Great range, cheap build

Outstanding review

According to your gear list, you no longer own a Canon body. What did you put this lens on to do such an extensive review?

when the 17-55 was released it produced IQ better than any medium range zoom made by or for Canon FF

ed rader wrote:

when the 17-55 was released it produced IQ better than any medium range zoom made by or for Canon FF

Mine was a dog, sold it.

jp4 wrote:

ed rader wrote:

when the 17-55 was released it produced IQ better than any medium range zoom made by or for Canon FF

Mine was a dog, sold it.

could have been a bad copy or a number of other things.  I know mine was very sharp even wide open, sharper in fact than the 24-70L I (brick) wide open.

"Prior to receiving my 17-55 IS, I stated that I expected its image quality to match or nearly match that of Canon's L Series Lenses as it shares the L-Series UD lens elements. As it turns out, my 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range ...

This lens is sharp! Wide open and from edge to edge. Unless the distance is close that is - I'm finding that close subjects do not produce the same image sharpness as normal distance subjects. The ISO 12233 chart test results indicate this as well. The 17-55 IS shows slight sharpness improvement at f/4, but performance at f/2.8 is very good."

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I used this lens for some time with a 7D and a 7D MKII.  I came from a 17-40 and found the image quality a significant improvement, but agree that the build quality is lousy.  It has interior dust that drives you nuts although doesn't seem to affect pictures.  It also has zoom creep which was very distracting when doing events.  So I don't use this lens anymore, but the IQ was good even though the build quality was not.  I always thought the price would justify a much better build quality.

my 5d (original) had to be sent to canon because the mirror fell off. I had a friend's wedding I said I would shoot. I needed a fast medium range zoom for my back-up camera -- canon 20d. I bought a used 17-55 (and sold it afterwards). I've owned the 24-105L at least a half dozen times over the years and was an early adopter when it was first released. as a landscape shooter the distortion at 24mm makes the lens highly undesirable to me, as well as the mediocre performance throughout the range and softness at 105.

bottom line is at the time the 17-55 was the only lens that would work for me.

Dale Garman wrote:

I used this lens for some time with a 7D and a 7D MKII. I came from a 17-40 and found the image quality a significant improvement, but agree that the build quality is lousy. It has interior dust that drives you nuts although doesn't seem to affect pictures. It also has zoom creep which was very distracting when doing events. So I don't use this lens anymore, but the IQ was good even though the build quality was not. I always thought the price would justify a much better build quality.

at the time the 17-55 was revolutionary.  the only medium range zoom that offered f2.8 was from sigma -- the 18-50 I believe -- and it could not focus.  so canon could get away with the price back then.