Is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM really "L-series" quality?
Asked 3/8/2011
5 views
2 answers
0
People often describe the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM as being "L-grade" because of its image quality. If it performs that well and is priced similarly to some EF lenses, why didn’t Canon make it an L lens? Also, are there better options in this focal range, either EF-S or EF?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
15
I used this lens as my main walkaround lens and as a workhorse for event shooting for about 2 years. The image quality was excellent and definitely on par with the most of the L lenses I've used.
Where this lens isn't "L" is in the build quality. Whereas most L lenses are primarily metal and weather-resistant, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 has a lot of plastic and feels like it's not quite as sturdy as L lenses such as the 24-70.
A couple other minor pieces of note: the lens does not include the hood in the package; it's a separate purchase (and a spendy one at that). Also, it's an EF-S lens, and thus far only the EF lenses have been designated as L.
Originally by user89. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user89
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is often called “L-grade” mainly because of its optical performance. Users and reviewers commonly rate its image quality as excellent, even comparable to or better than some L lenses.
Why it isn’t officially an L lens: Canon has not designated EF-S lenses as L, and this lens also lacks some typical L-series traits such as stronger pro-style construction and weather sealing. Compared with lenses like the 24-70mm L, it uses more plastic and generally feels less robust. Another small clue is that the hood is sold separately, unlike many L lenses.
It does include a UD element, which is one feature associated with L lenses, but that alone doesn’t make it part of the L series.
So in practice: optically, many people consider it near-L or L-like; mechanically and by Canon’s branding rules, it is not an L lens.
As for “better” lenses in that range, the provided answers don’t identify a clearly superior substitute—only that the 17-55mm is highly regarded for image quality in its class.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS a worthwhile upgrade from the EF-S 15-85mm on a 60D?
Canon EF-S 15-85mm plus 50mm f/1.8 vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for a 550D
Canon EF-S 17-85mm USM vs 18-55mm STM: which is better at the wide end?
Canon EF 24mm vs 28mm f/2.8 IS USM: which should I choose?
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a 70D: image quality or versatility?