Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras, Black - 1242B002

Folks, I know you want it short. But I am covering quite a bit of information and condensed it so that you can get good information and are able to digest it in less than 5 min. It is quite surprising how many people are being "tortured" with the question on which lens is the right lens when it comes to finding the perfect lens to upgrade the Canon XTi Rebel kit lens (18-55) or even for the Canon 40D (which is often sold with the 28-135 USM IS lens). I read about 500+ reviews and many of them I found very interesting but really did not answer my question on what a good lens is for the Rebel XTi... and with good reasons because YOU have to know what you want or need and then make a call. Here were the criteria I used and I hope you can leverage from these: 1. I wanted a lens which has a great picture quality to have a true upgrade feeling from the Canon 18-55 kit lens (during day light that lens is actually very good and with its light weight is a great carry around lens - however in low light or for really nice portrait shots this lens has limitations not to mention its built quality) 2. I wanted a versatile "Walk Around" lens with good zoom range to cover most of the picture I take (landscape and portraits) in addition to my telephoto lens (70-300mm) 3. If possible a low weight lens - however image quality was a higher priority for me 4. I wanted a Canon lens (though there are very good alternatives from Tamron and Sigma - however they have some disadvantages but given the lower price worth considering) 5. I wanted an Image Stabilizer (IS) and a low noise focus motor, i.e. Canon's USM Many people are looking for a great "Walk Around" lens to avoid changing lenses all the time yet at the same time want great picture qualities. So, your criteria may be different and therefore your choice certainly a good one may differ from mine. As one disclaimer upfront - I am not going into the professional details, i.e. vignetting differeneces at different aperture values or zoom ranges - to make it simple for many readers in this field who just want to make a good decision to buy a great lens without going through the trouble of returning lenses. You will find many reviews on the cropped camera lenses (EF-S) and still people often don't get it right. So, if you have a cropped camera like the Canon Rebel XTi or Canon 40D then the cropped factor is 1.6. In other words no matter what lens you put on these cameras you will get the following zoom ranges which are different from the product names for the lenses: Canon Lens Min Zoom Max Zoom 17-85: 27.2 - 136 28-135: 44.8 - 216 17-55 f2.8: 27.2 - 88 24-105 f4.0 L: 38.4 - 168 Source: Canon's website I went through the extra burden of testing all the lenses myself and not just rely on reviews. So, I went ahead and rented them for 1-2 days and then made up my own verdict so to speak. I also took pictures in similar conditions, looked at them on the computer and printed them out to compare the lenses: 1) The first upgrade lens from Canon which comes to mind is the EF-S 17-85 USM IS f3.5-5.6 lens. This lens would have been a great kit lens but did not meet my requirements for an upgrade lens. It has a very good zoom range and it is still light weight. But the image quality is not as sharp as I would like it to be. And if you commit to spend more money (like $500 for this lens) then you don't want to waste it by just getting a bit more zoom range and an Image Stabilizer. 2) The first lens I actually tried was the EF 24-105 f4.0 USM IS L (luxurious) lens from Canon and I was really happy about the image quality. I was very close to buy this lens but wanted to check out other lenses first. Following drawbacks for me: it is not a wide-angle lens which is useful for landscape shots or even travels shots when you can't afford walking back 5-10 feet. Plus a wide angel lens can give you a nice effect on the picture itself. Another drawback is the aperture value of f4.0 in low light. An aperture factor of f2.8 is faster in low light (the lower the value the larger the aperture - think the Iris of your eye is getting larger and therefore you can see better in low light) and with a running kid or pet at home that is a true advantage. However, with the Image Stabilizer this would not be a big issue. (For more advanced people you can stop down one step to get enough light into the lens in low light conditions but if the object is in motion that may be tricky.) A big plus however is the option to use this lens for any non-cropped canon camera. However, I am ok with using the Rebel XTi and if I want to upgrade to another body later then the 40D would be a great way to go. So, I don't mind to buy EF-S lenses. The EF-S lenses have the advantage that they are generally lighter weight than the full frame lenses. 