Known issues with 17-55/2.8?

Im on the verge of buying a Canon 17-55/2.8 and replace my 18-55 stm to go with my 700D.
I'm also considering the Sigma 17-50/2.8 but the canons just feels more right, even though its priced twice as high as the sigma.

I'd like to know if anyone got any good reason to stay away from the 17-55/2.8?
I've heard some complaints about the AF going bad over time? Is there any truth to this? Also seen some people complain about zoom creep.

Any other issues one should be aware of? I know there are several threads about the 17-55 already but It's a pricy lens so would hate to miss something.

If anyone has strong arguments for the sigma instead of canon I'd be happy to hear those as well!

wanner wrote:

Im on the verge of buying a Canon 17-55/2.8 and replace my 18-55 stm to go with my 700D.
I'm also considering the Sigma 17-50/2.8 but the canons just feels more right, even though its priced twice as high as the sigma.

I'd like to know if anyone got any good reason to stay away from the 17-55/2.8?
I've heard some complaints about the AF going bad over time? Is there any truth to this? Also seen some people complain about zoom creep.

Any other issues one should be aware of? I know there are several threads about the 17-55 already but It's a pricy lens so would hate to miss something.

If anyone has strong arguments for the sigma instead of canon I'd be happy to hear those as well!

So far I am happy with the choice I made with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 in the environment that I shoot in. I do not have permission to show photos as they are private. I have not done much shooting outside the enclosed environment but so far, this lens has worked out.

Here is a post where I asked for help in finding a low light zoom and this board came to my aide.  http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3685100

I know its early but so far I have no lens creep, do have at times some Auto AF hunting but that has to do with the environment I am in at times. I then take it off of Auto focusing and go manual and try to move to a better location in the room.

Not sure if what I have posted will help but maybe the discussion in the link will?

I am happy with the price as well and for the IQ the lens produces. I chose this lens as it has a fixed aperture of f/2.8 when I zoom and it has IS Or what Sigma calls it OS for image stabilization.

I have always been a canon snob so looking outside the brand was iffy for me, I did look at the Canon 17-55 but the price, dust problem, lens creep and other comments I read on Amazon, B&H and here helped me to make my choice. Sigma has opened my eyes that there are other lenses than the Canon name.

Some copies are dust magnets. Mine isn't noticeably sharp. But most seem to be awesome!

ref: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3275068

I have the 17-55 2.8 and its been on my 40D since it first came out and I have nothing but praise for this lens.

buff said.

I went to my local camera store to have a look at it and my first impression was that the lens is really big. That actually made me look more at the sigma 17-50 since that is smaller and more lightweight considering I'm aiming for this lens to be my everyday walking around lens.

Thoughts?

wanner wrote:

Im on the verge of buying a Canon 17-55/2.8 and replace my 18-55 stm to go with my 700D.
I'm also considering the Sigma 17-50/2.8 but the canons just feels more right, even though its priced twice as high as the sigma.

I'd like to know if anyone got any good reason to stay away from the 17-55/2.8?
I've heard some complaints about the AF going bad over time? Is there any truth to this? Also seen some people complain about zoom creep.

Any other issues one should be aware of? I know there are several threads about the 17-55 already but It's a pricy lens so would hate to miss something.

If anyone has strong arguments for the sigma instead of canon I'd be happy to hear those as well!

I personally paired 60D with a 3 years old C17-55/2.8 IS for 18 months before I upgraded to 6D and I would say I missed F2.8 zoom with IS a lot. Handheld indoor at 1/15 was not a problem and you still get in focus photos. USM is fast as well.

The only bad thing is dust. I had B+W UV filter on it but dust still got into it! Anyway, that is not important as it won't affect the picture quality. I don't have lens creep issue but the zoom ring was not that smooth, most probably due to wear and tear?

You won't regret getting it, if you are not upgrading to FF in near future.

I didn't read the replies, but I've had the 17-55 for about 6 years. It has been exposed to heat, cold, dust, etc. and I have dropped the lens and body a couple of times but it still makes great photos. I'd go with the 17-55.

Kent

Bert_vargas wrote:

I have the 17-55 2.8 and its been on my 40D since it first came out and I have nothing but praise for this lens.

buff said.

I second this.  Order mines on the day it was available for sale from B & H, and on same camera.  I sold my 40D and upgraded to 7D as default body for lens.  Hands down the best EF-S lens for Canon APC cameras.  May even be said the same for all APC cameras, but don't quote me. 

I got my 17-55 2.8 for traveling to Europe mainly to use inside museums and cathedrals..

my main walkaround lens is the 15-85 and it remains so for the past 2 1/2 years on my 60d... I shoot a lot of sunrises and landscapes and I noticed right away after trying the 17-55 for that purpose it is subject to more lens flare than the 15-85.. I have tried it with and without a B+W UV MRC F-Pro 010M filter as well as with a Canon lens hood ..

it's a bit heavier than the 15-85 if that means anything..it doesn't to me.. the 15-85 is wider--that 2mm makes a big difference on the low end... also miss the 85 mm on the top end.. no problems with the 17-55 other than what I encountered with lens flare

If you're more of a landscape shooter the 17-55 would be my pick.  If you're more into shooting people, the Sigma 17-50 is better because the Sigma is a little sharper in the center and the Canon has better edges.

jitteringjr wrote:

If you're more of a landscape shooter the 17-55 would be my pick. If you're more into shooting people, the Sigma 17-50 is better because the Sigma is a little sharper in the center and the Canon has better edges.

I'm actually thinking of getting the new canon 10-18 as a complement for landscape photography.

Have had my 17-55 2.8 IS for 5 years.  No lens creep or dust problems even with many trips to the southwest.  Has never required service of any kind.  Might flare a little more than some lenses but not really much of a problem.  Is sharp throughout its focal range at every aperture.

However since I bought a 5DIII my 60D/17-55 combo isn't seeing much use.  My standard zoom for the 5DIII is the 24-70 2.8II which is a great lens but I do miss the IS of the 17-55.

While I never considered the size or weight of the 17-55 to be much of a detriment on the 60D, I got the urge for a smaller camera to complement the 5DIII and got an SL1.  Since small is what I was after I do prefer the 40 and the 18-55stm to the 17-55 on it.

I owned the 17-55 twice while I had crop cameras (sold it, regretted it, bought it again). It's a really fine lens. Cons from my perspective:

- Dust. My second copy picked up dust more effectively than my vacuum cleaner. That's an exaggeration obviously, but I generally kept a filter on the front specifically to reduce dust accumulation.

- Flare susceptibility. Definitely not as resistant to flare as other zooms such as the 10-22, even without the filter.

- "Grittty" feel to manual focus. Quite common, not a problem, just not pleasant.

- IS not recommended for panning (no mode switch)

- Bokeh quality sometimes disappointing (subjective, but I found busy backgrounds, especially those involving foliage, could look rough)

- No hood included. Trust you'll want one, but there are good quality cheap alternatives to the OEM hood.

The zoom action loosened a little on my second copy over time but never became problematic. A while back (good few years now) there was a spate of IS failures on the 17-55. I think I read somewhere - maybe on LensRentals? - that problem kind of went away with newer copies. Something to think about if buying used.

wanner wrote:

I went to my local camera store to have a look at it and my first impression was that the lens is really big. That actually made me look more at the sigma 17-50 since that is smaller and more lightweight considering I'm aiming for this lens to be my everyday walking around lens.

Thoughts?

I'd advise you to base your decision on all of the properties of the lenses in question.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=729&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Well, i've been there a couple months ago. I've done a huge amount of research and ended up buying a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 mainly due to it's larger aperture as i tend to shoot a lot indoors.

But on my researches, i talked to many, many ppl, and they all said to me that the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a REALLY AWESOME lens. I've seen a whole bunch of images and they all were very sharp, with a little vignetting and very little distortion.

One video i've seen that i found really helpful is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3UfbsdfUu8

So, in short: if weren't for the f/1.8 apperture, i would have bought the Canon 17-55mm.

Hope it helps.

Rick Knepper wrote:

wanner wrote:

I went to my local camera store to have a look at it and my first impression was that the lens is really big. That actually made me look more at the sigma 17-50 since that is smaller and more lightweight considering I'm aiming for this lens to be my everyday walking around lens.

Thoughts?

I'd advise you to base your decision on all of the properties of the lenses in question.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=729&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yes i've studied that extensively

Looks like sigma is sharper in the center but softer at corners. I think im leaning towards the Sigma. Just wish it was part of Sigmas newer series lenses with improved quality control.

wanner wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

wanner wrote:

I went to my local camera store to have a look at it and my first impression was that the lens is really big. That actually made me look more at the sigma 17-50 since that is smaller and more lightweight considering I'm aiming for this lens to be my everyday walking around lens.

Thoughts?

I'd advise you to base your decision on all of the properties of the lenses in question.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=729&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yes i've studied that extensively

Looks like sigma is sharper in the center but softer at corners. I think im leaning towards the Sigma. Just wish it was part of Sigmas newer series lenses with improved quality control.

So is stretching the budget to include the 18-35/1.8 out of the question?   Seeing how you have 40 and 55+ covered, it might work well for you.

wanner wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

wanner wrote:

I went to my local camera store to have a look at it and my first impression was that the lens is really big. That actually made me look more at the sigma 17-50 since that is smaller and more lightweight considering I'm aiming for this lens to be my everyday walking around lens.

Thoughts?

I'd advise you to base your decision on all of the properties of the lenses in question.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=729&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yes i've studied that extensively

Looks like sigma is sharper in the center but softer at corners. I think im leaning towards the Sigma. Just wish it was part of Sigmas newer series lenses with improved quality control.

So is stretching the budget to include the 18-35/1.8 out of the question?   Seeing how you have 40 and 55+ covered, it might work well for you.

I'd really like the 18-35, looks really impressive. But I'm looking for a general use lens, a lens to bring on vacations and such and I don't think the 18-35 is the best fit for that considering it's size, the limited focal length and lack of IS.
I feel that the 17-50 with is would serve better as a general usage lens.

Advantages of the Sigma 18-35:
■ Better build, no zoom creep, no dust issues. The Sigma looks and feels like a solid piece of kit.
■ One and a third stop faster across the board. It really does transmit at f1.8 too.
■ One and a third stop more resolving across the board. The Sigma at f/1.8 is generally on par with the Canon at f/2.8.
If, if, if top-notch optics on Canon APS-C is your primary consideration, the choice is clear.