now superior optics and much more updated at half the price and with hood incluso.rn |
 | sent on March 11, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, fast AF, Stabilization, 2.8 at all focal lengths. Cons: Missing the hood, a little plasticky, especially enters powder. Opinion: One of a kind. And 'the only Standard Zoom lens stabilized 2.8. in Canon department. Excellent sharpness from edges to the center at all focal lengths, see the Photozone.de test to believe. Af fast. On APS-C must-have. In the interior and / or evening with 2.8 and stabilization it goes to great. I on the 30D would never levavo. Let the problems: it is a bit 'too plasticky, the difference from an L series ... you see. the hood for that price could put it above all comes from the dust that covers it still does not affect the picture. I personally have learned to take it apart and clean it alone. It 'a fairly simple and fast operation. No need to send it in for service. Hopefully if you write me curious. For the reason of dust I gave vote 8 ... otherwise I would have given 9. |
 | sent on December 02, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, f / 2.8 stabilized, af fast Cons: Built worst of 18-135 stm, af sometimes imprecise, very heavy and bulky compared to competitors, the older generation stabilizer sometimes inaccurate Opinion: I've had it for a few months but I've never taken the feeling. Despite the good sharpness he was never impressed. Mechanically, it is the lowest quality of the 18-135 STM I own. Maybe it will be the old project but not even gave me the idea of ??a great solidity. In addition to that it is very bulky and heavy compared to tamron and sigma competitors of equal focal lengths. rnLo stabilizer think is old enough as a model. There comes just 2 stops. A 55 mm (so with safety time of 1 / 80-1 / 100 of a second on APSC) 1/20 second if I mailed the photos were micromosse, on 18-135 135 (1/200 tds) can reach well 1/15 secondo.rnComplice switching to FF I decided to sell it, replacing it with the 24-105 L before versione.rnRitengo Canon has in his pocket an excellent optical design, which, however, should be revised in many respects, most notably the construction . Rated 7. |
 | sent on October 18, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, fast AF, image stabilization, fixed aperture 2.8 at all focal lengths Cons: Missing the lens hood that it should be included with that price, the rest for me no Opinion: I think that the friends who are interested in this lens they want to hear the strange thoughts of those who use it, here is mine. Bought used for 500 Euros, mounted on canon 70d and fantastic, I use it from ca. a year, I did not see razor-sharp photographs of dust on lente.rnIl 17-55mm then real for Canon are 27.2 mm and 88 mm and a truly suitable lens to do everything. I'm not a profesional and I will not discuss the vignetting and distortion, which Sonoe almost imperceptible, important and with this aim I made bellisime photos in all lighting conditions. For me only flaw and photographing down by tilting the lens, it moves down, but heard by all and a normal thing of this goal. The construction and well made and the weight does not feel. In a few words and a lens which will give you a lot of satisfaction, you will keep always mounted on your reflex, I do not think you could find something better, to me highly recommended. 9.5 rating. |
 | sent on October 11, 2016 Pros: Brightness, stabilizer, AF Cons: Dust, construction and color rendering Opinion: The love towards this lens may never popped, but I can only speak well. And 'certainly the best all-rounder zoom to APSC: sharpness even at TA, stabilizer that does its job very well and a fixed brightness throughout the entire zoom that makes the difference at every opportunity (especially when the light is scarce). The minus points are certainly the dust that enters always and in any case, up inside. Unbelievable. The building I do not like it at all, perhaps unbalanced front and finally the color rendering that I found it always cold. |
 | sent on August 08, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, brightness. Cons: X me none. Opinion: I have this slow recently, quindo consider this judgment upgradeable later, as soon as I mastered completamente.rnPremetto that my yardstick is the kit lens 18-55 IS STM; this lens is excellent, quite another thing! Now I understand the concept of brightness! It 's the best lens I owned or used, the first results were excellent! I still have to take the hand as to f / 2.8 the depth of field is very narrow and I have yet to get used to it! What can I say .... Excellent! Surely there are better type the L series or fixed but for my budget and my needs is Excellent! |
 | sent on July 08, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, fast AF, image stabilization, fixed aperture 2.8 Cons: addictive Opinion: Since I bought this lens I have not unplugged. I took photos everywhere, churches, landscapes, street, portraits, reportage, travel. The format aps-c does not exist any better. Sharpness awesome af fast, precise and absolutely silent. The stabilizer is heard but does not disturb. It is not weather sealed being an ef-s, but my copy has no trace of dust on Lenton and does not stretch holding it at rest. The plastic used is still an excellent plastic hand feels that it is not a toy. The first time I used it I took 4000 photos. I was 5 days to decide which to discard because there was no coming evil. Suffers a little 'flare this is true but I like to play with light and in some pictures it's me looking for him, matter of taste. It 'an expensive lens, but for people like me who does not need the ff becomes a series lens L on the reduced size. It's not really a featherweight and after several hours the neck is felt but the picture that offers are amazing. super consimended. |
