Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras, Black - 1242B002

I've now had this lens for more than two months and shot more than 3,000 photos with it. Deciding on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens for my wedding photography business is a no-brainer. Nonetheless, I did full due diligence before choosing to part with over $1000 for the glass.Key Considerations:The purpose of this purchase is to get a professional quality lens for shooting weddings to minimize the number of lens swaps I currently have to make today.Durability. Shooting weddings is not quite the same as a photojournalist going into combat. Nonetheless, equipment takes a beating from constant packing and unpacking, bouncing around in the back of cars, being rained upon, getting knocked and jostled as we move about, and being occasionally dropped. Our gear must hold up or we will discover the false economy of buying equipment twice.Weight. Wedding days are marathons for photographers that can last 8-10 hours without much opportunity for a break. That's not much fun when you have 7lbs hanging from your neck all day and evening long. It's exhausting. This is especially important for people with bad backs, knees or ankles. So I try to keep our equipment as light as possible without sacrificing quality.Low-light performance. One of the great challenges of wedding photography is working in bad light. Some chapels or officiates prohibit the use of flashes during the ceremony. And receptions are often at night and are in dark halls. In order to capture the action throughout, we need lenses that can perform well in low light. For me, this means a fixed maximum aperture of f/2.8 or faster.Angle of view. In the past I have used 24-105mm lenses with my 135 film cameras. I consider this focal range ideal for general people photography; 24mm is wide enough for indoor use and group shots without introducing too much distortion and 105mm is fantastic for beautiful portraiture. Our Canon camera bodies have APS-C sensors that are smaller than 35mm film, which reduces the effective angle of view of each image recorded. Placing a 24-105mm lens in front of an APS-C sensor narrows the angle of view by a factor of 1.6, making it the equivalent angle as a 38-168mm lens in front of a 35mm film or full frame digital sensor camera. 38mm on the wide end is simply not wide enough for general wedding work. In order to approximate on an APS-C sensor the angle of view that the 24-105mm lens on a 35mm body provides we multiply the lens size by 0.625, resulting in a lens that is 15-66mm.Options:There are no lenses that are precisely that size. Some L-series glass that are close include:* EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II* EF 17-40mm f/4L* EF 20-35mm f/2.8L* EF 24-70mm f/2.8L* EF 24-105mm f/4LI'm not happy with any of these for use on an APS-C body. The 16-35mm is too short on the long end for portrait work. The 17-40mm is too dark and too short on the long end. The 20-35mm is too narrow a zoom range for all-purpose work (i.e. too narrow on the wide end and too short on the long end). The 24-70mm doesn't get wide enough. Likewise the 24-105mm, which is also darker than I want.EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USMI had intended to buy only Canon L-series lenses, but Canon doesn't make an L-series lens optimized for APS-C digital sensor cameras. Yet Canon currently makes only two cameras that feature full-size digital sensors, the 5D Mk II ($2400, 2.5 lbs w/battery grip) and the 1Ds Mk III ($7000, 2.5 lbs.). The rest of their cameras are APS-H (1D Mk IV) or APS-C, including the Rebel models, 60D, and excellent 7D bodies.Angle of view. For those of us that shoot with Canon APS-C bodies, the 17-55mm promises to be the best general purpose standard zoom lens for wedding photographers due to its low-light performance and exceptional sharpness. It is lighter than the L-series lenses but its construction, while solid, is not as bomb proof. 