EFS 17-55mm Owners - Dust

I own a 1 month old EFS 17-55 lens with very limited use. I went to clean the lens yesterday and noticed that there are at least 10-15 pieces of dust on the inside of the lens.

From what I have read this is not a big deal as far as IQ is concerned however I am suprised a $1K lens arrived with a relatively large amount of dust! Especially afer only one month's use. What woud a few years be like as far as dust is concerned?

Zoom in on your lens, place it beneath a bright light and tell me if yours has the same issue. I'm curious.....

-Brian

The front seal is not airtight on some copies, drawing in air and dust that way. (It's the ring around the front element.) But even when it is airtight the extending barrel draws in air and dust as well. The best thing to do is to wipe the barrel clean each time it retracts, but even that is no guarantee.
Dust is a fact of life with all lenses that extend while zooming or focusing.

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

I had that lens for almost a year, at that point the amount of dust inside the lens was really annoying, so I send it back to Canon for cleaning, they didn't charge me anything. After 1 week there were 2 more specs of dust in the lens.
Conclusion I sold it on eBay and bought the 24-105 with the money.

Enzo Figueres
http://flickr.com/photos/efigueres/sets/721576024179324
59/

Nephi said:

Zoom in on your lens, place it beneath a bright light and tell me if yours has the same issue. I'm curious.....

Click to expand...

I've used mine 3 years. No dust.

--
Mike Mullen

Over several years I've had 3 and some were better than others.......however it didn't affect it's IQ which is outstanding. It costs as much as an L however it's not built like one. Currently there's nothing out there as good in that range with IS.......

Some say using a clear or UV filter helps reduce the amount of dust by making a better seal, others recommend extending the lens slowly and retracting it quickly to minimize the issue........

If it performs well and suits your needs, keep it and send it in periodically when the amount either affects the IQ or keeps you from sleeping well......
--
Regards,
Hank

it is a cheap built lens, it is good optically at least in terms of resolution , though it is not built well, to be honest , its BQ is as bad as a combodian toy .

so, if you care about build quality and plan to use it for a long time , avoid it and get the cheaper and better built EF24-105f4LISUSM.

next to any L lens , espcielaly next to my 85L or new 70-200f2.8LIS2 , the EFS17-55f2.8 IS is a joke , pure joke.

pandalee said:

so, if you care about build quality and plan to use it for a long time , avoid it and get the cheaper and better built EF24-105f4LISUSM.

Click to expand...

I recommend that owners of APS-C cameras not take this advice seriously. The picture doesn't give a hoot about build quality and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the most useful general purpose lens. 24mm is not wide enough on APS-C.

pandalee said:

next to any L lens , espcielaly next to my 85L or new 70-200f2.8LIS2 , the EFS17-55f2.8 IS is a joke , pure joke.

Click to expand...

LOL! I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and I can tell you there is nothing funny about the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS even when comparing it to the new 70-200 zoom (but who would compare a normal range zoom to a tele-zoom that costs more than twice as much?). The focus speed and accuracy of the 17-55 is top notch, the IS is seriously effective, image quality is unsurpassed and it's nice to have a wide aperture zoom that is stabilized for shooting in residential spaces. The lens returns a lot of razor sharp keepers under conditions that are normally challenging for handheld photography. And the focal range is ideal.

People with fetishes about a lens "build quality" aren't real photographers in my opinion. Just the other day a DPR poster mentioned how his 17-55 f/2.8 took a nasty spill on a hard reef and it functioned perfectly afterwords. It's plenty strong for handling the expected bumps and bruises. I've toured with mine for over 10,000 miles on a 480 lb. motorcycle with it in my motorcycle tankbag and am always taking it in and out to grab images of the scenery on the scenic backroads I prefer. I travel through deserts, rainforest, mountains and even 20 or 30 miles of dirt backroads at a time. It just keeps on clicking.
--
Mike Mullen

mmullen said:

pandalee said:

so, if you care about build quality and plan to use it for a long time , avoid it and get the cheaper and better built EF24-105f4LISUSM.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

well, 24 on a crop is not wide enough as you say but that is why there is the 10-22 , 17-40f4L , 16-35f2.8L2 and Sigma 8-16.

mmullen said:

I recommend that owners of APS-C cameras not take this advice seriously. The picture doesn't give a hoot about build quality and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the most useful general purpose lens. 24mm is not wide enough on APS-C.

Click to expand...

well, 24 on a crop is not wide enough as you say but that is why there is the 10-22 , 17-40f4L , 16-35f2.8L2 and Sigma 8-16.

mmullen said:

mmullen said:

next to any L lens , espcielaly next to my 85L or new 70-200f2.8LIS2 , the EFS17-55f2.8 IS is a joke , pure joke.

Click to expand...

LOL! I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and I can tell you there is nothing funny about the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS even when comparing it to the new 70-200 zoom (but who would compare a normal range zoom to a tele-zoom that costs more than twice as much?). The focus speed and accuracy of the 17-55 is top notch, the IS is seriously effective, image quality is unsurpassed and it's nice to have a wide aperture zoom that is stabilized for shooting in residential spaces. The lens returns a lot of razor sharp keepers under conditions that are normally challenging for handheld photography. And the focal range is ideal.

Click to expand...

if 24is not wide enough on an aPS-C (for me most of times wide enough), 17(almost equivalent to 27mm on a fullframe) is not wide enough for many , so you do still need a UWA with this lens , then it is cheaper to just go fullframe with just a 2 zooms the 24-105f4LIS and 70-200f2.8LISUSM2 or the f4LIS.

and all of these 3 EF lenses on a 5D2 outsolve the EFS on a 50D or a 7D.

mmullen said:

People with fetishes about a lens "build quality" aren't real photographers in my opinion. Just the other day a DPR poster mentioned how his 17-55 f/2.8 took a nasty spill on a hard reef and it functioned perfectly afterwords. It's plenty strong for handling the expected bumps and bruises. I've toured with mine for over 10,000 miles on a 480 lb. motorcycle with it in my motorcycle tankbag and am always taking it in and out to grab images of the scenery on the scenic backroads I prefer. I travel through deserts, rainforest, mountains and even 20 or 30 miles of dirt backroads at a time. It just keeps on clicking.
--
Mike Mullen

Click to expand...

I was among first to get this lens when it came to the stores. After four years of use and abuse, I still don’t have a speck of dust. All I can say is that this is the best lens for crop sensor in its range.

Alex.

--
Equipment list is in the profile.
http://www.pbase.com/alekko

and most importantly , the eFS17-55f2.8IS a sharp lens but it is neihter long enough nor wide enough and so , you still need 2 or 3 more zooms to cover all focal range you want.

so, with a full frame lens selection is cheaper and more simple.

the 24-105f4L on a 5D2 is just all I need many many times , it is a really nice range zoom and its IS is very effective and it is quite sharp on fullframe.

but that said if there is a 24-70 LIS , nobody doing this silly deabte 24-105f4LIS vs 17-55f2.8IS..............

and dont forget about the EFS15-85IS if you use crop cameras mainly because it's the sharpest crop std zoom.

but I still prefer the 24-105f4LIS + the new 70-200f2.8LIS2 on a full frame to the 15-85IS or 17-55IS+ 70-200f2.8LIS2 on a crop.

so, I wonder crops of latest generation , with a highPD sensor in the 7D or Pentax K7 is really cheaper than the 5D2 or the D700 as we take different selection of zooms and different ISO-capability of full frame vs crops into serious consideration.

well, then you may have been able to get an exceptional copy of this lens.

mine got a lot of dust in side in just a couple of months.

I've only had my copy nine months, but there is no dust. I do keep a UV filter on most of the time.

JT

Hi,

IMO, your "advices" are not only OT (dust in 17-55), but totally out of context as well (FF vs APS-C).

pandalee said:

and most importantly , the eFS17-55f2.8IS a sharp lens but it is neihter long enough nor wide enough and so , you still need 2 or 3 more zooms to cover all focal range you want.

Click to expand...

Maybe this lens has limited range for your needs.. the point is, you can't know what range other want or need. Of course, we all wish having 12-200, fixed 2.8 (or less), having the size/weight of 15-85, at price...$500? Doesn't exist. Period.

17-55 covers the same AOV on APS-C as would 27-88 on FF. IMO, this is "good" all purpose (walkaround) range for average photographer. Those (advanced) photographer, fixed on "wide" end, get some dedicated wide lens anyway (e.g. 10-20 range). Thus, even if 17-55 would be 15-55, it still wouldn't be wide enough. The same goes for longer range. Yes, there's 15-85 with better range.. it doesn't have fixed aperture, though. There are always some compromises (includes FF system).

For my needs, 17-55 is worth every cent. Still, I wouldn't say everybody should get it. Becuse it's a compromise... one should know what his needs are. One is for sure: I don't need FF, I don't wish having FF. What does that mean? Nothing.

Back to topic... Dust inside 17-55. My lens doesn't have it. But if/when there will be some, it's so easy to clean it -it isn't even worth to worry about.

Yes, L's seems to be better in this regard. So what? Some say Nikon is better than Canon... you get the point?

Just my 2c,
Bogdan

this lens has serious build quality issue for its class and everybody raitonal know it, just admit it.

many return it for its horrible build quality and it is not selaed , probably only one Canon lens in this price range released after 2005 not to be sealed.

and even compare it to other even cheaper EFSlens like the 10-22 or the 15-85IS , it is built worse...............the 15-85IS has neither the annoying dust issue nor the lens creep issue of the 17-55.

then maybe newer copies of this lens are better.

pandalee said:

if 24is not wide enough on an aPS-C (for me most of times wide enough), 17(almost equivalent to 27mm on a fullframe) is not wide enough for many , so you do still need a UWA with this lens , then it is cheaper to just go fullframe with just a 2 zooms the 24-105f4LIS and 70-200f2.8LISUSM2 or the f4LIS.

Click to expand...

No, FF costs more (you forgot the cost of a FF body with the same functionality of a 7D). The other thing you don't seem to understand is that lens selection is not about making sure you own lenses that can shoot at every focal length within your total desired focal range. No, it is about having a selection of lens that fits different shooting environments/needs. I have the 10-22 and the 17-55. I can generally get it done with the 17-55 unless I'm shooting tight interiors, extra wide landscapes or simply desire the perspective that only a super-wide provides. But if I had the 24-105 on APS-C I would constantly be frustrated that I couldn't go to 17mm without having to stop and change lenses. Good lens selection is about fluidity when putting the tools to work, not just making sure you have every focal length covered somehow.

pandalee said:

and all of these 3 EF lenses on a 5D2 outsolve the EFS on a 50D or a 7D.

Click to expand...

But I have no desire for 5DII for multiple reasons. The 7D is far superior for my purposes. The 5D II is too slow and the AF is inferior. And with the 5DII I would be focal length limited even more often than I am now and/or I would need to lug around lenses that were much more expensive and heavier simply to achieve the same number of pixels on my target.

pandalee said:

pandalee said:

People with fetishes about a lens "build quality" aren't real photographers in my opinion. Just the other day a DPR poster mentioned how his 17-55 f/2.8 took a nasty spill on a hard reef and it functioned perfectly afterwords. It's plenty strong for handling the expected bumps and bruises. I've toured with mine for over 10,000 miles on a 480 lb. motorcycle with it in my motorcycle tankbag and am always taking it in and out to grab images of the scenery on the scenic backroads I prefer. I travel through deserts, rainforest, mountains and even 20 or 30 miles of dirt backroads at a time. It just keeps on clicking.
--
Mike Mullen

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Mike Mullen

Can you go check your other lenses and tell me what you see? 17-55 is not my worst lens as far as dust is concerned.

carlk said:

Can you go check your other lenses and tell me what you see? 17-55 is not my worst lens as far as dust is concerned.

Click to expand...

After putting the 17-55 to a good weekend use...It crushes both 24-70 and the 24-105. Such a good lens.

I found a used copy of the 24-70 on Craigslist before I bought this and thought it was ok.

Re-sold for what I paid for it and got the 17-55. Such a stellar lens. By far the best standard zoom on the market until the 24-70 gets an upgrade.

So yea you were right....

Glad to hear you like it. I found that out 4 years ago. It’s one reason I really don’t want to go full frame.

RustyRus said:

carlk said:

Can you go check your other lenses and tell me what you see? 17-55 is not my worst lens as far as dust is concerned.

Click to expand...

After putting the 17-55 to a good weekend use...It crushes both 24-70 and the 24-105. Such a good lens.

I found a used copy of the 24-70 on Craigslist before I bought this and thought it was ok.

Re-sold for what I paid for it and got the 17-55. Such a stellar lens. By far the best standard zoom on the market until the 24-70 gets an upgrade.

So yea you were right....

Click to expand...

Being over 50 years old, I really don't feel the need to have some emotional relationship toward piece of plastic. I was hoping, my post would be seen as rational. On the other hand, you somehow seems to "hate" some lenses...

pandalee said:

this lens has serious build quality issue for its class and everybody raitonal know it...

Click to expand...

I don't know what exactly do you mean by "serious" and to be honest, I don't care. Lens is working for me as expected by me.

pandalee said:

...just admit it.

Click to expand...

-childish.

pandalee said:

many return it for its horrible build quality..

Click to expand...

-there are many reasons to return/sell something. Sometimes I can read "stories" here... sometimes, one should know who is giving valuable info..

pandalee said:

.. and it is not selaed , probably only one Canon lens in this price range released after 2005 not to be sealed.

Click to expand...

-yes, whole web knows that.

Still, speaking for me, there's no lens out there, which would cover my needs better than 17-55. Do I live in my small dreamworld, not realizing I actually need some better built lens?

pandalee said:

and even compare it to other even cheaper EFSlens like the 10-22 or the 15-85IS , it is built worse...............the 15-85IS has neither the annoying dust issue nor the lens creep issue of the 17-55.

Click to expand...

Ok.. such crap as 17-55 lens is... must be I'm halucinating, but I get quite good results with it. Maybe 15-85 doesn't "creep"... how about it's IQ at f2.8?

That's the whole point: there's always a compromise. And by accepting the compromises, we make the best decissions (we hope, at least) according to our needs.

Everybody should only get what he really needs (if budget allows, of course). For some, p&s camera is the best choice -now figure.

Just sharing my experience about 17-55. Message: don't buy it, unless you need it.

Bogdan