02-19-2012, 04:21 PM
I will say that PZ's review of the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is probably the least enthusiastic one I have ever come across.
Camera Labs, The Digital Picture, and several others I consulted all raved about it. So much so that I bought it.
No, it does not have quite the build quality of a Canon "L" lens, but it does not cost as much as an equivalent "L" lens would cost (if there was one), although it is still not cheap. Most other reviews I saw were complementary of the build quality, and were very pleased with the image quality.
It works great in low light due to the constant 2.8 aperature across the entire focal range. The nice blurred background that wide aperature produces makes awesome portraits of my new infant and my other little kids, which is the main reason I bought it. For me it is the perfect walking around lens. The 17mm is wide enough for any use I have for it, and the 55mm is equivalent to 88mm on my crop-body T3i, which shares a sensor eith your 60D. And 88mm is within the sweet spot for a portrait lens. It feels solid (although a little heavy).
Camera Labs, The Digital Picture, and several others I consulted all raved about it. So much so that I bought it.
No, it does not have quite the build quality of a Canon "L" lens, but it does not cost as much as an equivalent "L" lens would cost (if there was one), although it is still not cheap. Most other reviews I saw were complementary of the build quality, and were very pleased with the image quality.
It works great in low light due to the constant 2.8 aperature across the entire focal range. The nice blurred background that wide aperature produces makes awesome portraits of my new infant and my other little kids, which is the main reason I bought it. For me it is the perfect walking around lens. The 17mm is wide enough for any use I have for it, and the 55mm is equivalent to 88mm on my crop-body T3i, which shares a sensor eith your 60D. And 88mm is within the sweet spot for a portrait lens. It feels solid (although a little heavy).