Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is a hoover!

[Saracen]

But Saracen, given how people like Pentax can do it on their economy, surely they can do it too.

We are not talking about full weather sealed mag alloy like this:
Even then notice how the camera is bone dry!

This is basic making the lens last a useful life.

Not quite what I was getting at, Animus. I was answering the quoted question.

As for sealing, my personal view is that full weather seals are something I expect on pro-grade lenses, but NO lens should be acting as a vacuum cleaner. MY £250 Tamron sure doesn't and if a £250 lens doesn't, one at several times the price sure shouldn't. I would have a serious problem with a lens that sucked up dust, and would not accept "it's not weather sealed" as justification. On the other hand, I wouldn't take my £250 Tamron out if it's was chucking down rain, or if I was working in a rain forest, or clonking the lens about as I climbed a rockface. Also, if I expected to be using it day in, day out, 5 or 6 days a week in a pro environment, I'd have bought the heavier Canon, and probably, bought only L lenses. But I'm not.

There has to be an element of balance between "satisfactory quality" and "you get what you pay for". What are you paying for with the Canon 17-55? In my view, you're paying for top image quality, decent build and IS, but you're not expecting either L weather seals, or a portable atmospheric dust extraction system.

[stavroshamster]

As for sealing, my personal view is that full weather seals are something I expect on pro-grade lenses, but NO lens should be acting as a vacuum cleaner. MY £250 Tamron sure doesn't and if a £250 lens doesn't, one at several times the price sure shouldn't. I would have a serious problem with a lens that sucked up dust, and would not accept "it's not weather sealed" as justification.

I sent my Tamron 17-50 back 4 weeks ago as it was collecting a lot of dust (and had a focal problem). Not sure if it's going to be covered under warranty or not, but Warehouse Express collected it and everything, so it didn't cost me anything to return. It had had about the same amount of use and was the same age as your lens, and I was using it in even less dusty conditions than you I think.

Will see what they say - it could be another 6 weeks before I get it back

[rox0r]

I bought the Canon 17-55 purely on the merits of its IQ capability, being the best EF-S lens in the range and aimed at the 'pro-sumer'. I was fully aware that the decision to put L grade glass in a 'standard' body was a cost decision on Canon's part and that there were drawbacks to this. I also felt at the time that there is little to no chance of me ever going FF so the mount issue was moot, and even so, like all good lenses it holds its value on the second hand market quite well anyway.

If it had an L body I very much doubt I would've bought it because it would likely be somewhere in the order of 1200 quid.

I'm not bemoaning the fact that it has a 'fault', I can accept that I can't really use the lens in dusty/sandy/damp environments because I don't do a lot of shooting in those conditions (And certainly won't from now on!). The post was really more of a pointer to anyone who decides to buy one that it's not the end of the world to just drop the front element out and give it a go over with the rocket blower, so long as you're careful (which being a dslr owner you already are bound to be anyway)

I'll admit the Canon 17-55 is expensive when compared to it's Tamron et al equivalents, but I was a bit flush at the time and could justify the extra cost for what I felt was an improvement in IQ versus build quality.