Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

photo sharing and upload

picture albums

photo forums

search pictures

popular photos

photography help

login

All Cameras >> Canon >> Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Sample Photos

o4/87/331787/1/56995861.l217_efs1755_586x225.jpg

Lens Mount: EF-S

Lens: 17-55mm

Random Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Samples from 26293 available Photos more

Comments

Barry S Moore		20-Jun-2010 15:01
Sorry, link is correct now....This lens might have a similar design fault to the EFS 17-85mm IS f4-5.6 where a flexible cable breaks in the lens, particularly at the 17mm end of the zoom. See my pictures of the 17-85mm IS lens fault athttp://www.pbase.com/barry_2718/efs1785mm

Barry S Moore		20-Jun-2010 14:58
This lens might have a similar design fault to the EFS 17-85mm IS f4-5.6 where a flexible cable breaks in the lens, particularly at the 17mm end of the zoom. See my pictures of the 17-85mm IS lens fault athttp://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/efs_17-85_4-56_is

@ Bruce Gilling		11-Feb-2010 03:50
http://www.pbase.com/image/121860306

Khoi Huynh-Dinh		24-Jan-2010 04:24
Check out my gallery taken only with the 17-55:http://www.pbase.com/khoi1974/canada

Sylvain B.		11-Sep-2008 06:55
People pls stop comparing this lens with the 24-70L! First, 24-70L on a 1.6 crop sensor will give you an effective 38-112mm which can't really be compared with a 17-55mm lens (in terms of distortion, vignetting...) I agree that the build is 'soso' but the image quality, contrast and colors are very good through the range at 2.8. The only thing I can complain about is that I get too much flare at 17mm (again you can't compare this issue on a 24-70!) and the hood only poorly reduces the flare. This lens is built with UD (L) glass. I am not saying that justifies the price but it makes it more acceptable. It didn't get the L label only because it is an EF-S and doesn't provide dust protection/sealing. Check canon website and reviews... Yes it's expensive but it does the extremely well.

Guest		13-Jul-2008 10:56
I don't like the feel of this lens either. It feels cheap. I'm thinking of trading it in for 24-70 2.8.

@ Bruce Gilling		01-Jun-2008 03:12
if canon had a 24 70 IS lens 2.8 it wouold be cool for a 5d but for cropped camera this lens rocks should be $75o max imho

Al Swanson		28-May-2008 23:07
I don't know. I have or have had the 24-105 (x2), the 24-70 and the 17-55. Of the three, the 17-55 just doesn't cut it with me. The build quality leaves a TON to be desired. I've really not used it enough to know about colors and contrast, but I do like the fast AF (matched by the two L's), the IS (matched by the 24-105) and the 2.8. It really is a decent lens, but should cost at least $200 less. In fact, if it was a $700 lens, I don't think I would hesitate to recommend it. But at $900+ with no hood, I'm sorry but the two L's kick BUTT all over this EF-S.

Guest		25-Dec-2007 19:56
Recent shots from Canon 135mm F2.0; Canon 70-200mm F2.8; and Canon 17-55mm F2.8 at my site: http://www.pbase.com/aldodefilippi/cuba

Khoi Huynh-Dinh		27-Sep-2007 03:25
Check out this gallery taken 100% with this lens : http://www.pbase.com/khoi1974/madame_tussauds

Khoi Huynh-Dinh		27-Sep-2007 03:25
I traded my 24-105 IS for a 17-55 IS. I am very happy. Both are great lenses but the 17-55 is a faster lens (f/2.8), has strong IS (better than the 24-105) and great colors (maybe a touch warmer than the 24-105 which has a distinctive "L" look). Overall, it is the perfect walk around lens on the XT/XTI/30D/40D.

Brugge		15-May-2007 18:12
I own this lens for a couple of days and already fell in love with it. It think it will stay on my Digital Rebel. http://www.pbase.com/weathercam_brugge/brugge

Ray Walton		01-May-2007 14:01
I brought my 17-55 back in early March 2007 and I am absolutely in love with it. Superb natural colour, excellent in low light withthe Canon IS system and the fast L quality glass inside. Af is quiet and smnooooth and very fast. Yes it is a little heavy but it is a f2.8 lens, and it is not up to the build quality of an L lens and I did not expect that. Main gripe is it does not come with a lens hood or even a soft carry bag for a lens at this price range. Yes I have no regrets at buying this lens, see m galleries where many of my photographs since early March are using this lens. Other than my EF 70-200mm f4 L IS lens for shots where I need the reach, this EF-S 17-55mm lens virtually lives on my EOS 350D, what a great replacement for the poor cheap kit lens !!

Martin Vlk CZ		26-Feb-2007 12:33
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Sample Photos .....SUPER!!!!......:) http://www.pbase.com/77777778/image/74836974

Guest		04-Feb-2007 07:38
Sono un semplice fotoamatore ma molto entusiasta. Possedendo una 350D con il Kit ho notato fin dai primi scatti che le mie aspettative sono state deluse dai risultati che mi proponeva suddetta combinazione. Il 18-55 è davvero un fondo di bottiglia. Colori spenti e slavati e scarsa nitidezza ai bordi. Così ho iniziato a gurdarmi attorno. E' stata una scelta molto difficile ma credo di non aver sbagliato ad acquistare il 17-55. Inizialmente ero tremendamente indeciso fra il Canon 17-40 F4 L il Sigma 18-50 o il Tamron 17-50 poi con l'arrivo di questa lente ho solo dovuto combattere contro la noia che mi procurava l'attacco Ef-s nei futuri sviluppi di mercato. Ma in casa Canon sono furbissimi e hanno creato una lente che fa veramente gola! In quel range di focali (17-xx) è pressoché imbattibile. 2.8 fisso e soprattutto la voglia di sperimentare una lente stabilizzata mi hanno fatto cedere alla tentazione e ho dato fondo a tutti i miei risparmi per ottenerla. Devo dire che è davvero eccezionale. 2.8 fissa è un apertura difficile da gestire per un principiante come me ma permette di sperimentare profondità di campo con effetti sorprendenti , ha una resa dei colori e del contrasto sublime tanto da rendere l’utilizzo di PP quasi inutile da quel punto di vista. Ho provato il Sigma e dal punto di vista dei colori non c’è storia Canon è su un altro pianeta. La nitidezza aiutata anche dall’IS raggiunge livelli che superano di gran lunga le capacità risolutive della mia 8 MP e mi danno l’opportunità di fare stampe o ingrandimenti croppati incredibili. Alle volte con scatti particolarmente riusciti pare che il soggetto esca dallo schermo.. VERY VERY SHARP SHARP. Ho reso l’idea? Quasi zero aberrazioni cromatiche e una leggerissima distorsione a barile a 17 ma del tutto nella norma per una focale di quel genere. Af velocissimo che però alle volte si incanta con superfici omogenee o ripetitive , invece testato su una 30D non presenta + alcuna lacuna. Le pecche? Beh non credo che la mancanza di guarnizioni sull’attacco sia un gran difetto in fondo non è la serie L per i Pro e non credo di andare ad utilizzarla nella giungla equatoriale o nel deserto e se anche fosse userei le attenzioni del caso. E’ plasticosa ,questo sicuramente ,ma da una bella sensazione in mano essendo notevolmente pesante e solida.Si può muovere una critica sul zoom ring che non è molto fluido anzi ha una durezza a metà corsa che tutt’ora dopo 6 mesi di utilizzo non è ancora del tutto scomparsa.Insomma se non l’avete capito ancora costruttivamente non è la serie L. Ma nemmeno le mie esigenze. Allora direte : > No di certo. Il flare è veramente una brutta bestia da domare quando il sole è nell’inquadratura avendo uno schema ottico complesso e ricco di lenti per il resto è sufficiente utilizzare sempre il paraluce. La voce peggiore è soprattutto il prezzo. Ok che la qualità si paga ma per una lente dal futuro molto incerto 950 euro in Italia sono un vero furto ladrone. Ha lo stesso prezzo del 24-105 F4 L che però è una roccia per il futuro avendo l’attacco EF (e nell’eventualità si rivenderà molto meglio). E se un domani Canon decidesse di puntare solo sul Full-format per obbligarci a cambiare nuovamente il parco ottiche e non costruisse + corpi con attacco EF-S?Le leggi di mercato sono spietate e il bombardamento mediatico/psicologico che subiremo quando il Full format scenderà sotto la soglia strategica dei 1000 euro sarà IMPLACABILE. La mia unica speranza è di poterla tenere il + a lungo possibile e di divertirmi con essa sperando di spalmare la cifra lungo tanti tanti anni di APS e scattare scattare scattare. Buon divertimento e se volete vedere qualche esempio scattato con questa meraviglia visitate il mio sito e sentitevi pure liberi di fare commenti, le foto non sono state ritoccate tranne per le impostazioni di macchina: Some samples at http://www.pbase.com/farnea Grazie e cordialità

Isabel Cutler		15-Jan-2007 11:33
It's January 15, 2007 and I've had this lens since July 24, '06. It almost never leaves my camera (20D or 350D). Sharp, great color, IS allows very low shutter speeds, fast to focus. A pleasure to use. Check out my gallery here: http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/canon1755

Jeroen Bosman		12-Dec-2006 14:42
For a Canon crop SLR this lens seems the best choice if you want a fast, optically very good and silent lens. The combination of IS and 2.8 over the full zoom range makes it a unique walk-around zoom. Although it is rather heavy, the handling is very smooth. It is ideal for indoor photography when flash is not allowed (museums/churches). I wish Canon made a comparable lens in the 45-150 range, as Olympus did. They would make the perfect couple. To see a complete gallery of landscape photography with this lens: http://www.pbase.com/hiero/foggy_dew

