WilliamG said:

So, I'd go for the 17-85 f4-f5.6, and enjoy a more useful, lighter, cheaper everyday lens than the 2.8 17-55. Add a nifty fifty (50mm 1.8 Canon prime) for about $80 and you'll be golden indoor and out.

I strongly recommend against the 17-85mm f4-5.6 lens. The chromatic aberration is horrible! I sold it after only 10 test shots. I am very happy with the cheaper 18-55mm f4-5.6. It is actually a very decent performer.

vws said:Thisismatt said:BTW, here is a shot from my 17-55 and then a similar shot from the kit 28-135mm, both at 28mm and shot from a tripod and remote on a hard floor. I took the lens into a local Canon auth. dealer and the guy got similar results.

17-55mm: IMG_7470.jpg

28-135mm: IMG_7469.jpg
Looks like you had the 17-55mm lens wide open when you took that shot. If you want to compare lens quality you should also try to fix/control both aperture and shutter speed across your shots.Both shots are 28mm, F/3.5, 1/4sec, ISO 400. I did think of that when taking the shots. I got a message from Canon yesterday that they're replacing part of the IS system. My guess is something is wrong with the IS control which is also screwing with the IS element even when turned off (like not positioning it correctly). I noticed Kevindar mentioned IS may be an issue with this lens, but I hadn't heard anything of the sort before running into the problem myself. I kept the lens in mint condition so I'm a bit disappointed in Canon these days (my Canon S2 IS shutter died as well).

vws said:Thisismatt said:... I got a message from Canon yesterday that they're replacing part of the IS system. My guess is something is wrong with the IS control which is also screwing with the IS element even when turned off (like not positioning it correctly). ...
Oh well that's enough to keep me away from this lens for now. Thanks for sharing. Please keep us posted how it turns out.The thing is it wasn't always like this. I think it was fine when I first got it, and later on I just chalked it up to my inexperience (eg too slow shutter speed with too low ISO, etc) but after a while I began to realize it wasn't me and that was confirmed when I took it to a dealer and the guy had similar results. Like I said, other than Kevindar's post I'd never heard of anyone else having this problem, so I don't think you can discredit the lens on my experience alone.

Thisismatt said:Okay, so I just got the lens back from Canon. I think the results speak for themselves:
Congrats for finally getting your money's worth! Still I think Canon should have done a better job in QC to prevent this from happening to begin with.. I personally would want 0 hassle if I throw down a grand on a lens. At any rate, thanks for sharing your experience and results!