 | sent on May 27, 2016 Pros: Focal versatile, crisp to TA, AF fast, stabilized, solid, constant value in time. Cons: Dust, clutter, building Opinion: Arrival from 17-40mm f4 L, sold it because I wanted more light. I used the 17-55mm for a long time and many photos. I was fine to cover all focal wide and regular, seldom staccavo. Versatile for landscapes, street portraits. I used it for everything and always satisfied with the quality performance, even at f2.8. AF fast but not as much as that of the 85mm f1.8, but the darkness was the same very reliable. Not as sharp as the 17-40 L but for me it was worth losing a little 'sharpening the favor dell'apertura.rnIl my copy, bought used, had a different powder inside but fortunately no effect on the yield of foto.rnPer me the main flaw was the fact that if you put forth the vertava SLR downwards. rnUn aim to have on APSC (I used a 500D) that made last long; I squeezed every pixel to the end with this little gem. It is unlikely to tear off if you turn or travel. I use it in tandem with the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 ... understand well why! rnConsigliatissimo! rn |
user80014  | sent on January 08, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, 2.8 at all focal lengths Cons: Color rendering a little 'cold Opinion: I used both of which Canon 60D 7D. Bought used 400 Euros. Previously I had the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F / 2.8 XR Di II (bought used 190 euro). Compared to the Canon Tamron it is generally sharper especially in light conditions the most critical (sunset). Good sharpness already in TA that becomes truly remarkable to F / 5.6 and f / 6.3. A fall of sharpness, a bit 'of vignetting and a certain bias is often at the edges in a particular way to 17 mm and in a much more negligible climbing focal length. These defects are most apparent with respect to a optic for full frame mounted on APS-C because this lens has the lens diameter designed for reduced size (EF-S). I noticed that things improve enough closing the aperture (F / 14 to 17 mm more) and of course with intervention in PP. I think that is the real all-rounder for anyone who has an APS-C with an effective focal comes to 88 mm, and if bought used has a great value for money. Focus fast and quiet with the possibility of intervening moremanually. The front lens tends to suck a little 'dust, but this does not affect any surrender in photographs. The construction of the discrete I think (not a series L). Of course if you use the hour for 70 to 200 2.8 L by mounting this seems to have in hand a toy, but it's just a feeling, compared to Tamron feelings of strength in the hand are more or less identical (the Canon is still a bit 'heavier). I do not even particularly useful the presence of the stabilizer for these focal lengths. Unfortunately this is not the hood as standard. The color rendering tends to be a bit '"cold" but these are personal tastes. Defined in I recommend it absolutely will be amazed by its sharpness and hardly hooked by the SLR. 9 vote. |
 | sent on September 20, 2015 Pros: Optical quality, AF, stabilizer Cons: Mechanical construction Opinion: I had two copies of this perspective: nothing to say about the quality of the glass, the AF and the stabilizer, but much to say about the building: rn1) the quality of the material is unsatisfactory, especially the plastic cylinder that comes out when lengthens the focalern2) for hobby I used even in the rain, and in both specimens after a period (not too long) of use in these conditions has formed the condensate below the front lens, forcing to give up shooting until all 'drying ... I asked canon and I was told that is normal, not a series L.rnPersonalmente not approve of this marketing choice: because a body of quality and performance as well as the 7D MkII can not adopt a view Basic height? rnHo solved the problem by switching to FF, although I was tempted to go down to normal use concorrenza.rnComunque recommend |
 | sent on September 11, 2015 Pros: Bright, clear even to TA, excellent stabilizer. In my opinion, the best handy solution for Canon APS-C. For what it does not cost a bit. Cons: A lot of dust comes in. Opinion: I had this lens for two years on APS-C before switching to FF and I must say that I almost never disconnected it. The picture quality is excellent: sharply sharper than the 24-70 f / 2.8L first set, it is comparable to the Tamron 24-70 f / 2.8 (I have them both) but with a more beautiful bokeh. Unfortunately you can not use it on FF! Excellent stabilizer. In the face of a full-scale image quality L, the construction seems a little defective: the barrel extends somewhat on its own, it's also a vacuum cleaner, I had to clean it twice in 2 years. Anyway, great, overwhelmed. It will revive your old apsc: try it before changing the camera, you will not regret it! |
