:barb
Got bored tonight and checked B&H... yippie! They had them in stock. Happy Valentines day to me. This way my wife doesn't have to get me anything. :wink
I'm looking forward to it. 3-5 busienss days is a long time though.
I got the US one. Even if it was the $20-$30 more, I would have purchased it anyway. Nothing against B&H and their service, I would just rather have the manufacturer warranty.
I'm looking forward to it. 3-5 busienss days is a long time though.
I got the US one. Even if it was the $20-$30 more, I would have purchased it anyway. Nothing against B&H and their service, I would just rather have the manufacturer warranty.
You should qualify for Canon's $70 rebate, so it will end up cheaper than the import anyhow.
My Kit
Canon 5DII, Canon 7D
Canon Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 500mm f/4 IS, Zeiss 21mm ZE
Speedlite 580ex II, Canon 430ex
There is a small problem with this lens that most of us have noticed, so I forewarn you:
You won't be able to get the smile off your face.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
Hey ChuckM, thanks to you I am also the proud new owner of a Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. clap
I had also been checking all of the better vendors and had a notification request at B&H. I literally had just checked B&H earlier that day and happened to check in here late on Feb 14, not long after you posted this thread.
I checked after I read your post and, sure enough, they were still available. I ordered immediately.
The lens came today and early tests look very good indeed.
It's the least I could do for all of the great advice I've read from you around here. Thank you very much.
I got mine today too. I may take it to work tomorrow and go for a stroll downtown (Chicago) at lunch.
Observations...
2.8 is much faster than 4.5 That whole square of the ratio for the increase in area really adds up.
77mm is huge. The lens cap looks like a plate compared to the other lenses I have.
Glass is heavy. It's amazing how heavy lenses get when they have piles of glass in them.
The zoom and focus are much tighter to turn tham my others. I think that's a good thing as the lens it tighter. (less dust)
For what it's worth, some copies of this lens have a reputation for sucking dust in through the front. This has been a common complaint from day one.
Further, it is the consensus on another forum, that using a filter helps immensely in this regard. I've had a filter on mine from day one and have no dust, but this neither proves nor disproves the remedy as being effective because I live in a relatively dust-free atmosphere (Pacific coast).
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
For what it's worth, some copies of this lens have a reputation for sucking dust in through the front. This has been a common complaint from day one.
Further, it is the consensus on another forum, that using a filter helps immensely in this regard. I've had a filter on mine from day one and have no dust, but this neither proves nor disproves the remedy as being effective because I live in a relatively dust-free atmosphere (Pacific coast).
Interesting. A filter? I would have thought the dust got sucked in the gap between the two "tubes" as the inner slides forward when zooming.
Thanks for the tip.
What kind of filter do you usually use? Polarizer?
Interesting. A filter? I would have thought the dust got sucked in the gap between the two "tubes" as the inner slides forward when zooming.
Thanks for the tip.
What kind of filter do you usually use? Polarizer?
I would have thought the same thing, and in fact have suggested this on the other forum.
I will elaborate at the danger of boring you.
I have both the 17/55 and the 24/105 lenses. The 24/105 is sealed (not sure exactly what that means, but it is sealed).
When I attempt to push a piece of paper (small strip from a business card) between the zoom ring and the barrel of the 24/105 lens, it immediately stops at something that feels "rubbery"; it can be pushed further with a bit of gentle force.
With the 17/55 lens, I can keep pushing the paper in at least two inches - there doesn't seem to be a "stop point".
I interpret this "stop point" to be the seal on the 24/105 lens - which the 17/55 doesn't seem to have.
There are posted pictures of the front of the 17/55 with the front ring removed - it contains the lens information; CANON ZOOM LENS EF-S 17/55 mm 1:2.8 IS USM, etc.
There is a "seal" that doesn't fit terribly well it seems, so the suggested measure to prevent dust ingress is to use a UV filter (which incurs little or no penalty for incoming light).
One of the posters (as I recall) owns a lens rental company, and he stated that he regularly removes the front ring and the front elements, and cleans his 17/55 lenses.
I'm not terribly concerned about dust in a lens because I don't believe that it will have much effect if any on image quality. The following is a little dissertation I posted (it didn't get any responses at all):
The reason that dust in a lens doesn't show on the image whereas dust on the sensor does, is due to quite simple optics (not surprisingly).
Consider a single point on the object being photographed that is supposed to hit a single point on the sensor:
A beam of photons travels from that single point to every point on the surface of the lens (hopefully this is obvious). Only a very small percentage of beams are going to be interfered with by the dust mote because it only affects a very small percentage of the area of the lens; most of the photon beams will travel unimpeded to the sensor. The result is that a dust spot won't be seen on the image.
Now consider the photons coming from the same point on the object and hitting every point on the lens - for a good quality lens, the majority of photons from that single point will hit the same spot on the sensor. This is called good resolution. The vast majority of the photons from one point on the object MUST hit the same point on the sensor, otherwise an image would never be projected onto the sensor.
If that particular spot on the sensor is covered by dust, it is going to have an impact on the resultant image because in this case most of the photos are hitting the dust spot.
Does that make sense?
So, the conclusion must be that if one can see spots on the sensor, they almost certainly must be caused by dust on the sensor.
There is a story told about Carl Zeiss that supports the contension that dust in a lens is not an issue:
Someone supposedly looked at one of his lenses and remarked that there was a tiny air bubble in the glass. Zeiss replied, "my lenses are made to look through, not at". The implication is that the air bubble had no appreciable affect on image quality.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
For the record, before I got my 28-135 I read reviews and forums like this that said it was a dust sucker. After a year and a half of sucking dust I sent the lens to Canon and they cleaned the dust out. It did NOT affect my images, but I had bought my 580EX for a repair and decided I may as well leave my lenses and camera for calibration and cleaning. I was really surprised to see all the dust gone when I removed the cover.
Dust on the sensor DID consistently affect images on my XT, but do not affect images on my XTi and not yet on my 40D thanks to the cleaning feature.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
I'm not worried about a lens sucking dust. I am still more responsible for most screwed up shots than my equipment. If I can do a little something to help prevent it, I will. But I'm not going to worry about it.
I should probably check out the sensor for a dust check. There's still enough snow on the ground so a nice white background shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not worried about a lens sucking dust. I am still more responsible for most screwed up shots than my equipment. If I can do a little something to help prevent it, I will. But I'm not going to worry about it.
I should probably check out the sensor for a dust check. There's still enough snow on the ground so a nice white background shouldn't be a problem.
I don't worry about the dust either and, after more than a year, I have just a few in the lens. They don't impact on the photos at all. I love this lens and I have no doubt that you will as well! This lens is always on one of my cameras when I'm shooting indoors (outdoors, it's replaced by my 24-105).
As for needing a white background for test for sensor dust-bunnies - I just shoot a white screen on my monitor with the lens zoomed to max mm, the aperture stopped all the way down (usually f/22 or some such), and the focus set to infinity. Drop the resulting JPG into Photoshop, apply auto-levels and all dust-bunnies are revealed!
Comments
Congrats - you'll love it!
I just went to B&H and the US version is still in stock, but the import isn't - and the US version is less expensive (with the rebate!). Too cool.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I got the US one. Even if it was the $20-$30 more, I would have purchased it anyway. Nothing against B&H and their service, I would just rather have the manufacturer warranty.
You should qualify for Canon's $70 rebate, so it will end up cheaper than the import anyhow.
Canon 5DII, Canon 7D
Canon Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 500mm f/4 IS, Zeiss 21mm ZE
Speedlite 580ex II, Canon 430ex
You won't be able to get the smile off your face.
I had also been checking all of the better vendors and had a notification request at B&H. I literally had just checked B&H earlier that day and happened to check in here late on Feb 14, not long after you posted this thread.
I checked after I read your post and, sure enough, they were still available. I ordered immediately.
The lens came today and early tests look very good indeed.
Thank you, thank you.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It's the least I could do for all of the great advice I've read from you around here. Thank you very much.
