Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM @ Amazon for $999.95 - "This is NOT the kit lens"

Click Here

Sold by Amazon.com, price: $999.95
No tax in most states and it qualifies for free Super Saver Shipping.

Brief Description:
The price for this Canon EF-S lens has dropped below the $1000 range without any rebates or coupons through Amazon! It is one of the sharpest lens out there for cropped sensor DSLR camera bodies (Rebel series, XT, XTi, XSi, 30D, 40D, etc).

This is lens is not compatible with full frame Canon DSLR cameras as it has an EF-S mount and not an EF mount.

The image quality produced by this lens rivals some of the L lens series (image quality not build quality). Google the Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens for reviews.
----------
Remember to leave some rep. if you found this useful.

f/2.8 is definitely NOT tne kit lens.

That is "L" lens price range. You might as well get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L for $1050.

Thisismatt said: This price is normal for this lens. I bought it for $929 in June of 2007 from Adorama.

Due to the crap us dollar, lens prices shot up a fair bit recently. This is about a hundred bucks off street.

That said... if you're going to drop $1000 on a lens, you should take a serious look at the 24-70 f/2.8 L or the 24-105 L f/4 IS. Both are priced very close to this, are great lenses (esp the 24-70), the Ls aren't plastic and will probably hold value a bit better because of that red ring. Also, unlike the 17-55, they are dust / weather sealed (not waterproof mind you, but not bad) - the 17-55 has a rather well known dust issue.
Of course, if a 5d or something is in your future, don't buy ef-s unless you want to sell it later on.

If you want the wide angle that badly on a 1.6x crop camera, the 10-22 ef-s is probably the way you really want to / have to go - also roughly the same price and very well reviewed.

Curious, why would anyone get the EF-S lens if there is comparable (build, price, focus points, etc.) EF lens? EF lenses can be mounted on both types of cameras.

24-70 is not useful on a crop. Not wide enough.

ltrinh said:
The 17-55 EF-S will be 17-55 on cropped camera?
The 24-70 EF will be like 38-112 on cropped camera?
Canon cropped bodies for 40D and XSi is 1.6x.
17-55 on a cropped body is equivalent to a 27-88mm on a 35mm camera.
24-70 on a cropped body is equivalent to a 38-112mm on a 35mm camera.

I don't know why people suggest the 24-70 vs. the 17-55 on a cropped body. there's a HUGE difference in pictures in the range betweeen 17mm vs 24mm.

I also have a 10-22mm UWA lens and I prefer have the overlap from 17-22 in these two lens. Changing lenses sucks.

This is the best walkaround lens for Canon 40D and XSi. No, it doesn't have a metal body like the L equivalents. No, it doesn't come with the hood. Yes, people have complain that they get dust on the front element, but there are very few instances where this has directly affected IQ.

If you have a FF camera, there's no doubt that 24-70 is a great lens for that body. But if you have a cropped camera, then get the 17-55. There's no comparison.

This deal is warm at best. If you wait until Canon rebate time (2 or 3rd week in October), you can save another $70.

ltrinh said: CheapSuperSaver said: ltrinh said: Curious, why would anyone get the EF-S lens if there is comparable (build, price, focus points, etc.) EF lens? EF lenses can be mounted on both types of cameras. Between the 17-55 and the 24-70, the 17-55 has IS. This was one of the reasons I chose the 17-55. Also, the 24-70 on a cropped camera will be more like a 38mm - 112mm on a full frame camera.

The 17-55 EF-S will be 17-55 on cropped camera?
The 24-70 EF will be like 38-112 on cropped camera?

Yes. All the quality stuffs of the L lens won't do you any good if the range ain't right. For these lens, 24mm (of the 24-70mm) on a crop camera is not wide enough.

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

If I was in the market for a "wide angle" ef-s mount lens.. I think I'd have to give a HARD look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Yes, I realize it doesn't have IS or a USM motor (so it's noisy), but considering it's less than half the price, it's a fair tradeoff imo. This lens is supposed to be very sharp.. the only thing lacking is the IS. I own the 50mm f/1.4 and 28-135mm canon IS lens, and I'm strongly considering the Tamron lens or something in the 17-50mm variety that isn't too costly (<$500).

I have thought about the 17-40mm L lens, but the aperture isn't very wide, and wouldn't do nearly as well as this lens or the Tamron in low light. Also, having a little larger of a focal length helps.

Everyone, I did not mean to start a debate on which lens is better. Everyone has different needs and thus no single lens can be declared better than another. For example, I own a Rebel XTi and I have a Canon 24-105 f/4L mounted on it. At the wide end 24mm range, it's wide enough for what I do and that is portraiture and many group shots (38mm equivalent because of the 1.6 crop factor; Math 24mm x 1.6 = 38mm).