3) The EF 28-135 USM IS f3.5-5.6 lens has a great zoom range (44-216) but does not have a wide angle (basically anything less than 35mm). However, if zoom range is your top criteria then I'd get the 24-105 L lens without a doubt over this 28-135 lens. For example when you are in full zoom and you are not in bright daylight your pictures will not be as sharp. I tried this lens and the image quality is simply not as good as the 24-105 L lens or the 17-55 f2.8 lens. The 24-105 is also more solidly built. It is a lot of metal built with this lens and it is sealed against dust and water. However, if budget is a constrain to you then the Canon 28-135 lens is a better option for you and according to many folks out there considered to be a better choice than even the EF-S 17-85 USM IS lens. 4) The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 USM IS lens was the last lens I tested and chose over the other three lenses. First, my expectations toward a great image quality (like the 24-105 L lens) were fully met. This lens is using similar components like the L lenses (but it is not fully sealed like the 24-105 L lens is) and shoots extremely well in low light conditions. Plus for a f2.8 (main advantage is large aperture which is very useful for taking great shots in dim lights and faster than f4.0 lenses). Also this lens has less weight (640g) in comparison to the Canon 24-70 EF L f2.8 lens (950g). So, you get a great lens with an acceptable weight. Even the zoom range is fully acceptable to me on my Rebel XTi which comes to 27-88mm. I can take very good portraits shots (without hitting someone's nose with the lens if you will) and it has very nice blur as well (meaning a sharp face in the front and with a blurry background). The only drawback is a flare on some pictures at the bottom of the image when you take pictures using its built-in flash due to the larger lens diameter. However you can either put a better (external) flash light or use Photoshop to correct this issue. I am not a professional photographer and for me this is ok. If you are a professional photographer then you are most likely not as interested in this article anyways. +++Summary+++ The bottom line is that for a true upgrade lens to your kit lens for the Rebel XTi I would recommend the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens. It is worth the investment. This type of lens along with any other L lenses from Canon will always keep its value and you can certainly sell this lens a lot easier if that is the final information you were looking for... ;) I hope this article helps you in directing your decision on which lens to buy. If you are still not sure about what to do then I can only recommend testing the lenses of your choice in a store or ideally rent them or ask your buddies to lend you a lens for a few days. Good luck and enjoy taking great pictures to treasure your memories! Uwe

This lens has everything I want in a lens. 1. Good build quality Everything about this lens is quality. I could ask more from the zoom ring. It doesn't feel as good as it could at this price range. It does the job fine however. Everything else about this lens is the highest quality. I would not let this one minor thing stop you from buying it. 2. Image Stabilization (seem to work to at least 3 stops...maybe 4) 3. Large constant aperture (F/2.8 all the way through) 4. USM focus (quick and quiet. Does the job fine.) If you have a "kit" lens (18-55) and want your pictures to look WAY better, get this lens. You must consider two things before buying. Are you planning to move to a 5D MkII or another full frame body? (this lens does not fit full frame bodies.) Is your style of photography suited to the 17-55 range? (do you take most shots between 17 and 55mm....as most people do) If you meet these criteria.....you need this lens. You may need a long zoom to go with it, but don't think for one minute that you can get an 18-200 or 18-135 and still get the same image quality. I have the 18-135 and the 17-55 gives me FAR better image quality. If you need more zoom from time to time get this lens and a 55-250. The 55-250 is a good lens and gives you decent image quality at long ranges. It's only about 1/4 of what this lens costs but will cover you in long telephoto shots. The 17-55 will be great for most shots most people take. It took me a long time to realize that all I needed was a better lens. I didn't need more zoom. I finally got this and wish I had done it years ago. I have found this lens more than good in the month since I got it. It weighs a lot but I have taken hundreds of pictures and hundreds of videos with it and love it. If there was an "EF" alternative to this, I would have purchased it. There is no comparison to this lens in the "EF" line-up. Only this EF-S lens has a 2.8 aperture, image stabilization, and USM in this zoom range. All those EF lenses like the 24-70, 24-105, etc... are missing one thing or another. I looked into EF lenses first. If you want it all, this is your lens. There is no EF lens that has these features. I use it with a 7D and have had good, solid results. It will let you shoot with a "pro-caliber" lens. It should be an "L" lens and it should come with a hood. I gave it 4 stars at first because it's zoom mechanism was not as smooth as it could have been and it costs more than it should. Since then I have grown to like the zoom ring and the overall performance of the lens made me change to 5 stars. Update after 9 months : I have used this lens a lot in the past 9 months. I could not be any happier. The one issue I was concerned about was dust getting inside. I have not seen a problem with dust. I used a UV filter for about 4 months. I then took it off and still did not see any issue with dust getting inside. I live in a dry dusty area so I would have seen the problem if it were a problem. The IQ of this lens is great! The F/2.8 aperture all the wat through the zoom range has been the best however. Other companies make similar lenses as you might know. One or both of the major companies lenses have zoom mechanisms which turn the opposite of Canon lenses. That would not be easy to get used to...but it might save you some money. I decided to go with Canon because I knew it would be good quality and I am SO glad I did. After 9 months of heavy use I cannot say enough about the lens. From handling to IQ to size and weight it just satisfies me in every way. I also have a 24-105 F/4L I really like. If I could only choose 1 I don't know what I would do. Update 4/21/13 - I have now had this lens for about 3 years. I use it more than any other lens. I have a 24-105 F/4L which I love. The 17-55 wins out for everyday use because it can go so much wider at 17mm and it's constant F/2.8 aperture. I have had no problems with the lens. I kept a filter on for a while because of dust concerns. I have now used it for about 2 years mostly with no UV filter. I have seen no dust problems. The lens is overpriced. I think Canon should drop the price by at least $200 to be competitive with Sigma and Tamron who now have alternatives. With that said, the Canon is still the best option for the best results. Resale will be much better with the Canon should you ever decide to sell. I would highly recommend you buy this lens. With all it's features and resale value you simply can't loose. It's the best all around every day lens for a Canon EF-S mount for almost anything...including video.

I received my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens today (12/28/06). It feels heavier by far than the 18-55mm kit lens, but lighter than I expected. Feels good (well-balanced) cradling the lens in the left hand near the base of the lens when mounted to my Canon Digital Rebel XT. I put the lens on the camera right away in a manner that would limit the opportunity for dust to intrude on the back of the lens or into the camera, since I've read about this lens not being sealed as well as "L" series Canon lenses. I may never take it off. 8-) This lens focuses fast and sure--even in low light, no hunting around to lock onto a subject. Pictures taken with the camera hand-held at 1/10 to 1/15 sec shutter speeds inside with no flash were tack-sharp (Thanks to the IS). With F2.8 and IS, this lens opens up a whole new world of natural low-light photography. Not only are more inside shots possible, you also have the versatility to create gorgeous bokeh. You create these bokeh effects generally zoomed to 55mm (where the kit lens' max aperture is F5.6). Since the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 has a constant F2.8 max aperature, you don't have to worry about the depth of field increasing as you zoom. It is so confidence-inspiring to walk around and set your aperture where you want it to give you the depth of field you want, and not really worry about the shutter speed being too slow. Some of my outside dusk (low-light) shots at 1/6 sec shutter and F22 came out sharp (Thanks again to IS). I almost got vertigo when I first looked at my pics uploaded to my PC--they were so realistic. Images really pop! The decision to go with this lens instead of some of the "L" grade lenses involved the following criteria: 1. Focal Length Range. I wanted at least the range of the 18-55mm kit lens. 2. Max Aperture. I wanted f/2.8, since f/4 is too confining for low-light situations. Also, f/4 doesn't give you the depth of field limiting ability of f/2.8. Trade-off is size and weight (and price). 3. Constant Max Aperture. I wanted a constant max aperture throughout the zoom range. I don't want to set the aperture and have the camera stop it down due to the max aperture decreasing as you zoom in (as is the case with the kit lens). 4. USM. I wanted the Ultrasonic Motor (USM) feature, since this is known to be the fastest and quietest autofocus technology. 5. IS. I wanted Image Stabilization (IS), since this effectively makes your lens faster, because you can shoot in lower light at lower shutter speeds without fear of blur (provided the subject is still). Also, zoomed-into 55mm, camera shake can be more of a problem than at shorter focal lengths. IS has got you covered there as well. This lens only has one IS mode (no mode for panning). 