Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,000
Re: L lens build

Don_D wrote:

ed rader wrote:

i agree on all but the L lens build. i much prefer the better build
and i think it pays off in the long run.

whether its worth the extra money is debatable...but it is worth it
to me.

Ed,
I've been reading this forum for a couple of years now and I don't
recall seeing many "mechanical lens failure" threads. Have you had
some bad experiences with non-L lenses in this regard?...or is it a
comfort level for just having a more robust lens for bad weather,
etc? Do you have evidence that non-L lenses are more likely to go
out of calibration?
I can be convinced....LOL..

Don

e.g. flimsy build of the 70-300 non-DO...soft pics in portrait orientation. well-documented.

also expect lens creep after a year or so of use with the 17-55, which is pretty common with canon consumer lenses.

the 17-55 doesn't have a bad build, probably a bit less robust than your average sigma and on par with tamron lenses like, say, the 28-75.

i'd say the IQ is the 17-55's strong point and build is one of the weaker points. probably the thin i like the least about the 17-55, tho, is the flare issue which sounds like it could have been easily corrected.

ed rader

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
AAJ
jgb
jgb
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow