Zoom ring on EF-S 17-55

[Louis Matherne]

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is "sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[Homl]

The 17-55 is smooth unlike the 28-135.

The 28-135 has a double jointed extension which cause a less smooth extension; where as the 17-55 has only one.

 

[Lee Baby Simms]

I've shot about 5,000 images with mine and it's still too stiff. Not as smooth as the 10-22, and not buttery like an L. It's one of the 17-55is weak points, without a doubt. We have a 28-135 and it is indeed different ... but not necessarily better.

 

[Homl]

I don't find the zoom on my 17-55 stiff at all. The zoom feel is definitely a notch above the standard EF zooms. It is smoother with less slop. However is not quite as refined as the internal focusing L zooms. I am not sure how it compares with L zooms that extend, like the 24-105L.

 

[Lee Baby Simms]

It's not as bad as the first day I got it, but noticeably stiffer still than my 10-22

My 17-55 also had a horrible cat-urine-like industrial smell out of the box. That's what I get for ordering on the first day.

 

[whitemouse]

Couple of days has received this lens.
Has had time to test comprehensively.
No claims are present.

--
White Mouse
http://WhiteMouse.RU/photo/
http://WhiteMouse.PhotoSight.RU/

 

[saynomore]

I noticed a strong weird smell coming out of my 5D when new, and now that I think about it, also my lenses and 20D (in a minor degree). don't know if it was like cat urine, but I've realized it's a good way to tell if you are getting a brand new item. In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about the zoom smoothnes (unless you're shooting video with the lens). I'd worry more about the focus ring's.

It's not as bad as the first day I got it, but noticeably stiffer
still than my 10-22

My 17-55 also had a horrible cat-urine-like industrial smell out of
the box. That's what I get for ordering on the first day.

 

[David Tomic]

Mine was a bit stiff straight out of the box, but now a couple of months on, it's become very smooth indeed!

 

[kfarouki]

Not as fantastic as my 16-35 f/2.8 L, or the 70-200's.... but the zoom does loosen up over time on the 17-55 and quickly becomes very usable.

When I got my 16-35 I was also considering the 24-70. One of the key reasons I went for the 16-35 (besides the obvious that on a 1.6x I wanted to start that wide) was the internal zoom. My biggest gripe with the 17-55 is the non-internal zoom...

 

[pc168]

That's one of the reason why I switched from EF-S to L lens. EF-S zoom ring is not that smooth in general. For L lens, the zoom ring is just so perfect. Very smooth and buttery.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[spurscar]

I'm not making toast with my lenses, so I really can't comment on how 'buttery smooth' they are...

It turns... left and right. Smoother than cheapo lenses, not as smooth as my 70-200 2.8L IS. Who cares?

I've never turned that 17-55 zoom ring and thought 'aw, what a piece of garbage lens'.

Guess I'm just more interested in actually shooting a picture than how much creamy animal fat my lens reminds me of. LOL.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[Paul De Bra]

The 17-85IS has a double jointed extension and is pretty smooth.

You don't want it too smooth (like on the 70-300IS) because the lens would then zoom automatically when you point it up or down.

The 17-55 is smooth unlike the 28-135.
The 28-135 has a double jointed extension which cause a less smooth
extension; where as the 17-55 has only one.

--

Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 23.000 shots) and now also the Fuji F11.

Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ . Use code V9S-JPM-YAX to get your own zenfolio site and get $5 off.

 

[Louis Matherne]

i didn't take the time to explain why I care but here you go.

I'm missing my right arm just below the elbow. When not using a camera bracket I hold the camera in the palm of my hand at the base where it connects with the len. The lens is cradled between my thumb and index finger.

There are 2 things that make the L lens better for me in this situation - placement and smoothness of the zoom. The placement allows me to use my thumb to adjust the zoom and smoothness compensates for the akwardness of the position.

I suppose the placement may be more important than the smoothness but if it moves easily I can reach with the nub of my right arm to zoom in and out.

I'm sure this is hard to picture but this is a fairly critical item to my enjoyment of photography and is why I seldom use the 28-135 that I own. If I could grasp the zoom ring like everyone else, this wouldn't particularly matter.

Hope that helps.

Louis

It turns... left and right. Smoother than cheapo lenses, not as
smooth as my 70-200 2.8L IS. Who cares?

I've never turned that 17-55 zoom ring and thought 'aw, what a
piece of garbage lens'.