6. Full Format or Crop-optimized. It is true that going with a full format lens would mean that you could use it on any DSLR (35mm film, APS-C DSLR, and Full Format DSLRs such as the 5D and 1Ds Mark II). However, full format lenses are not optimized for the 1.6x crop of the Canon DSLRs Rebel through 30D. The crop-optimized lenses (designated by the "EF-S" in the model name) are tailored to the smaller image sensors of the APS-C camera bodies. The lens elements and coatings are designed to minimize the ghosting and flare that can come from reflections off of the image sensors in digital cameras. Also, the crop-optimized lenses tend to be smaller, lighter and less expensive than otherwise identical full format lenses. I considered the EF 17-40mm f/4L, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF 24-105mm f/4L. But, none of these had the focal length range I wanted, and two of them weren't fast enough (f/4), and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L was very heavy (2.1 lbs). I determined there was no need to sacrifice performance now for some possible benefit later on if I purchase a full format camera. If I ever do, I would hope there would be full format lenses that have been designed to limit chromatic aberrations and introduce other digital optimizations currently provided by the crop-optimized APS-C format-only lenses. Besides, you can always continue to use your old camera and lens as a back-up, or you can sell them to help purchase the new ones. 7. Grade ("L" series or Advanced Amature). Of course, if all else is equal, take the "L" lens with the red stripe. But, all else is not equal. I'd rather have an optically superior lens that is well-built (although not as well as an "L" series) that meets all my other criteria, and just be careful to keep the dust out. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is expensive (I paid $[...] on [...]). But, I'm sure if there were an "L" series version of this lens, it would be even more expensive. Conclusion: This is one great lens! There's nothing else out there for 1.6x crop digital cameras that gives you the sweet spot of zoom range, low light capability, depth of field control, image stabilization, fast and quiet auto-focus, and superior image quality rivaling prime lenses. And to put the considerable weight (22.8 oz.) into perspective, it is still 3.8 oz. lighter than the very good digital-only Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, and the Nikon does not even have image stabilization (and costs more to boot). Game, set and match! UPDATE 2/3/07: I've taken 1000+ pictures. I'm impressed with battery life given that I thought IS would use a lot of power. But, since flash is nearly never needed (due to f/2.8 and IS), battery life has seemingly been extended. I didn't realize how much I would grow to expect a stable image through the viewfinder until I looked through a viewfinder with a lens without IS and saw the image shaking. Note that cameras with built-in image sensors (such as Sony Alpha) don't stabilize the viewfinder. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM autofocus locks-on amazingly fast even in low light. No apparent optical weak spots at any focal length or aperture. Lens hood (optional) eliminated most, but not all, flares from bright sun. I think this is the best, most versatile walk-around lens you can get. I wish Canon would make an EF-S 55-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens to pair it with so I could zoom in closer on distant wildlife, etc.

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a professional photographer by any means. I am a guy who is into photography, who has a penchant for gadgetry and who appreciates quality. This lens fulfills my desires on all three of those levels. You won't hear me talking about "creamy bokeh" or any of the other esoteric stuff that some reviewers rely on for filler material. This is a regular guy's review for other people in my same boat. OK first of all, this thing is expensive. I paid $980 from Amazon and kicked and screamed the whole way. I had agonized over literally 1000 reviews (most of which were very favorable) before making the final decision. I had pros and semi-pros advising me, and in some cases insisting that I buy this thing. I don't know though---a thousand bucks? For a hunk of glass? I felt my gag reflex kicking in a little as I broke out into a cold sweat. Oh sure I wanted it, but did I need it? As most of you know, need is a relative thing, and I can usually rationalize myself into "needing" something with fairly little effort. Usually. A thousand bucks though? The one thing that finally pushed me over the edge was that I joined a couple photography forums and noticed that these lenses were selling on the used market for around $900--and not only that, but when one did pop up for sale, it usually only lasted about a day before it was SOLD! So, I guess I didn't really have that much to lose. When it came (3 short days later), I could swear I heard a Heavenly choir singing and saw a little divine