Retired fat guy with a camera Loc: Colorado

So you are trying to tell me that 7 mm difference between a 24-105 mm and the 17-55 mm, is not wide enough? It is a stage, for crying out loud. Your grandchild is going to be there one time, a L lens will last you a lifetime.

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

be sure it is version II

KarenKaptures Loc: New Jersey

My brother lent me this lens and I love it. He took it back and was nice enough to buy me a Sigma 17:50 2.8 which is my most used lens and is half the price.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM is an excellent lens. It's got as good AF performance and image quality as most L-series... actually better than some. You also won't find an f2.8 L-series lens around this focal length range that... 1. has as much range and... 2. has Image Stabilization. So in some ways it's better than an L-series.

Presumably you have one of the Canon APS-C crop sensor cameras that can use this lens (Rebel/xxxD series, xxD series). It won't fit onto or work with a "full frame" model such as 6D, 5D-series.

Only you can say if it's long enough focal length for what you want to do.... 55mm is a relatively short telephoto. I've used the equivalent at times for theater photography. But I've also used longer lenses (equivalent on crop cameras to 85mm or 100mm).

Also, f2.8 is relatively fast for a zoom... but there are even faster prime lenses. A 50mm f1.4 is two full stops faster... and 85mm f1.8 is a 1-1/3 stops faster... a 100mm f2.0 is one stop faster. For about what the 17-55mm costs, you could probably buy two of those prime lenses (which also are usable on both crop and full frame cameras).

Don't get too hung up on the L-series designation... it doesn't necessarily mean a lens is a "best choice". Sure, for the large part L-series are excellent... but there are also some superb lenses that aren't L-series.

It may not be built as sturdily or well sealed for weather resistance as some L-series, but the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM isn't an L for one reason... it can't be fitted to FF cameras.

Canon defines L-series with three criteria. They say to get that coveted red stripe painted on it...

1. Lens must use "exotic" lens elements... The 17-55mm has three aspherical and two UD (ultra low dispersion) elements... which is more than many L-series and would easily qualify it for L status.

2. Lens must be leading edge design, manufacture, materials and top performance.... these are somewhat subjective, but the 17-55mm would pass this criteria, too. It is as well made as some L-series and as good or even better performer than some.

3. Lens must be usable on and compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future. This is the only criteria where the 17-55mm "falls short". As an EF-S lens it cannot be used or or even fitted to any of the film EOS, or the APS-H models, or any full frame DSLRs. Because they pre-dated EF-S lenses, it also won't fit onto 10D, D60 and D30 APS-C EOS models... but it's a premium quality lens for use on all APS-C DSLRs since (from about 2004 onward).

Personally I could care less if a lens has a red stripe and L-series designation. If it meets my needs and happens to have it, great. But if it does what I need it to do well and isn't an L, I still wouldn't hesitate for that reason. Don't be an "L-coholic". I know folks who will "only buy L-series" and personally think that's just plain silly. IMO, it can even be a mistake in some cases, though in general L-series are excellent and top-of-the-line.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You sound like your downplaying the importance of a 7mm difference on the wide end. While a 7mm difference on the long end of a lens is trivial and may be irrelevant, on the wide end of a lens that same 7mm makes an absolutely HUGE difference in the angle of view on a crop body. For the purpose the OP wanted this lens for, 24mm might work just fine, but it also may not be wide enough depending on the distance to his grandson and how he wants to frame the image. If the child is part of an ensemble, he might not be able to get the whole group in the shot, if that's one of his goals. The EFs 17-55, despite not being an L lens is a high quality optic which is capable of results equal to a L lens.

People two often forget one of the major strengths of L lenses is their professional build. Two often it's assumed the optics of L lenses are always far superior to non L lenses. That is often, but not always, correct. One of the best primes that Canon makes, and which is used by many professional photographers, is the wonderful non L 35mm f/2 IS USM. The build and optics of my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is every bit as good as my Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM. The recently replaced Canon 24-105 f/4 L has a very good but less robust build than other L lenses, and it's optics, while also very good, lag noticably behind other L lenses and is no better than the 17-55mm f/2.8. Some L lenses like the recently replaced EF 35mm f/1.4 L were noticably soft compared to their competition.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I bought one used from a UHH member and gave it a workout this last Sunday.
I'll post some more, taken down in the trees, later.
Marion

Shot @17mm, f8, ISO400, Canon7D

(Download)

Shot @52mm, f8, ISO400, Canon7D

(Download)

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I had this lens back with my 60D. It was an excellent all-around lens, sharp and well built. I've read that it's built to near "L" quality, but Canon does not label any EFS lens as "L", no matter how good. I would highly recommend it.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

I had the 17-55 EF-S, used it on my 60D and loved it, but sold it for $500 when I needed to buy lenses for my 6D. You can't go wrong with this lens on a crop sensor camera.
Bud

Retired fat guy with a camera Loc: Colorado

If wide is what you are after I would go for a used 17- 40 mm L. they can be had for around $400.00 I have had both, L and non L. I still have a 50 mm f /1:4. I will take a L lens any day, over a non L. There is a reason they cost more. Better optics. Flat and simple.
I will wager that , any non L picture, posted right up to a L picture, taken with the same camera, with the same settings, the L, will be a better image. I will not buy anything else. I am not a snob. But I demand sharpness in my photos.
I have bought, a 300 L for $500, a older 100- 300 L for $125 [which works great by the way and I like the micro switch], a 70-200 L for $400 and last week I bought a 24-105 L for $400. 4, L lenses for less than 1500. Toss in my Canon 1.extender, and I have a pretty wide array covered by L glass. life is too short to buy a cheap lens. Buy a good lens you will never regret it. Most people who say that a Ef non L, is a s good as a L, don't own them

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Mike, I'm sorry I never posted any pictures taken in the shade like I said I would. I shot everything at f8 or f11. How are you getting along with your new lens?