Largely a waste of money

I have owned this lens since around 2010. I read so much good about it I just had to get it over the 18-55 kit lens.

I used it on a 7D, and after getting this lens I took it out on a test shoot several times together with my brother 18-55 kit lens. I was not able to see any appreciable advantage on this lens in any way whatsoever.

AF performance was near identical, image quality too. True, at the long end and wide open you can get a bit of background separation for portraits and the like, but the effect is still quite minimal and not worth a lot on its own. Other than that, I found absolutely nothing that made me feel I had gotten my moneys worth compared to the kit lens. And then there is the dust issue too. My first copy even came pre-dusted, there was a lot of dust inside the lens - of course I returned it for a clean copy.

Compared to my 24-105* on my 5D2 the 17-55 seemed neither worse nor better, but the 5D II was full-frame with more resolution, so I ended up using it a lot more. I haven't used the 17-55 in ages.

So I cannot recommend this lens to anyone unless you really really need the f 2.8.

*Incidentally, the 24-105 was another purchase made in error, I should have gone straight for the 24-70 2.8, which I have now (the mark 2 that is).

That's surprising, mine is a night and day difference when compared to my 18-55 kit lens.  Much sharper, better colors, etc......at least in my opinion.

In my experience the IQ was substantially better than the 17-40 L lens, especially sharpness.  Don't have the other lens you mention for comparison, but did find the 17-55 quite a nice lens for crop.

fishy wishy wrote:

There are a lot of 18-55 lenses, you need to state which generation it is. Even its year would help.

That would have been the 18-55 that came with the 550D, from 2010 I think - I don't remember more details than that

And the point was not to say that the 17-55 has bad mage quality per see, although it did not entirely live up to my (very high) standards. The point is more that for the extra money over the 18-55 kit lens, you get very little in return. Most people will be far better off with the 18-55.

Kaso wrote:

quadrox wrote:

I have owned this lens since around 2010.

And you have had plenty of time and opportunity to sell it.

Even money sitting in a box under the bed instead of sitting in the bank earning minimal interests is a waste of money.

True, but I couldn't justify losing a backup lens for the very modest resale price it would bring. And now I probably wouldn't get much at all for it.

quadrox wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

There are a lot of 18-55 lenses, you need to state which generation it is. Even its year would help.

That would have been the 18-55 that came with the 550D, from 2010 I think - I don't remember more details than that

And the point was not to say that the 17-55 has bad mage quality per see, although it did not entirely live up to my (very high) standards. The point is more that for the extra money over the 18-55 kit lens, you get very little in return. Most people will be far better off with the 18-55.

I've never owned the 17-55, but I did borrow one for a couple of months some years ago. And I agree with you. Sure, if you pixel peep it's better. If you're shooting wide open, it's better. But if you're shooting at f8, you'll be hard pushed to spot any real world difference in the end product between this and any but the very first 18-55 (which was a dog).

In the end, I bought the 15-85 for crop, as it has a much more usable focal length range and to me was at least as sharp as the 17-55.

J A C S wrote:

quadrox wrote:

So I cannot recommend this lens to anyone unless you really really need the f 2.8.

… which is the whole point...

Duh...?!

Of course one buys a faster lens to get a faster lens. What I am saying is, that in this case a faster lens doesn't get you what you would usually expect from a faster lens.

I'm an extreme pixel peeper, and I shot with both this lens and the 18-55 in various conditions, and I could not for the life of me detect a difference in the image quality. And I never felt limited by the kit zoom in any way. I even once forgot to put the 17-55 in my bag, but still had the kit zoom. I was quite anxious about it actually, but at the end of the day I hadn't missed the 17-55 one bit and the images were fine.

So yes, that f 2.8 is going to allow you to keep shooting in slightly darker conditions if you are going to shoot wide open, that is undeniable, but it's not much of a difference really. And at the long end you get a (tiny) bit of background separation wide open. But if you expect really improved image quality, handling, build quality, or anything else for that money, your'e going to be extremely disappointed.

fishy wishy wrote:

quadrox wrote:

So yes, that f 2.8 is going to allow you to keep shooting in slightly darker conditions if you are going to shoot wide open, that is undeniable, but it's not much of a difference really.

???

Maybe not for a hobbyist who diddles about in daylight.

If you're an indoor event shooter, having two stops more light can make the world of difference, bringing you from horrible high isos into a usable range.

Two stops is a massive difference to get from a lens. Particularly if you achieve it for only a few hundred.

Your perspective is completely off. Fast apertures are not just about stylistic subtleties for the bored hobbyists.

Fair enough, I was understating the difference two stops can make in this post.

I was trying to highlight how little you get for your money, but I should have focussed on the following point instead of denying the light gathering capabilities:

I had expected a lot more than "just" sheer light gathering capability. We are talking a lens that is priced like L-glass, but without most of the traditional L-glass benefits, such as impressive resolution and build quality,

fishy wishy wrote:

quadrox wrote:

So yes, that f 2.8 is going to allow you to keep shooting in slightly darker conditions if you are going to shoot wide open, that is undeniable, but it's not much of a difference really.

???

Maybe not for a hobbyist who diddles about in daylight.

If you're an indoor event shooter, having two stops more light can make the world of difference, bringing you from horrible high isos into a usable range.