@ Bruce Gilling		28-Nov-2006 02:01
EFS will stay i am sure of that

Guest		12-Jul-2006 13:39
Two little problems in my opinion, the vignetting, very present wide open, disappear at 4 or 5.6, but… The lens seems very sharp at 4 and up, but for sure a little softer at 2.8. About the vignetting, I have made some test shots at different apertures, and ther compared with Canon 10-22 and Canon 50 1.4. It is better on this point than the 10-22 (hard vignetting wide open…) but the not APS-C 50 1.4 is clearly better than the 17-55, for a use at 50mm at 2.8. Tests visible here : http://www.pbase.com/isogood/image/63255188 Some sharpness test pictures here, you may see the difference between 2.8 and other apertures stopping down. EXIF are under the pictures. http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55 This said, sharpness is one of the qualities of this zoom, well sustained by the IS, imperative for me, who shoot often in low light, where no flash or monopod allowed (museums…) You gan get sharp shots at 1/8 sec, if you don’t drink too much beer before… Other quality of this zoom is the color rendering, well in Canon tradition, quite perfect in terms of natural, neutral, or saturation, clearly better (I mean different…) of Tamron or Sigma on this crucial point. Perhaps the 24-70L give better saturation and contrast, but not sure… We reach the perfection with the AF – USM focusing system, superb of precision, fast and silencious. Works perfectly. The zoom ring is very sweet to move, confortable. Here again, Canon is the best. I have read some complaints about flare, so I tested it in the worse possible conditions, ok, if we want to make flare, we make flare…. But nothing terrible at all… Chromatic Aberrations are very well controlled, only in extreme edges, as you may see it (with the flare) on some shots of Effeil tower in back-light : http://www.pbase.com/isogood/image/63255874/original You may see also similar shots to compare taked with Canon 10-22 and Canon 50 1.4 on these galleries : http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_10_22 http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_50mm_14 I could say about this comparaison that at 50mm I have a little preference for the 50 1.4 against the 17-55 but only in high lights, cause in low light, the IS is an enormous advantage. At 17mm and at 22mm the 17-55 is noticeably better than the 10-22, less vignetting, better sharpness, no contestation. So my 10-22 became only a 10-16… Thats clear… Price is high, sure, 1200 USD for me, but there is no real competitors with this quality and features, so no real choice possible. I think the lens worth 600 USD and we have to pay again 600 USD for the IS. If Sigma and Tamron same range for APS-C would have IS, for sure their prices would not be so far from Canon (see Sigma 80-400 OS…) So much more qualities than defects, and for sure a good buy if you need all the features. Now we have to see with use if pictures produced worth the price, and if the build quality is solid… I will add more pics in the next weeks.

Guest		02-Jul-2006 22:42
To answer hbfcom's question -- I have the 24-70L and I had the 17-55 on test for a day and a half. These are the points of comparison: 1) The 17-55 is sharper at the wide end; 2) The 17-55 produces somewhat less saturated colour, but still has excellent contrast; 3) The all-plastic 17-55 has inferior build quality; 4) But the 17-55 weighs a lot less; 5) The 17-55 has IS and the 24-70L doesn't; 6) The 17-55 has worse flare problems than the 24-70L; 7) The 17-55 has a more sensible focal-length range on a crop camera; 8) Considering the so-so build quality, the 17-55 is expensive. So which is better? You tell me. For what it's worth, I kept the 24-70L, returned the 17-55 and traded in my 30D and two crop-factor Sigma lenses on a 5D. The 17-55 drove me to do it. I was scared of being trapped in small-sensor land by having so much money in an EF-S lens. Ok, the 5D wasn't cheap either, but I feel relieved to have taken the plunge. Don

Guest		19-Jun-2006 07:00
A fantastic review of this lens by Tomm, with very useful replies from the others :>http://www.canonmount.com/3/canon-17-55-vs-17-40

Guest		10-Jun-2006 02:03
is this lens really better than 24-70L????????

@ Bruce Gilling		07-Jun-2006 13:38
http://www.pbase.com/2bruce/image/61454660

Guest		27-May-2006 05:30
I just picked this lens up - so far I'm exceptionally impressed.

Guest		27-May-2006 05:30
I just picked this lens up - so far I'm exceptionally impressed.

Guest		19-Mar-2006 07:46
This lens looks very nice. I hope to see some sample images from this lens posted soon.

All photos are copyrighted and may not be used without permission from the photographer.
These photos are are a guide to what these cameras are capable of, but may not fully represent the camera due to post-processing, scanning, or photographic technique.
All brands are trademarked by their owners.
These pages are not sponsored or approved by the manufacturers.
Other content Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006, pbase.com LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Contact cameras@pbase.com to contribute data or photos of cameras.