I got mine today too. I may take it to work tomorrow and go for a stroll downtown (Chicago) at lunch.
Observations...
2.8 is much faster than 4.5 That whole square of the ratio for the increase in area really adds up.
77mm is huge. The lens cap looks like a plate compared to the other lenses I have.
Glass is heavy. It's amazing how heavy lenses get when they have piles of glass in them.
The zoom and focus are much tighter to turn tham my others. I think that's a good thing as the lens it tighter. (less dust)
Further, it is the consensus on another forum, that using a filter helps immensely in this regard. I've had a filter on mine from day one and have no dust, but this neither proves nor disproves the remedy as being effective because I live in a relatively dust-free atmosphere (Pacific coast).
Thanks for the tip.
What kind of filter do you usually use? Polarizer?
I would have thought the same thing, and in fact have suggested this on the other forum.
I will elaborate at the danger of boring you.
I have both the 17/55 and the 24/105 lenses. The 24/105 is sealed (not sure exactly what that means, but it is sealed).
When I attempt to push a piece of paper (small strip from a business card) between the zoom ring and the barrel of the 24/105 lens, it immediately stops at something that feels "rubbery"; it can be pushed further with a bit of gentle force.
With the 17/55 lens, I can keep pushing the paper in at least two inches - there doesn't seem to be a "stop point".
I interpret this "stop point" to be the seal on the 24/105 lens - which the 17/55 doesn't seem to have.
There are posted pictures of the front of the 17/55 with the front ring removed - it contains the lens information; CANON ZOOM LENS EF-S 17/55 mm 1:2.8 IS USM, etc.
There is a "seal" that doesn't fit terribly well it seems, so the suggested measure to prevent dust ingress is to use a UV filter (which incurs little or no penalty for incoming light).
One of the posters (as I recall) owns a lens rental company, and he stated that he regularly removes the front ring and the front elements, and cleans his 17/55 lenses.
I'm not terribly concerned about dust in a lens because I don't believe that it will have much effect if any on image quality. The following is a little dissertation I posted (it didn't get any responses at all):
The reason that dust in a lens doesn't show on the image whereas dust on the sensor does, is due to quite simple optics (not surprisingly).
Consider a single point on the object being photographed that is supposed to hit a single point on the sensor:
A beam of photons travels from that single point to every point on the surface of the lens (hopefully this is obvious). Only a very small percentage of beams are going to be interfered with by the dust mote because it only affects a very small percentage of the area of the lens; most of the photon beams will travel unimpeded to the sensor. The result is that a dust spot won't be seen on the image.
Now consider the photons coming from the same point on the object and hitting every point on the lens - for a good quality lens, the majority of photons from that single point will hit the same spot on the sensor. This is called good resolution. The vast majority of the photons from one point on the object MUST hit the same point on the sensor, otherwise an image would never be projected onto the sensor.
If that particular spot on the sensor is covered by dust, it is going to have an impact on the resultant image because in this case most of the photos are hitting the dust spot.
Does that make sense?
So, the conclusion must be that if one can see spots on the sensor, they almost certainly must be caused by dust on the sensor.
There is a story told about Carl Zeiss that supports the contension that dust in a lens is not an issue:
Someone supposedly looked at one of his lenses and remarked that there was a tiny air bubble in the glass. Zeiss replied, "my lenses are made to look through, not at". The implication is that the air bubble had no appreciable affect on image quality.
Thanks for the info.
Dust on the sensor DID consistently affect images on my XT, but do not affect images on my XTi and not yet on my 40D thanks to the cleaning feature.
dak.smugmug.com
I should probably check out the sensor for a dust check. There's still enough snow on the ground so a nice white background shouldn't be a problem.
As for needing a white background for test for sensor dust-bunnies - I just shoot a white screen on my monitor with the lens zoomed to max mm, the aperture stopped all the way down (usually f/22 or some such), and the focus set to infinity. Drop the resulting JPG into Photoshop, apply auto-levels and all dust-bunnies are revealed!
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile