Canon 17-55 F/2.8 refurb

[Donald Duck888]

Thinking about buying a Canon 17-55 F/2.8 lens for upcoming trip to Disney. Have opportunity to get a refurbed unit for $817. Wanted to get opinions on buying lens refurb. Good? Bad?

Also the lens it would be replacing would be a Sigma 17-70. Will I see a big difference? Have heard good things about 17-55 but curious of other opinions.

 

[cjstarr]

Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8?
I'm sure you can find it for less then half of the Canon 17-55 F/2.8 lens.

 

[nbaresejr]

I gave the sigma version and its a great lens. Think I paid 500 for mine. If you want to spend the extra money the canon is a great lens.

I purchased the 70-200 f/4 IS from canon during the Christmas referb sale and it was mint. I would buy a referb again without hesitation.

 

[Bstanley]

Have opportunity to get a refurbed unit for $817. Wanted to get opinions on buying lens refurb. Good? Bad?

I purchased a 17-55 f2.8 refurb through Adorama 2 years ago and haven't experienced any issues with it. It is a fine lense and certainly lives up to it's reputation.

I am not familiar with the Sigma/Tamron versions so I can't offer any comparisons.

One of my first shots is still my favorite:

 

[mom2rtk]

I can't say anything about buying a refurb, as I have not done it. But I can comment on the lens itself.

I decided a few years ago that I wanted to upgrade my kit lens. I evaluated the various alternatives. Everyone seemed to think that the Tamron was sharper than the Sigma. But I wanted IS for my kit lens and the consensus was also that the Tamron lost some of that sharpness when they added VR (their version of IS). The only reason I was upgrading at all was to improve image quality, so I didn't want to compromise from the get go. I also heard that the Tamron have a very loud focus motor. Some folks don't care one way or the other about this but I did. Find a clip on youtube to hear it if you find yourself considering the Tamron.

I went with the Canon and have been in love with it ever since. Look at it as a long-term investment. I have used mine heavily for 3 years now and still love it to bits. I haven't had a moment where I have wondered whether I should evaluate again for something different. I have the gold standard.

The IS on this lens is amazing. I have very unsteady hands and have handheld down to 1/15 on many occasions with great results.

 

[Donald Duck888]

Just wanted to thank those that have posted and give an update on my decision. I just ordered the 17-55 f/2.8 refurb direct from Canon. It was only $801 as they were having a sale. . I really could not resist the price and i have heard so many good things about that lens. Plus I can sell my sigma for $150 - $200 and that brings the cost of the new lens down to $600-$650.

Now I just have to hope i get a good one.

One a slightly related topic, when ordering the refurb i had to order a lens cover seperatly (guess when they refurb it they do something with the old one) I bought one for the front but i did not for the mounting side as i figure since all my other canon lenses mount the same way those caps should fit?

 

[mom2rtk]

Just wanted to thank those that have posted and give an update on my decision. I just ordered the 17-55 f/2.8 refurb direct from Canon. It was only $801 as they were having a sale. . I really could not resist the price and i have heard so many good things about that lens. Plus I can sell my sigma for $150 - $200 and that brings the cost of the new lens down to $600-$650.

Now I just have to hope i get a good one.

One a slightly related topic, when ordering the refurb i had to order a lens cover seperatly (guess when they refurb it they do something with the old one) I bought one for the front but i did not for the mounting side as i figure since all my other canon lenses mount the same way those caps should fit?

Yes, the other lens caps will fit. But if you ever send your camera in for repairs of have another reason to take the lens off your camera, make sure you can cover it right away.

The only down side I have seen for this lens is that it is a dust magnet. So you'll want to be sure to keep it covered any time it's not off the camera.

You can pick one up on Ebay pretty cheap.

 

[nbaresejr]

One a slightly related topic, when ordering the refurb i had to order a lens cover separately (guess when they refurb it they do something with the old one) I bought one for the front but i did not for the mounting side as i figure since all my other canon lenses mount the same way those caps should fit?

that seems odd. Canon referbs are supposed to come with all accessories that the new lenses come with. This mean caps, hoods and bags. My L lens came in the bag with both caps and a hood. You may have ordered an extra lens cap.

 

[Donald Duck888]

that seems odd. Canon referbs are supposed to come with all accessories that the new lenses come with. This mean caps, hoods and bags. My L lens came in the bag with both caps and a hood. You may have ordered an extra lens cap.

You know i think you may be right. But i figured for $10 I would play it safe especially as we leave for Disney 2 days after the lens is supposed to be delivered.

 

[bob100]

that seems odd. Canon referbs are supposed to come with all accessories that the new lenses come with. This mean caps, hoods and bags. My L lens came in the bag with both caps and a hood. You may have ordered an extra lens cap.

that's been my experience

 

[mom2rtk]

that seems odd. Canon referbs are supposed to come with all accessories that the new lenses come with. This mean caps, hoods and bags. My L lens came in the bag with both caps and a hood. You may have ordered an extra lens cap.

Just do not expect to get a lens hood with this lens. For whatever reason, this lens never had one included.

 

[Donald Duck888]

Just do not expect to get a lens hood with this lens. For whatever reason, this lens never had one included.

That seems to be lens wide with Canon lenses it seems. Peraps the L series lenses may come with hoods but any Canon lens I have ever bought has never come with one.

Kind of interesting that Sigma lenses cost less but come with hoods yet Canon costs more and they do do not. But so long as that difference goes into the lens quality I wont complain.

On another note it looks like my lens has shipped. I kind of cut it close as we leave for Disney next Wed and it looks like the lens will arrive Mon or Tues.

 

[mom2rtk]

That seems to be lens wide with Canon lenses it seems. Peraps the L series lenses may come with hoods but any Canon lens I have ever bought has never come with one.

Kind of interesting that Sigma lenses cost less but come with hoods yet Canon costs more and they do do not. But so long as that difference goes into the lens quality I wont complain.

On another note it looks like my lens has shipped. I kind of cut it close as we leave for Disney next Wed and it looks like the lens will arrive Mon or Tues.

But every time I order a Sigma lens, I worry about whether I'll get one of those copies that front or back focuses. With Canon I really don't worry about it. I am able to use the Canon wide open at 2.8 (which is sort of the point, right?) and still get a sharp image.

And on your lens heading your way!

 

[Donald Duck888]

But every time I order a Sigma lens, I worry about whether I'll get one of those copies that front or back focuses. With Canon I really don't worry about it. I am able to use the Canon wide open at 2.8 (which is sort of the point, right?) and still get a sharp image.

And on your lens heading your way!

That is exactly why I went the extra to get the Canon this time over the less expensive Sigma.

Also I was looking at some of your pics in your trip report and was wondering were those taken with the 17-55? They are really nice pics and if those are examples of the pics from that lens I am even more looking forward to using it.

 

[mom2rtk]

That is exactly why I went the extra to get the Canon this time over the less expensive Sigma.

Also I was looking at some of your pics in your trip report and was wondering were those taken with the 17-55? They are really nice pics and if those are examples of the pics from that lens I am even more looking forward to using it.

Thank you so much for the kind words. And yes, somewhere around 95% of the photos in all 3 of my trip reports were taken with that lens. It has certainly had a workout. It's gearing up for a trip to the beach this summer.

I sure hope you enjoy yours as much as I have enjoyed mine.

 

[nbaresejr]

Sigma lenses get a bad rap in photography forums. The lenses that seem to be the biggest issue are the 50 and 30mm primes.

My 17-50 is spot on and so is my 10-20. I would have loved the canon 17-55 but could no justify the $500 difference between the two. At the referb cost it makes it a tougher decision

Enjoy the purchase and I look forward to seeing pics when you get back.

 

[mom2rtk]

Sigma lenses get a bad rap in photography forums. The lenses that seem to be the biggest issue are the 50 and 30mm primes.

My 17-50 is spot on and so is my 10-20. I would have loved the canon 17-55 but could no justify the $500 difference between the two. At the referb cost it makes it a tougher decision

Enjoy the purchase and I look forward to seeing pics when you get back.

I will say that Sigma was great to work with. I have the 30mm prime and the 50-150 2.8. Both had front focus issues and when I sent them in for calibration they hade if pretty hassle-free and got them back to me quickly.

 

[Donald Duck888]

Sigma lenses get a bad rap in photography forums. The lenses that seem to be the biggest issue are the 50 and 30mm primes.

My 17-50 is spot on and so is my 10-20. I would have loved the canon 17-55 but could no justify the $500 difference between the two. At the referb cost it makes it a tougher decision

Enjoy the purchase and I look forward to seeing pics when you get back.

I am sorry if I made it sound like I had something against Sigma I think they make some fine lenses. I actually have a Sigma 17-70 right now and for the price I paid for it, it is a really nice lens. I also read some really good reviews on the Sigma 17-50 and almost pulled the trigger on that one but when i found that I could get the Canon for only around $800 i decided to go for it.

 

[nbaresejr]

I am sorry if I made it sound like I had something against Sigma I think they make some fine lenses

I didnt take it that way at all. I was just pointing out that alot of sigma's issues are over blown in photography forums. I have had issues with the 2 lenses i purchased but they were both taken care of and work great. I would have no issues buying from them again. To go a step further the new 35 1.4 that sigma makes blows away the canon and nikon version.

 

[mom2rtk]

I didnt take it that way at all. I was just pointing out that alot of sigma's issues are over blown in photography forums. I have had issues with the 2 lenses i purchased but they were both taken care of and work great. I would have no issues buying from them again. To go a step further the new 35 1.4 that sigma makes blows away the canon and nikon version.

I actually really like the 2 Sigma lenses I have. I would buy from them again, but I would buy new to be sure I had a warranty in case calibration is needed.

And I would hope that new lens is really good. With a $900 price tag, I would expect it to be. I'm glad I have my old one that cost less than half the price.