Is the Canon 17-55 worth the money?

Started Aug 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
RememberStuff New Member • Posts: 15
Re: Is the Canon 17-55 worth the money?

The 17-55 was a game changer for me. I constantly felt limited by the kit lens's (mk1) inability to shoot in low light and soft photos (I understand the mk2 is a lot sharper).

Actually, with any 3.5-5.6 zoom (18-55 kit and 55-250 telephoto) I've been frustrated by the hitting the minimum aperture (it is a bit better now that ISO 1600 is very usable). If you find yourself in a similar boat, it's definitely worth picking up a 2.8 zoom. The 2.8 is fantastic for portraits and accurate focusing (as another poster noted)

As to its durability, its not as solid as my sigma lenses (10-20 and 50-150), and I've had it serviced twice in 6 years. Once for a broken IS mechanism (from a dune buggy ride I think) and other time for a broken focus motor from fine dust after setting it down on a volcanic plain (very bad idea). I also have noticed the "dust pump" issue although it does not affect my photos. This is after constant use as my main camera (80% of my shots) during extensive travel.

The sigma option might be fine too, but I'm ok with dropping the change for the canon since it is my main lens. The focus has always been tack sharp,and the constant 2.8 lets aperture fade into the background as a consideration. If I had to buy a normal zoom again for canon aps-c I'd definitely pick this lens.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow