Largely a waste of money

Andy01 wrote:

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.

Don't disagree. However, you buy a tool for a job and you get a return on investment. The roi should be higher than the investment. This justifies the purchase.

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.

Not necessarily, see above.

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.

Canon and Nikon never gave much love to crop. How long do we wait for a 7D replacement, how long did Nikon wait for the D500? How many APSC lenses do they have not including cheap kit lenses? I think it was a bad business decision and opened the door for Fuji.

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).

Maybe. Though, for me it's a tool. It's all about images and at the time it was the right tool for me. I still have this lens and it's still working fine after heavy use, despite not being L build quality. But I'm a full framer since a long time now, so the lens is retired. Maybe my son will used it some day when he is older.

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.

I had Canon fine tuning the lens with the body. The same with the 24-105. In both cases this resulted in a huge improvement. (Even the micro adjustment I was able to use for the 24-105 didn't result in the same improvement.)

Colin