 | sent on June 01, 2015 Pros: Sharpness, brightness, IS, AF, full time manual focus, Cons: Price, not including lens hood, vignetting, weight Opinion: Outstanding optical quality, already at full aperture is very clear, and diaframmando become razor sharp even at the edges, the autofocus is impeccable and extremely quiet, the build quality is not great, but it's well-made plastic, decent but not outstanding resistance to flare. On balance it is one of the best lenses specific for APS-C, perhaps the only Sigma 18-35 is superior, but pays the reduced focal range. Compared to my "old" Tamron 17-50 are on another planet has the Tamron AF of a tractor (both in terms of slowness that noise) the Tamron 2.8 is just enough over the edge and you diaframmarlo f4 to have edges decent. The price is a little high in relation to the fact that you do not give it bag it hood and the weight is not from dragonfly! But for the rest it is to be recommended as an upgrade to the sigma / Tamron 17-50! |
 | sent on April 29, 2015 Pros: sharpness construction IS Cons: Price & weight Opinion: A little 'sharper the Tamron 17 50 LESS smooth and clear of canon 105. 24 The same goes for the AF. I would not recommend. Costa troppo.Piuttosto'd take the Tamron 50 and a 1.4 if you do portraits or Samyang 14 for landscapes. It pays to spend three times more for a hair more sharpness? I say NO, but everyone has different needs. |
 | sent on April 06, 2015 Pros: Spectacular sharpness even at TA, Defocused, f2.8 fixed stabilizer 3 stop, colors faithful Also great for portraits, USM Autofocus, Practically a series L for aps-c. Cons: Because I have not bought before? ... For the size and the price, but when you use it forget it !! Opinion: I was going to sell my 600D instead Last Saturday I gave her another chance by purchasing this lens and BOOM !!!. The SLR has taken life and I finally understood what it means to own this lente.Non I have never had to open a RAW, change it and then realize that the file is virtually already so beautiful !!. Maybe I have been lucky but with albeit EXCELLENT 15-85 who had previously not what happened !!. The portraits I did yesterday closed at a restaurant in TA and a dash of flash are just perfect and if I have the consent of the parties concerned so maybe I will post: naked and raw !!!. In my opinion it is worth every penny of its price. |
 | sent on March 17, 2015 Pros: brightness, Cons: price, not the hood, still do not understand if you have problems with the stabilizer Opinion: woods, I would ask who owns this lens (canon 17 55 f.2,8), it happens that when I focus any object the middle square (use only a small square in the center) just moves down the left, and remains there until, or snap a picture, or at least leave the shutter button to return to where it was before. the shift is slight, but the other four goals I have this not happen, of course, happens when I entered the stabilizer (with stabilizer off this does not happen) I happen also that taking such openings under f.4,0 I often blurry image I think there is a relationship between the two, perhaps focusing say, an eye with openings f.2,8 / 3.2 having a shallow depth of field the small shift can focus on the nose, giving me the fuzzy feeling on your face. I say this because when I click over f.4,0 / 5.6 I have pictures more 'focused. if someone can tell me something, thanks |
| sent on July 27, 2014 Pros: Bright sharp focus effectively Cons: Although well built, the end and 'plasticky. Footprint significantly. Opinion: Used on 70d. rnrnMigliorato much the feeling after a calibration of FA. It begins to look what other users descrivono.rn The perceived quality 'constructive' and penalized by the fact that 'plastic, finished well, but always and plastic'. Costa enough to expect more ', also another piece of plastic could mettercelo canon (the hood). rnComunque and 'bright and stable, this makes it useful in many circumstances, in my case compre most situations, the pictures come out crisp and colors vivid enough. rn |
user26730 | sent on 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! |
 | sent on 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 |
 | sent on 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. |
 | sent on 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 ... |
 | sent on 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! |
 | sent on 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. |
 | sent on 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 |
 | sent on 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 |
 | sent on 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 ... |
 | sent on 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! |
 | sent on 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. |
 | sent on 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 lens 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). |
 | sent on 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 lens 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 lens recommended, the use of which has made me a certain "dependence" :). Rating 9 |
 | sent on 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 |
user5222 | sent on 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 lens to be discarded, even the sharpness of this lens is its strong point. That said, the lens 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. |
 | sent on 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 |
 | sent on 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. |
 | sent on 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. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