55mm does not reach as far as I would like on the long end (i.e. 66mm), but it is an acceptable compromise to make to preserve the fast maximum aperture.Image stabilization. IS for a lens in this category is a thing of debate. Conventional wisdom among many is that it is unnecessary for a lens this wide. On the other hand, many reviews place the sharpness of this lens on par with or ahead of the world class lenses in this category so it seems to be good for something. Besides, I don't always have the steadiest hands, so I welcome the technological assist. The 17-55mm's IS is a single mode system that does not allow for panning while IS is engaged.Optics. Contributing to the 17-55mm's image quality is the use of three aspherical lens elements and a Super-UD glass element, the kind of glass that is normally only found in L-series lenses. It features internal focusing, coatings to control flare, and a circular aperture diaphragm for buttery beautiful bokeh.What others are saying about this lens:* LensPlay ranks the lens 9th best among all EOS compatible lenses, averaging 9.3 (on a 10 point scale) from 480 user ratings.* Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture.com writes: "This lens is sharp! Wide open and from edge to edge... 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 the similar focal length range... [this] lens is an ideal lens to include in your kit [for] weddings, events, parties, family activities, portraits, etc..."* Gordon Laing at Camera Labs writes, "When you also take the 17-55mm's Image Stabilization facilities into account, you've got a lens which can perform relative miracles under poor light... If you're seriously into portraits or low light work though, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm will delight."* Canonlensreview.com "How does the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens compare to L-Series lenses? You will find out that the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens will either meet or beat the similar range L-Series zoom lenses. In many cases the image quality was better with this lens. It is extremely sharp, very fast and equipped with the image stabilizer function making the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens a force to be reckoned with... The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens will meet and beat the standard zoom L-Series lenses."* SLRGear.com "This would be the lens for a shooter interested in top-notch optical quality and low-light shooting."What's Not So HotOf course there are some complaints about this lens as well. Fortunate these are few and far between.Dust. Far and away the most frequent complaint about this lens is that it tends to suck dust into it when you are zooming in and out. However, I have not read any reviews that implicate this dust in degrading image quality. Also, there is a simple preventative measure to keep the dust out: use a filter. Apparently the dust finds its way into the lens around the front glass element. Screwing a filter onto the end completes the dust sealing. The folks that do so report no dust problem. Since I always use a lens protector filter, this is not a problem for me.Zoom Ring. I've read a couple of reviews that claim that the zoom ring does not turn as smoothly as do L-series zoom lenses. I've read this complaint more than once but not more than twice, so perhaps these are isolated cases. Or maybe the reviewers had unrealistic expectations. I find the zoom and focus rings to be adequately smooth.Incompatibility. Finally, some folks have complained that they cannot use this lens on their full frame bodies. If we had full frame bodies we'd be buying the excellent EF 24-70mm f/2.8L without hesitation, so I don't understand this complaint.Final ThoughtsIn the last two months I've used this lens to cover weddings, family portrait sessions, concerts, music competitions, and a convention. This lens has been a joy every step of the way.This lens devours light and is as sharp or is sharper than any L-series lens I have seen. The auto focus is brilliantly fast and quiet. I didn't think that with f/2.8 on an APS-C sensor that I would be able to get such shallow DOF. At the last wedding I shot I didn't swap lenses even once (I keep a longer lens on another body). The IS motors create enough noise that you can hear it when it is really really quiet but it isn't loud enough to be distracting. Contrary to conventional wisdom, IS really does help sharpen things up with wide-angle lenses. My only wish is that it was weather sealed for use in direct rain.The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is unequalled (including Canon L-series, Nikkor, or 3rd party) as the ideal general-purpose standard zoom lens for rapidly changing low-light shooting such as weddings for APS-C shooters.