Guess I'm just more interested in actually shooting a picture than
how much creamy animal fat my lens reminds me of. LOL.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[saynomore]

I bet no one (including me) was expecting that answer... but you should have stated so in your post before, so maybe people could come up with more helpful answers from the start.

I have had the zooms 28-135 IS, 70-300 DO, 17-40/4, 10-22 and the kit lens. The 17-40 has the smoothest and lightest zoom, build quality is better than the others, except for maybe the DO. The DO, as it is kinda heavy (for its size) had the zoom ring smooth, but heavy. The 10-22 is very similar to the 17-40, design and all. Zoom action is pretty much the same too. The 28-135, as you say, compared to the 17-40 has the zoom harsh and a bit heavier. The kit lens's build quality is on a par with Lego.

So from that experience (not much, I know) I'd guess that the 17-55's build quality is equal or superior than the 10-22 (and maybe the 17-40). But peope who have it should be able to advise you better, since the 17-55 is faster and heavier. I'd think something more like the 24-105.

I'm missing my right arm just below the elbow. When not using a
camera bracket I hold the camera in the palm of my hand at the base
where it connects with the len. The lens is cradled between my
thumb and index finger.

There are 2 things that make the L lens better for me in this
situation - placement and smoothness of the zoom. The placement
allows me to use my thumb to adjust the zoom and smoothness
compensates for the akwardness of the position.

I suppose the placement may be more important than the smoothness
but if it moves easily I can reach with the nub of my right arm to
zoom in and out.

I'm sure this is hard to picture but this is a fairly critical item
to my enjoyment of photography and is why I seldom use the 28-135
that I own. If I could grasp the zoom ring like everyone else,
this wouldn't particularly matter.

Hope that helps.

Louis

It turns... left and right. Smoother than cheapo lenses, not as
smooth as my 70-200 2.8L IS. Who cares?

I've never turned that 17-55 zoom ring and thought 'aw, what a
piece of garbage lens'.

Guess I'm just more interested in actually shooting a picture than
how much creamy animal fat my lens reminds me of. LOL.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[saynomore]

The 10-22 and 17-40 have the zoom and focus rings in opposite positions, just in case. Better take a close look at photos of the 17-55, if you haven't already. Again, people who actually have it should be more helpful.

Good luck!

I have had the zooms 28-135 IS, 70-300 DO, 17-40/4, 10-22 and the
kit lens. The 17-40 has the smoothest and lightest zoom, build
quality is better than the others, except for maybe the DO. The DO,
as it is kinda heavy (for its size) had the zoom ring smooth, but
heavy. The 10-22 is very similar to the 17-40, design and all. Zoom
action is pretty much the same too. The 28-135, as you say,
compared to the 17-40 has the zoom harsh and a bit heavier. The kit
lens's build quality is on a par with Lego.

So from that experience (not much, I know) I'd guess that the
17-55's build quality is equal or superior than the 10-22 (and
maybe the 17-40). But peope who have it should be able to advise
you better, since the 17-55 is faster and heavier. I'd think
something more like the 24-105.

I'm missing my right arm just below the elbow. When not using a
camera bracket I hold the camera in the palm of my hand at the base
where it connects with the len. The lens is cradled between my
thumb and index finger.

There are 2 things that make the L lens better for me in this
situation - placement and smoothness of the zoom. The placement
allows me to use my thumb to adjust the zoom and smoothness
compensates for the akwardness of the position.

I suppose the placement may be more important than the smoothness
but if it moves easily I can reach with the nub of my right arm to
zoom in and out.

I'm sure this is hard to picture but this is a fairly critical item
to my enjoyment of photography and is why I seldom use the 28-135
that I own. If I could grasp the zoom ring like everyone else,
this wouldn't particularly matter.

Hope that helps.

Louis

It turns... left and right. Smoother than cheapo lenses, not as
smooth as my 70-200 2.8L IS. Who cares?

I've never turned that 17-55 zoom ring and thought 'aw, what a
piece of garbage lens'.

Guess I'm just more interested in actually shooting a picture than
how much creamy animal fat my lens reminds me of. LOL.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[Louis Matherne]

Thanks for your reply. i didn't mean it as an ouch but I understand how someone might take it that way. Just rushing through emails ...

