The only redeeming value is the f/2.8 aperture

I've read some raving reviews about this lens -- some say "It's the best non-L lens Canon has made.", etc. Not so. The optical quality is mediocre at best -- okay sharpness, pronounced distortions and vignetting; and the build quality is below average. The only redeeming value is its f/2.8 aperture, which does come handy in low-light situations, and it is the only dedicated EF-S zoom lens with a constant large aperture and useful focal length range, so that leaves one with no choice if such is needed.

The lens was good for its time, but the lens landscape has changed significantly in the last 12 years. Just something that everyone should be aware of before going off what is generally a well reviewed older lens.

porsche997 wrote:

I have used the lens quite a bit - mine was razor sharp at all focal lengths at f/2.8. I've used a lot of L lenses and the 17-55 can stand with them sharpness wise. Vignetting and distortion are fixed with a click each in Lightroom.

Agree with below-average build quality: zoom creep, jerky zooming action, but disagree on calling the optical quality "mediocre."

I had one a while back on my 80D and would agree with 'mediocre'

So the question is what would be the replacement "fast-ish" zoom lens for a crop camera?  The EF 24-70/104 and L versions are often suggested but frankly they all suck at 17-23mm so they really aren't alternatives for most.  Its a really goofy focal range for crop cameras.

I see the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS suggested a lot but the reviews I've read here and on other site suggest that it is an equal to the EF-S 17-55 but not really blowing it out of the water.  It's better in some areas, worse in others, generally an equal if you want to deal with potential auto focus issues.  Nothing I've been able to find yet is the "this blows the EF-S 17-55 out of the water" option, unless you go to full frame glass with odd focal ranges.

So what is a good replacement for the EF-S 17-55?  I was (still am) looking at this lens as a replacement for my kit lens because its faster than my kit (f/2.8 vs f/3.5-5.6......I have the 18-55 IS II lens).   Just get it, go for the Sigma version, or just keep the kit lens?

mkphoto79 wrote:

So the question is what would be the replacement "fast-ish" zoom lens for a crop camera? The EF 24-70/104 and L versions are often suggested but frankly they all suck at 17-23mm so they really aren't alternatives for most. Its a really goofy focal range for crop cameras.

I see the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS suggested a lot but the reviews I've read here and on other site suggest that it is an equal to the EF-S 17-55 but not really blowing it out of the water. It's better in some areas, worse in others, generally an equal if you want to deal with potential auto focus issues. Nothing I've been able to find yet is the "this blows the EF-S 17-55 out of the water" option, unless you go to full frame glass with odd focal ranges.

So what is a good replacement for the EF-S 17-55? I was (still am) looking at this lens as a replacement for my kit lens because its faster than my kit (f/2.8 vs f/3.5-5.6......I have the 18-55 IS II lens). Just get it, go for the Sigma version, or just keep the kit lens?

Zoom lens...I gave up looking...was thinking maybe a 24-70 f2.8 would work for me but it's an $$$ lens. I gave up looking for a zoom. I mostly use a 35mm f2 and sometimes a 50mm f1.8 and bought a flash.

I have an old Sigma 18-50 without OS. Sharp as a tack, but there's plenty I'd love to see - like longer focus throw, FT Manual focusing, and stabilization. I'm hoping Tamron comes out with a G2...

I was thinking of getting the Sigma 30 f/1.4 ART and a flash for now and seeing if that works.  Maybe the15-85 could serve as the kit lens replacement then.

mkphoto79 wrote:

I was thinking of getting the Sigma 30 f/1.4 ART and a flash for now and seeing if that works. Maybe the15-85 could serve as the kit lens replacement then.

I was thinking about that lens as well. My 35 f2 is the old canon non is version. I got it used for cheap, the new IS version is 4x what I pad for the non IS...but I doubt its 4x as good.

Flash is a great addition, I found it to be way more useful / effective then the 17-50 without flash.

15-85 is apparently a good lens, I've never used one. I like my 18-135 stm, I use it for video and for travelling. The 35mm is my main lens.

it was sharper than the 24-70L (brick) wide open.  colors were not as good though