glow eminating as I unboxed that ravishing beauty. And there she was, the culmination of about 60 hours of research, 30 emails, 8 phone calls and me parting with almost 1000 of my very favorite hard-earned dollars. Would she be worth it? Only time would tell. For a few minutes, all I could do was stare. It is a good looking piece of equipment and I'll tell you this too, it's pretty big. Like a soup can. And not one of those condensed soup cans either--more like a "Chunky" can. I'm talkin' BIG. Despite its size and what feels like a much more substantial build quality than most Canon L-lens disciples would have you believe, it is not unweildy or particularly problematic in the weight department. I have it slapped on the front of a Canon 50d and could easily carry it around all day long if need dictated. Back when I was agonizing over this decision and balking about the price, I was trying to rationalize my way into another (less expensive) lens. I looked at the Canon 15-85mm, but it was MUCH slower than this one, didn't have any reviews to speak of and still cost somewhere in the $8-hundo neighborhood. I also thought I could just go with the 17-55mm kit lens and really save myself a whole bunch of money in the process. I mean afterall it's the same focal range, right? Right...sort of. I'm here to tell you right now in as plain a language as I can muster, those two lenses do not even reside on the same planet as one another! It's about like substituting a Honda Civic for a Ferrari---sure they both get you from A to B, but that's where it ends. A Ferrari does things that a Civic can only dream about and a Ferrari instills a certain pride of ownership--particularly in someone who appreciates the fine quality of the marque. A Ferrari can go 200mph, and while that is not always necessary, or even desired, it is still an option. This lens is a Ferrari. The proof is in the pudding (or is it putting? I can never remember) and this baby delivers. On my first day of shooting I was just walking around taking pictures of anything and everything that was in front of me at the time. I wanted to see if f2.8 is really worth all the hubbub and drool from the Photophiles. Trust me, it is. I captured a shot of my dining room in almost total darkness with only the light from an outside street lamp shining through the window--and the pic turned out GREAT! I later got a picture of my kids outside at night with NO FLASH that I would have never been able to capture with one of those other lenses. I've had this lens for about a week now and in that time have shot almost 600 pictures. Exactly ONE of those pictures incorporated the flash--the rest were shot in natural light. The shot with the flash was just an experiment and probably would have looked better without it anyway. I even shot about 150 of those pictures at my children's Christmas program--again--no flash and every picture turned out perfect. Awesome! When I saw the quality of the images I was getting with this thing set at a WIDE OPEN aperture (traditionally yielding softer images) I almost cried. I mean I've had good gear in the past, but this lens takes the cake. Speaking as a person who is not affiliated with Canon in any way , shape or form AND has absolutely nothing to gain by giving a review, I can tell you without reservation that this lens gives me joy. Joy! I paid $980 for about $100,000 worth of joy and in turn have captured memories that are priceless to me. I'd say all in all, that's a pretty good deal. If you are reading this review, you may be in the same position I was in about 2 weeks ago. You like the lens, but aren't quite convinced yet. Do I spend? Do I wait? Do I settle? Believe me, I know a grand isn't easy to come by these days and I also know you are being more careful how you spend, but I have had very few occasions in my life in which an "investment" like this has paid me back so much in so short a time. This lens will bring you joy too, and in this day and age that is even harder to come by than mere money. Buy this lens--you can thank me later.

I have this lens for almost a year. Although there're plenty of reviews, I thought I'd give my experience with this lens. hope it'll be helpful for people still debating getting this lens vs. other L lenses. I shoot with a 60D camera body. Other good lenses in my gear, to compare this lens against, include 50mm f1.4 USM prime, 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II. 1. Image quality: really good and very sharp, as good or a little better than my 50mm f1.4 prime which I use much less now only when I really need low light or very shallow DoF. my 70-200mm f2.8L is still a little better (this 70-200L IS markII is of course the IQ king of zoom lenses and rivals the best prime lenses). I shoot mostly landscape and some home parties/weddings and have been very satisfied with the IQ of this lens. 2. comparison to other lenses: Most people considering this lens also consider other L zoom lenses such as 24-70L f2.8, 17-40L f4, 24-105L f4. if you don't plan to