Largely a waste of money

buellom wrote:

While I think the optical quality (and pricing) was on L-level, the build quality certainly wasn't. But it wasn't worse than the cameras I used, so actually a good match.

The flaw in your thinking (IMO) is that most of us figure out the value in buying good lenses that will often outlive a few camera bodies.

The replacement cycle on most EF lenses (especially L lenses) is many years (eg. about 16 years for 100-400L & probably 11 years for 24-105L), whereas bodies have a replacement cycle of a few years, or almost yearly for the Rebels - 6D to 6D ii was about 5 years, 70D to 80D was about 3 years from memory, 600D to 650D was about a year.

So buying a lens with a similar build quality to cheaper bodies may well be false economy. The fact that the EF-S 17-55mm has never been refreshed (since 2006) probably indicates the value that Canon places on it (based on demand etc) - not much.

I have never owned a 17-55mm, but it really seems to be a love-it or hate-it experience for many (also reflected in this thread). I looked at it but really couldn't justify the extra expense over a kit lens for the faster aperture, and the test shots I took with one really were not impressive compared to my (then) kit lens. I bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 instead, was quite disappointed with it (erratic inaccurate AF), and seldom used the f2.8 (relatively speaking), so I sold it and stayed with my 24-105L, which I had across 3 different bodies. With my minimal experience I thought the 17-55mm was over-rated.

Colin