Two stops is a massive difference to get from a lens. Particularly if you achieve it for only a few hundred.

Your perspective is completely off. Fast apertures are not just about stylistic subtleties for the bored hobbyists.

Not that many indoor event shooters shoot crop. I certainly don't. Those that do are probably shooting primes in most cases anyway.But regardless, that's not "most people".

The OP's contention is that for the majority of people, this lens doesn't make sense. I agree. That certainly doesn't mean that there aren't people for whom this is the perfect lens; clearly there are. Anyone who has to - or wants to - work at f2.8 or even f4 within this focal range will be well served by it. But buy it because you need it, not because everyone tells you it's the best choice on crop - for many, it isn't.

Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but I've always loved my 17-55 F/2.8, so much so I dropped about AUD$400 on it to get it fixed when the focus started playing up.

Obviously the 2.8 is great, combined with IS you can get shots in very dim light without a tripod. Very handy.

It's super sharp by F/4.0, comparable with my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II which is also decent.

The 7D is not the sharpest sensor in the world. I say that because pixel peeping the 17-55 on my 400D looked way sharper than pixel peeping on the 7D. The 7D seems to require a bit of extra sharpening to have that 1:1 sharpness.

But anyway, fair review, I just have my own perspective.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

quadrox wrote:

So yes, that f 2.8 is going to allow you to keep shooting in slightly darker conditions if you are going to shoot wide open, that is undeniable, but it's not much of a difference really.

???

Maybe not for a hobbyist who diddles about in daylight.

If you're an indoor event shooter, having two stops more light can make the world of difference, bringing you from horrible high isos into a usable range.

Two stops is a massive difference to get from a lens. Particularly if you achieve it for only a few hundred.

Your perspective is completely off. Fast apertures are not just about stylistic subtleties for the bored hobbyists.

Not that many indoor event shooters shoot crop. I certainly don't. Those that do are probably shooting primes in most cases anyway.But regardless, that's not "most people".

The OP's contention is that for the majority of people, this lens doesn't make sense. I agree. That certainly doesn't mean that there aren't people for whom this is the perfect lens; clearly there are. Anyone who has to - or wants to - work at f2.8 or even f4 within this focal range will be well served by it. But buy it because you need it, not because everyone tells you it's the best choice on crop - for many, it isn't.

Yes, that expresses very well what I meant to say, thank you!

andrewsf wrote:

Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but I've always loved my 17-55 F/2.8, so much so I dropped about AUD$400 on it to get it fixed when the focus started playing up.

Obviously the 2.8 is great, combined with IS you can get shots in very dim light without a tripod. Very handy.

It's super sharp by F/4.0, comparable with my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II which is also decent.

The 7D is not the sharpest sensor in the world. I say that because pixel peeping the 17-55 on my 400D looked way sharper than pixel peeping on the 7D. The 7D seems to require a bit of extra sharpening to have that 1:1 sharpness.

But anyway, fair review, I just have my own perspective.

I created this review mostly to give potential buyers the chance to see another perspective. Also I am not saying that the 17-55 is bad per se, only that for much less money you can get almost as good with the kit zoom.

Your comments about the comparison with the legendary 70-200 and your remarks about sharpness on 7D have made me curious. I am going to perform some tests when I get the chance, though it won't be this week.

Thanks for your response, it has made me think

J A C S wrote:

How is your 18-55 at 55/2.8?

Of course the kit zoom can't do f2.8, the question is what you get out of being able to do so. My verdict was: not enough, not for that kind of money.

And I never felt limited by the kit zoom in any way. I even once forgot to put the 17-55 in my bag, but still had the kit zoom. I was quite anxious about it actually, but at the end of the day I hadn't missed the 17-55 one bit and the images were fine.

This is OK. Most people are not limited by their phones either.

Possibly, though ultimately I am unable to judge value for money on phones and what other reasons there might be to buy a more expensive phone.

When it comes to lenses however, I can clearly say from experience that the 17-55 does not give enough value for money (IMHO of course).

So yes, that f 2.8 is going to allow you to keep shooting in slightly darker conditions if you are going to shoot wide open, that is undeniable, but it's not much of a difference really.

Yep, just two stops at, say, 55mm. Like the difference between 200/4 and 200/2. Or 40/1.4 vs. the pancake 40/2.8.

Really poor comparison. At longer focal lengths, more light for faster shutter speeds is much more critical, and the effect for background separation is more pronounced. Similarly, the range from 1.4 and 2.8 at 40mm is exactly where you begin to get useful background separation, whereas 2.8 might be better than 5.6, but just not enough.

And at the long end you get a (tiny) bit of background separation wide open. But if you expect really improved image quality, handling, build quality, or anything else for that money, your'e going to be extremely disappointed.

You get improved IQ vs. something the kit cannot even do.

Those kit lenses are sharp, indeed but they are very very slow. It is not a big achievement to have sharp f/5.6-f/9 eq. lens. What more do you expect there? It is an achievement to get more light.

A 2.8 lens should have greater IQ, and for the price, better build quality.

I owned those lenses, BTW. The kit lenses I owned had low contrast compared to the 17-55. It was very obvious.

Well, maybe you had one of the worse kit lenses, my brothers copy had no issues keeping up with the 17-55.