upgrade to a full frame, I recommend this lens over the 24-70L for a few reasons: a. 17mm is much wider than 24mm and much more useful for shooting landscape, or for taking pics of a group of people in a small room. b. this lens is sharper than the 24-70L (and the 17-40L) at all apertures and focal lengths according to the-digital-picture.com. I also read that the 24-70L f2.8 is a little sharper than the 24-105L f4. This EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens has 2 UD and 3 aspherical elements compared to 1 UD and 2 aspherical elements in the 24-70L. Ultra-Low Dispersion glass (UD) elements eliminate secondary chromatic aberrations that otherwise reduce sharpness and introduce color fringing. aspherical lens elements are used to avoid spherical aberrations that can soften images, especially at wider apertures. c. This lens has 3-stop IS. most people think you don't need IS at these focal lengths but it's quite helpful in low light when you shoot a outdoor scene at night and don't have a tripod, you can go as low as 1/5 second handheld (if you use 17mm, to avoid blur when handholding, the shutter speed recommended is 1/(17x1.6)=1/27 or faster. with 1 stop IS,it's down to 1/14, 2 stop IS brings it down to 1/7, and 3 stop IS gets it down to 1/4 second). if you use the 24-70L on a crop body in this situation, the shutter speed recommended is 1/(24x1.6)=1/40 or faster which may not be slow enough at night even if you bump up the ISO to 3200 or 6400. 3. Build quality: and dust issue that some people complain. buid quality is very good but not L quality weather sealed. I didn't see any dust issue for a few months then noticed a few tiny speckles of dust inside after shooting a few times in windy environment at the beach. but they don't affect image quality at all because these dust particles are too close for the lens to focus. if you see spots on an image, it's likely from dust on the sensor. over the years, If there's a layer of dust which may diffract light, then it may cause softness at that area. in that case, you can always have Canon clean it. dust is gonna get inside any non L lenses if exposed in a windy, dusty environment repeatedly. for People wanting L lens build quality, I think it would raise the price of this lens another $400-500. on the other hand, by not having L quality build, this lens is lighter than the 24-70L (1.4 lbs vs. 2.1). i have no issue carrying this lens all day but my 70-200L f2.8 is so heavy that I don't bring out much, only when I think I really need it. Final thought: if you shoot a crop body and don't plan to upgrade to a full frame, in my opinion (and many others'), this lens is best choice as a general purpose lens from landscape to portraits. the 70-200L f2.8 or 85 f1.8 are better portrait lenses though, due to their focal length)

Probably the best lens you can pair with the Canon 80D and that's what I did. The focal length is great as a versatile walking lens on the cropped 80d sensor. The added image stabilization is also a very nice feature of this lens to pair with the video capabilities of the 80D. Pros: - The quality of the images is definitely good, not the best lens, but it is almost impossible to find another lens that can beat the versatility here. You could probably find better primes, but none in a 35mm (cropped sensor equivalent) with image stabilization and that fast 2.8 aperture. - The auto focus worked great, was plenty fast and is pretty quiet. Not as quiet as the STM, but quiet enough to get usable audio from the onboard mic in a pinch. - Image stabilization is a must for hand-held video shots and allows for hand-held shots at slower shutter speeds. - While the lens is heavy, I also have used the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART lens and that lens is even heavier so, I guess it's all relative. Cons: - Very big lens (the wide range of focal lengths means the lens is long) - In addition to the length, the diameter is 77mm which is also quite big. - No lens hood included (I reviewed the lens hood, and made comments about the enormous size of that hood and the high price) - Very expensive lens considering that it is an EF-S mount, which I believe means that you can't use it on a full-size body. So, if you ever decide to go to a full-size body, you can't take this lens with you. Conclusion: While there are a long list of negatives for this lens, they are not deal breakers. Again, you would be buying this for an APS-C camera and that would make this focal range more like 27-88mm which is a great range for walking around. The fast aperture at every focal length, and image stabilization make this an all-in-one lens. You could definitely carry around a few lenses which might be better, but most of then don't have image stabilization if you want to take video, plus you would need to be changing lenses constantly. This was the main lens I used on my trip and there is no single lens that could replace it. I highly recommend it if you are starting out and just want one lens to last a while.