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a professional photographer by any means. I am a guy who is into photography, who has a penchant for gadgetry and who appreciates quality. This lens fulfills my desires on all three of those levels. You won't hear me talking about "creamy bokeh" or any of the other esoteric stuff that some reviewers rely on for filler material. This is a regular guy's review for other people in my same boat.OK first of all, this thing is expensive. I paid $980 from Amazon and kicked and screamed the whole way. I had agonized over literally 1000 reviews (most of which were very favorable) before making the final decision. I had pros and semi-pros advising me, and in some cases insisting that I buy this thing. I don't know though---a thousand bucks? For a hunk of glass? I felt my gag reflex kicking in a little as I broke out into a cold sweat. Oh sure I wanted it, but did I need it? As most of you know, need is a relative thing, and I can usually rationalize myself into "needing" something with fairly little effort. Usually. A thousand bucks though? The one thing that finally pushed me over the edge was that I joined a couple photography forums and noticed that these lenses were selling on the used market for around $900--and not only that, but when one did pop up for sale, it usually only lasted about a day before it was SOLD! So, I guess I didn't really have that much to lose.When it came (3 short days later), I could swear I heard a Heavenly choir singing and saw a little divine glow eminating as I unboxed that ravishing beauty. And there she was, the culmination of about 60 hours of research, 30 emails, 8 phone calls and me parting with almost 1000 of my very favorite hard-earned dollars. Would she be worth it? Only time would tell.For a few minutes, all I could do was stare. It is a good looking piece of equipment and I'll tell you this too, it's pretty big. Like a soup can. And not one of those condensed soup cans either--more like a "Chunky" can. I'm talkin' BIG. Despite its size and what feels like a much more substantial build quality than most Canon L-lens disciples would have you believe, it is not unweildy or particularly problematic in the weight department. I have it slapped on the front of a Canon 50d and could easily carry it around all day long if need dictated.Back when I was agonizing over this decision and balking about the price, I was trying to rationalize my way into another (less expensive) lens. I looked at the Canon 15-85mm, but it was MUCH slower than this one, didn't have any reviews to speak of and still cost somewhere in the $8-hundo neighborhood. I also thought I could just go with the 17-55mm kit lens and really save myself a whole bunch of money in the process. I mean afterall it's the same focal range, right? Right...sort of. I'm here to tell you right now in as plain a language as I can muster, those two lenses do not even reside on the same planet as one another! It's about like substituting a Honda Civic for a Ferrari---sure they both get you from A to B, but that's where it ends. A Ferrari does things that a Civic can only dream about and a Ferrari instills a certain pride of ownership--particularly in someone who appreciates the fine quality of the marque. A Ferrari can go 200mph, and while that is not always necessary, or even desired, it is still an option. This lens is a Ferrari.The proof is in the pudding (or is it putting? I can never remember) and this baby delivers. On my first day of shooting I was just walking around taking pictures of anything and everything that was in front of me at the time. I wanted to see if f2.8 is really worth all the hubbub and drool from the Photophiles. Trust me, it is. I captured a shot of my dining room in almost total darkness with only the light from an outside street lamp shining through the window--and the pic turned out GREAT! I later got a picture of my kids outside at night with NO FLASH that I would have never been able to capture with one of those other lenses. I've had this lens for about a week now and in that time have shot almost 600 pictures. Exactly ONE of those pictures incorporated the flash--the rest were shot in natural light. The shot with the flash was just an experiment and probably would have looked better without it anyway. I even shot about 150 of those pictures at my children's Christmas program--again--no flash and every picture turned out perfect. Awesome!When I saw the quality of the images I was getting with this thing set at a WIDE OPEN aperture (traditionally yielding softer images) I almost cried. I mean I've had good gear in the past, but this lens takes the cake. Speaking as a person who is not affiliated with Canon in any way , shape or form AND has absolutely nothing to gain by giving a review, I can tell you without reservation that this lens gives me joy. Joy! I paid $980 for about $100,000 worth of joy and in turn have captured memories that are priceless to me. I'd say all in all, that's a pretty good deal.If you are reading this review, you may be in the same position I was in about 2 weeks ago. You like the lens, but aren't quite convinced yet. Do I spend? Do I wait? Do I settle? Believe me, I know a grand isn't easy to come by these days and I also know you are being more careful how you spend, but I have had very few occasions in my life in which an "investment" like this has paid me back so much in so short a time. This lens will bring you joy too, and in this day and age that is even harder to come by than mere money. Buy this lens--you can thank me later.