Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is a hoover!

[rox0r]

So I'd heard that the 17-55 was basically a very expensive hoover that has a nice sideline taking belting good photos but thought nothing of it really and figured some people obviously just get bad copies.

That was until yesterday. Bear in mind I've only had this lens a little over two months and it's only been used for around 200 shots.

I was doing a build-log for a small carpentry project and I wanted pics to go with it so off I went, snappity snap. I wasn't using the lens while the sawdust was flying everywhere and it wasn't even in the area. I made sure I took the photos once the dust had settled....or so I thought.

Basically what happens is the telephoto mechanism moving back and forth causes air to be sucked in and pushed out through the gaps in the lens.

Anyway, to cut to the chase I noticed later in the day some dust on the front element and went about giving it a go over with the lens cloth. That's when I noticed the dust was on the inside. And we're not just talking about a few micro-fine bits of dust, these were substantial bits of sawdust!

I then had to think to myself, shall I send it back to Canon for cleaning or shall I see if I can do it myself? So yeah, I did what any good tinkerer would do and set about taking my new £800 lens to bits!

The procedure is actually well documented and there are videos on YouTube like This One

The process really was quite easy, if a little nerveracking. I realise that I've basically nuked the warranty but I figured if this is going to happen on a regular basis then it's as well to know how to clean it out without any major fuss.

So yeah, if you're ever considering the 17-55, yes it is as bloody amazing as they say it is but it definately comes with an achilles heel!

I'll be putting a filter on it to see if that helps reduce the intake since many others have said it helps. Bit annoying though to have to stick more glass in front of that lovely L grade glass

[lazer]

Well done you for having a go. £800 is a lot of money for a lens!

[TheAnimus]

This is why I don't get why cannon's market share is so large. The build quality isn't as good as their competitors.

I was almost sure I was going to get the 500D a year back but you can immediately feal the build quality just isn't as good as some of the smaller brands. My 16-50mm F2.8 is weather sealed, and almost the same price, I've used it in the spray of a waterfall......

Ricoh's new thinig of having sieled lens and sensor modules is just brilliant when you think about it (the CMOS cost isn't much, its the controller which is expensive....)

[Bobster]

if you want weather sealing on Canon glass you need to purchase the L series..

[HSK]

I heard sticking a filter on this lens (right from the get go) helps somewhat. And I think as long as it's a decent filter, it shouldn't be that detrimental to the image quality, well probably not unless you're pixel peeping.

[TheAnimus]

if you want weather sealing on Canon glass you need to purchase the L series..

But considering how cheap it is to have even basic weather seals, on an £800 lens one would just assume?........

[Bobster]

But considering how cheap it is to have even basic weather seals, on an £800 lens one would just assume?........

the air has to go somewhere with a zoom that changes lengths, so im guessing some engineering is also needed?

[rox0r]

the air has to go somewhere with a zoom that changes lengths, so im guessing some engineering is also needed?

Indeed. Otherwise I would've just blathered some silicone sealant around while I was in there!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks like cost cutting TBH on the part of Canon. The Pentax DA 18-55MM F3.5-5.6 AL WR costs around £200 and has weather sealing as does the more expensive 16-50MM lens. Both the Olympus 12-60MM and 14-54MM lenses are weather sealed too.

[Bobster]

It looks like cost cutting TBH on the part of Canon.

Sigma / Tamron / Tokina are all the same, they don't have weather sealing either..

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Sigma / Tamron / Tokina are all the same, they don't have weather sealing either..

This is why they tend to be much cheaper. The equivalent Tokina lens to the Canon 17-55MM is around £200 cheaper and is slightly wider too. The Tamron and Sigma equivalents are even cheaper.

The fact that the lens at the £800 price point does not have weather sealing and uses a lot of plastic in its construction means it reduces costs for Canon. The Canon lenses need to have IS built into the lenses so to compensate for the increased cost as a result of this they have to make sacrifices elsewhere it seems. Obviously since Pentax and Olympus use in-body IS they can spend more of the production budget on the construction of the lens.

[TheAnimus]

This isn't a religious thing bob, the cost of designing such seals into the product really is minimal.

If I spent £500+ on a lens, it had better damn well not degrade within a few months. Maybe thats just how I view purchases but seriously.

Look at things like the kit lens Pentax made for the K-7, 18-55mm. This is a £100 lens, it was less at launch time (£75) so its obvious that the cost of adding these seals is negligible.

(I actually bought the lens for £25 after a re-bate, I use it for when I go airsofting and other such stuff, I don't care if I break it, but its very well built and has yet to succumb!)

[YorkieBen]

I don't know why canon didn't make the 17-55mm an 'L' lens - it has the price and optical quality by all accounts to justify it.

[TheAnimus]

My point people who have the quality of theirs deteriorate through normal usage should be sending them back!

[Saracen]

I don't know why canon didn't make the 17-55mm an 'L' lens - it has the price and optical quality by all accounts to justify it.

But not the build quality. polycarbonate body as opposed to mag-alloy, no weather seals, etc.

And, of course, it's an EF-S lens so won't fit full-frame bodies. In other words, it's at least in part a marketing decision. Canon see the FF bodies as their "pro" range, and the EF-S as consumer and prosumer ranges. They also see the L lenses as "Pro" and apparently don't want to confuse matters by releasing a "Pro" lens that won't fit "Pro" bodies.

Besides, it they'd made this lens as an L, with metal body, weather seals, the L extras (like lens hood) and an L warranty, then the price would have gone up and the EF-S target market would have been paying more for features that (other than the near-essential lens hood) would have been of little value.

Personally, I'd rather have the image quality and the lower price. Though, strictly speaking, I'd rather have the Tamron 17-50 2.8, do away with IS and have it at about a third of the price. To my mind, the IS is rarely (for me at least) needed on a lens like that, though I think Tamron now do a VC stabilised version), and the image quality on the Tamron if either as good or close enough to make no difference, so I'd rather save the £400 I saved when I bought the Tamron. The Canon is, to my mind, over-priced.

[TheAnimus]

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.