Like so many people, I bought this to replace my kit lens. In my case that's the 18-55mm IS associated with the XSI. The main issue I had with that lens was the variable (and small) aperature. I wanted constant 2.8 without sacrificing zoom or IS. That's what you get here. 1. Optical quality. So far, it seems unambiguously better than the 18-55. No surprises there. I don't see any issues with aberrations, though I seldom take photos fully wide open and that's where people tend to see them. 2. Performance. It zooms quickly and quietly and it has full time manual, so you can tweak the zoom after it has zoomed. It's really nice that the focus ring doesn't twist when it focuses. You can keep your hand on it without worrying about interfering with the focusing. It's an excellent design. 3. Weight. It's heavy. There's a huge difference between this and the kit lens. If I were to go on a long walk with my camera, I'd take the kit lens for weight reasons. Besides, outdoors the advantages of this lens are much less. Also this is an expensive lens so I'd never take it somewhere where it might get hurt. 4. Design. The front lens is really close to the front, so watch out for fingerprints. I use a lens hood and it keeps stuff away from the glass. It also cuts down on the ghosting, which apparently this lens is prone to although I haven't experienced it. Like I mentioned, I really just use this lens indoors. The construction has been critisized, but it feels pretty solid to me. It's not metal, but it's heavy, hard plastic. I have used L lenses before and unless you are coming under gun fire I see no need for the metal construction. People have complained of dust inside the lens. I have been using mine frequently for a month or so and I don't have any dust in there at all. That's not much time, so we'll see. The zoom ring is very large. It practically begs you to use the zoom instead of walking back and forth. And the constant F2.8 helps encourage that. Why physically move when you can zoom without losing aperature? 5. Aperature. I think 2.8 is a great aperature for indoors. It's not so wide that the field of view is so narrow that people's noses are out of focus if their eyes are in. It's wide enough that you get a pleasant bokeh and take pictures in pretty low light. It's an excellent width for indoor shots of your kids and stuff. That's what I use it for. When I want crazy bokeh I use my F1.8 prime, which works well for that. That doesn't happen much, though. The difference between F2.8 and what you'd be using in the kit lens is very noticeable. Totally a good thing. 6. Accessories. I don't use any filters, but this lens really deserves a hood. I can't abide the prices canon charges for their hood here, but on ebay you can get a knockoff shipped from Hong Kong for like 1/6 the price. I did, and it's a really sturdy, well-fitting, excellent hood. 7. Image stabilization. I'm in the camp that thinks IS is really important. Shaky hands and all that. The IS doesn't make any noise and it doesn't noticeably drain the battery, so I have it on almost all the time. I haven't really tested it thoroughly to see how well it works, but I assume it works about as well as other lens based IS systems. If so, it works well. So far this lens has lived up to my expectations. The USM is nicer than I expected and everything else is pretty much what people say. It's a great lens. Overpriced, yes, but it's a real winner. As long as you remember it's just a lens and it can't change the quality of your composition and lighting, you won't be disappointed. I wasn't. By the way, if you want something that will magically make your photos way better, get the Canon 430ex II or 580ex II external flash and bounce it, along with a DIY or Fong diffuser. That makes a huge difference. By the way the external flash is kind of necessary with this lens because it sticks out farther, so if you use the onboard lens you will get a shadow in the picture from it, especially if you are using the lens hood. Not a problem with the bounced external flash. If I had to give up this lens or my flash, I'd give up the lens. Get both, though. You won't be disappointed.

All I can do here is confirm what other reviewers have already pointed out. This is an unbelieveable lens when it comes to quality. The color is great; the contrast is great. The image is sharp, especially beyond the 2.8 aperture. Having the 2.8 aperture was really important to me though. It allows me to shoot with available light, and in combination with the image stabilization, I am able to get some photos that would otherwise not be possible. I had tried out the 17-85 Canon lens earlier, and exchanged it for this one. Now I am completely spoiled and will probably not want to buy another lens that is slower than a 2.8 aperture and without image stabilization. The lens is definitely heftier than the kit lens, but it is not unbearable. Yes, I have some concerns about eventually upgrading to a full sensor frame DSLR body and not being able to use this EF-S lens on it, but for now, the Rebel XTi does 99% of what I want it to do. The important thing to me was to purchase a lens that takes advantage of the full potential of the XTi. Currently, my photographic prowess, not my camera body or my lens, is the limiting feature of my photos. This is an expensive lens, but the quality will be immediately apparent as soon as you upload your first batch of photos. Update: Feb 2011 I have now had this lens for about four years. It continues to be amazing, especially in low light situations without a flash. You can't beat the 2.8 aperture. I have taken a lot of "keepers" with this lens, everything from indoor, no-flash, low light high school awards ceremonies to sweeping vistas of Yosemite and New York. This lens is so good that I am having trouble upgrading to a full frame DSLR body. (Currently shooting with the Canon 40D.) I recently tried out the Tamron 18-270 pzd superzoom, but I was so spoiled by my Canon 17-55 that the Tamron couldn't start to compare at the same range. It's a really expensive non-L lens that will only work on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR, but it has been worth every penny.