I have had the zooms 28-135 IS, 70-300 DO, 17-40/4, 10-22 and the
kit lens. The 17-40 has the smoothest and lightest zoom, build
quality is better than the others, except for maybe the DO. The DO,
as it is kinda heavy (for its size) had the zoom ring smooth, but
heavy. The 10-22 is very similar to the 17-40, design and all. Zoom
action is pretty much the same too. The 28-135, as you say,
compared to the 17-40 has the zoom harsh and a bit heavier. The kit
lens's build quality is on a par with Lego.

So from that experience (not much, I know) I'd guess that the
17-55's build quality is equal or superior than the 10-22 (and
maybe the 17-40). But peope who have it should be able to advise
you better, since the 17-55 is faster and heavier. I'd think
something more like the 24-105.

I'm missing my right arm just below the elbow. When not using a
camera bracket I hold the camera in the palm of my hand at the base
where it connects with the len. The lens is cradled between my
thumb and index finger.

There are 2 things that make the L lens better for me in this
situation - placement and smoothness of the zoom. The placement
allows me to use my thumb to adjust the zoom and smoothness
compensates for the akwardness of the position.

I suppose the placement may be more important than the smoothness
but if it moves easily I can reach with the nub of my right arm to
zoom in and out.

I'm sure this is hard to picture but this is a fairly critical item
to my enjoyment of photography and is why I seldom use the 28-135
that I own. If I could grasp the zoom ring like everyone else,
this wouldn't particularly matter.

Hope that helps.

Louis

It turns... left and right. Smoother than cheapo lenses, not as
smooth as my 70-200 2.8L IS. Who cares?

I've never turned that 17-55 zoom ring and thought 'aw, what a
piece of garbage lens'.

Guess I'm just more interested in actually shooting a picture than
how much creamy animal fat my lens reminds me of. LOL.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[spurscar]

While I'm sorry about your situation, it probably accounts for 0.01% of photographers, so while you have a great point about it being important to you, I have a great point also about how it's not really a big deal for almost everyone else.

Regardless of who's using it though, the lens doesn't feel as cheap as some would lead you to believe. Its issues with flare and some vignetting/CA are much worse than its build quality IMO.

Still, a phenomenal lens with a nice range.

I'm missing my right arm just below the elbow. When not using a
camera bracket I hold the camera in the palm of my hand at the base
where it connects with the len. The lens is cradled between my
thumb and index finger.

There are 2 things that make the L lens better for me in this
situation - placement and smoothness of the zoom. The placement
allows me to use my thumb to adjust the zoom and smoothness
compensates for the akwardness of the position.

I suppose the placement may be more important than the smoothness
but if it moves easily I can reach with the nub of my right arm to
zoom in and out.

I'm sure this is hard to picture but this is a fairly critical item
to my enjoyment of photography and is why I seldom use the 28-135
that I own. If I could grasp the zoom ring like everyone else,
this wouldn't particularly matter.

Hope that helps.

Louis

It turns... left and right. Smoother than cheapo lenses, not as
smooth as my 70-200 2.8L IS. Who cares?

I've never turned that 17-55 zoom ring and thought 'aw, what a
piece of garbage lens'.

Guess I'm just more interested in actually shooting a picture than
how much creamy animal fat my lens reminds me of. LOL.

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[Louis Matherne]

No one needs to be sorry about my situation. I do fine, thank you very much.

I occasionally have to make purchaing decision that take me a different direction from the mainstream because of an ergonomic issue. No big deal. I deal with it.

I recognize this lens is a high quality lens hence why I was asking. For me, though, a less than "buttery smooth" zoom ring significantly impacts my enjoyment of this hobby. The placement of the zoom ring is an issue too. The zoom ring next to the body is easier for me to operate.

So the lens may be fabulous but probably not for me.

I also have one more argument for getting that 5D that you don't have. ;-)

Louis

I have a 28-135 that I hate to use because the zoom ring is
"sticky." It does not have the smooth action of my 17-40.

The EF-S 17-55 looks just like the 28-135 although I've not had a
chance to handle one (the local camera store can't seem to keep
them in stock).

Is it reasonable to expect the 17-55 zoom ring to operate the same
as the 28-135?

Thanks!

Louis

 

[billimbriale]

Actually, to anyone who wants to frame a shot quickly, the smooth operation of the zoom ring is very significant.

 

[Lee Baby Simms]

mine is still a problem ... take more effort and a different grip than I would prefer (and have experienced on every other higher end lens I own).

still a great lens though ... just not perfect