Price, build quality, type of range desired, lighting conditions, and many more factors also need to be considered.

I acknowledge though that in many situations, we find ourselves requiring a wider lens and this is where this lens may fit the gap for those with cropped bodies. It produces very sharp and good contrast images as stated in many reviews available on the web.

Dealguy123 said: If I was in the market for a "wide angle" ef-s mount lens.. I think I'd have to give a HARD look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Yes, I realize it doesn't have IS or a USM motor (so it's noisy), but considering it's less than half the price, it's a fair tradeoff imo. This lens is supposed to be very sharp.. the only thing lacking is the IS. I own the 50mm f/1.4 and 28-135mm canon IS lens, and I'm strongly considering the Tamron lens or something in the 17-50mm variety that isn't too costly (<$500).

I have thought about the 17-40mm L lens, but the aperture isn't very wide, and wouldn't do nearly as well as this lens or the Tamron in low light. Also, having a little larger of a focal length helps.

I have both lenses. The Tamron does give the 17-55 a run for it's money, especially at the price. It's also much lighter, smaller, and comes w/ a lens hood. However, I do find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast and focusing speed (Tamron lens is not USM). Throw in the IS and full-time manual, and I'll let you decide if the extra $500 is worth it.

The 17-55 is not the only lens to collect dust either. My Tamron had 1 or 2 specks inside it's front element as well.

garycoleman said: That is "L" lens price range. You might as well get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L for $1050.

Don't even waste your money on this lens, I have the EF 24-70 f/2.8L and the L glass is amazing.

-Eric

I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS. Personally i think 24-105mm is a much better lens it's not EF-S therefore, one can use it on full frame cameras e.g. the 1D Mark III

17-55 is not walkaround lens. The range is too small. Heck you can also walkaround with a fixed 50mm prime but you won't be able to capture much.

24-105 F4/L, EF-S 17-85 can be considered as walkaround lenses.

king0fSpades said: 17-55 is not walkaround lens. The range is too small. Heck you can also walkaround with a fixed 50mm prime but you won't be able to capture much.

24-105 F4/L, EF-S 17-85 can be considered as walkaround lenses.

Depends on what you like to shoot.

edit: for anyone interested, approximate difference between 17mm and 24mm

Celeritas said: I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS. Personally i think 24-105mm is a much better lens it's not EF-S therefore, one can use it on full frame cameras e.g. the 1D Mark III

I currently have both lenses the 17-40L and the 24-105L. I use my 24-105 as my walk around lens and use the 17-40 when I need the wide angle. I find the 17-40 superior to the 24-105 in sharpness, it's my favorite lens to use. However, I would love to upgrade to the 16-35 2.8L from my 17-40.

Celeritas said: I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS. Personally i think 24-105mm is a much better lens it's not EF-S therefore, one can use it on full frame cameras e.g. the 1D Mark III

First, it is a 17-40. Second, IS is SO overrated for lenses in that range. Much more important on my 70-200 F4L IS.

I would rather have the 17-40L for under $600 or even the Tamron F2.8 17-50 for $400.

WilliamG said: 24-70 is not useful on a crop. Not wide enough.My 24-70 is on my 40D (crop camera) approximately 98.2785% of the time.

Buy what you need. If you need a wide angle then buy a wide angle. If you need a zoom then buy a zoom. Everybody's needs are different so there is not a one lens fits all solution.

ssss said: Dealguy123 said: If I was in the market for a "wide angle" ef-s mount lens.. I think I'd have to give a HARD look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Yes, I realize it doesn't have IS or a USM motor (so it's noisy), but considering it's less than half the price, it's a fair tradeoff imo.

The Tamron is truly s superb choice if you can live without a totally silent motor. Optically, it is every bit as good as the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and better than the 17-40L f4.
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 performance
Canon 17-55mm f2.8 performance
Canon 17-40mm f4 performance

I concur with many other users that have posted about the Tamron. I did a lot of research and also looked at price/performance and I went with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's extremely sharp and very well built. I didn't think the IS would be all that necessary IN MY OPINION with a short range lens.

Here are a couple of samples and it does not do justice! Also, the focusing is acceptable in my opinion under low light but I do agree Canon USM is much faster.

<REMOVED PER JFOUST AS HDR AND PHOTOSHOP IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO SHOW SAMPLES OF THE LENSE>
<REMOVED PER JFOUST AS HDR AND PHOTOSHOP IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO SHOW SAMPLES OF THE LENSE>
<REMOVED PER JFOUST AS HDR AND PHOTOSHOP IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO SHOW SAMPLES OF THE LENSE>

All taken with my original 1G Digital Rebel

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!