DSLR Photography Forum

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS

I keep wondering how good it really is........

I don't own it - but a lot of wedding guys swear by it. Although, they also say that the build quality is not as good as it could be.

That's a bit worrying.
I seem to spend too much time concerned with quality. I think I'm obsessed.
I have my eyes on the new 7D as a possible purchase, mainly because it's weather sealed. Of course, the EFS lenses arent, are they, not even the new releases?

They are not. The L lenses are built like tanks - the EFS ones have great glass, but lower quality build and no weather sealing.

Canon seems to have put a wall around its EF-S lenses, and won't ever let them be as good as their "L" categories. So no, no EF-S lens is weather sealed - but then, a lot of the "L" lenses aren't, either.

Funny how people will pay a premium for that red stripe... good to know that there are some non-L gems out there.

That particular lens is not bargain basement Jules - fair chunk of change for it

I don't have the lens in question, but my experience with Canon lenses is that there is a great difference when that "L" is added to the name. The construction is visibly different; heavier, better sealed against the weather and dust, better glass that gives better results. The ES lens weighs 1/2 what an equivalent L weighs. I don't know why, I assume the ES is mainly plastic, while the L is mainly metal. Isn't it strange how those that can't own a better lens go out of their way to make fun of it. Why not just admit that the damn thing costs too much for your pocketbook, but it really is a great lens.

However, if there is nothing wrong with the ES lens, for what it is. It is still far and above any third-party lens. If I had a choice between two lenses with the same focal length, aperture, etc., but one is an ES and one is an L, I would buy the L. I would also buy a Rolls Royce, if I could.

JerryS

JerryS Wrote:I don't have the lens in question, but my experience with Canon lenses is that there is a great difference when that "L" is added to the name. The construction is visibly different; heavier, better sealed against the weather and dust, better glass that gives better results. The ES lens weighs 1/2 what an equivalent L weighs. I don't know why, I assume the ES is mainly plastic, while the L is mainly metal. Isn't it strange how those that can't own a better lens go out of their way to make fun of it. Why not just admit that the damn thing costs too much for your pocketbook, but it really is a great lens.

However, if there is nothing wrong with the ES lens, for what it is. It is still far and above any third-party lens. If I had a choice between two lenses with the same focal length, aperture, etc., but one is an ES and one is an L, I would buy the L. I would also buy a Rolls Royce, if I could.

JerryS

Jerry - very insightful answer and well made points. I see that was your first post. Welcome to Shuttertalk.