My Canon 17-55mm lens just arrived but...

I don't even have to listen to the file…

A loud "rumbling" noise is most definitely not normal. Where did you buy it from and what is the return/exchange policy?



EDIT:

Just watched the clip, and that sound is definitely not normal. I'm assuming it makes this sound when the IS system is switched on, and this leads me to believe that there's something wrong with the IS in that particular copy. The IS will make a very, very small amount of "noise" but not anything like I'm hearing in that clip.
 
Thanks Stephen. Looking online, other people are saying it is normal. Seem to be some conflicting info here. I'm going to email the shop and see what they say.
 
Last edited:
matt9b said:
Thanks Stephen. Looking online, other people are saying it is normal. Seem to be some conflicting info here. I'm going to email the shop and see what they say.
Click to expand...

No that is not normal at all. It is normal for the lens to make some noise but not that noise. That sounds like you have a small blender inside your lens when IS is on and that is never a normal noise :)
 
Yes, the sound is normal. It's the sound of the motor in the image stabilizer. If you use an external microphone (as you always should when trying to capture good sound) you will not hear the grinding.
 
the only canon lens built for video with IS is the new IS system on the 100mm 2.8 macro (Vincent Laforet showed a demo during that huge DSLR video workshop a few weeks ago), its more like the systems in video cameras. The systems built for stills are not neccesarily going to work well for video.

Thats why until more of the new IS system lenses trickle down im just going to stay with the more affordable Non-IS lenses and use gear to stabilize (slider, shoulder rig, fluid head, glidecam)

jon
 
Yes the sound is normal. You are hearing it because you don't have any other audio in the clip and the camera is amplifying the sound. If you ever use a canon 70-200 2.8 IS you can physically feel the IS at work.
 
Okay, so I just did a quick test with the 7D and the 17-55 f2.8 lens, in a completely quiet room with the AC turned off. I can hear the faint sound of the IS, but there seems to be a deeper, louder grinding sound going on with Matt's lens than I've ever heard with mine.

I say exchange it for another copy and see if the new one sounds better.

But Wolf is also correct in that the Auto Gain is amplifying the sound you're hearing.
 
Sorry this is not normal and sound like your internal gears have some backlash issues or could be loose and might need to be tighten.
 
I have the 17-55 EF-S IS lens and mine is whisper quiet compared to that when IS is activated but, by the way, my 70-200 F4 IS is much louder than my 17-55 (but still not as bad as that, no way).

So I think you got a bad example of the 17-55 too - but we must all accept that lenses will vary due to manufacturing tolerances so even if you send it back there is no guarantee that the next one will be better. This is probably why you may see conflicting reports about the loudness of the noise of IS (for any given Canon lens model). However, if it's easy to get it swapped I'd give it a go. For sure, mine is a beauty (very low IS noise and superb image clarity too!).
 
My 17-55 sounds the same. I figured it was normal. It certainly functions properly (or seems to haha). You also have to remember that the sound to the human ear will sound very different to a microphone connected to the source of the noise. The mic probably accentuates the sound.
 
Sounds the same to my ear. But what bothers me is the fact I bought this for video and I like to use the camera's mic sometimes.
 
Honestly, the built-in mic is bollocks. (And not as in "it's the dog's bollocks.") I always carry a Sennheiser MKE400 with my 7D (and 5DII) for any on-camera audio. The quality is perfectly fine, it slots right into the Canon hotshoe mount, and the mic isn't terribly expensive. It's a worthwhile upgrade, IMO.
 
Is the Canon 17-55IS($1100) worth $520 more than the Tamron 17-50VC? Thats pretty close to double the price of the Tamron ($580).
 
shaocaholica said:
Is the Canon 17-55IS($1100) worth $520 more than the Tamron 17-50VC? Thats pretty close to double the price of the Tamron ($580).
Click to expand...


I would just stick to the kit lens (18-55) for $100. For $1100 I could buy entire set of old primes which would be more useful. I seriously do not understand how or why would someone pay that kind of money for this lens ???????
 
Cieloent said:
I would just stick to the kit lens (18-55) for $100. For $1100 I could buy entire set of old primes which would be more useful. I seriously do not understand how or why would someone pay that kind of money for this lens ???????
Click to expand...

Let me give you one very big reason: stills. I have clients who pay me to shoot stills as well as video, and having a lens that's this fast, this sharp and works perfectly with the EOS cameras is key.

An "entire set of primes" is of little value to me and the documentary-style, often run-and-gun shooting I do.

As with many things gear- and camera-related, what may not be of value to you is invaluable to someone else.
 
Stephen Mick said:
Let me give you one very big reason: stills. I have clients who pay me to shoot stills as well as video, and having a lens that's this fast, this sharp and works perfectly with the EOS cameras is key.

An "entire set of primes" is of little value to me and the documentary-style, often run-and-gun shooting I do.

As with many things gear- and camera-related, what may not be of value to you is invaluable to someone else.
Click to expand...


I respect your comment and why it is useful for you regarding photography, but how does this relate to video? Basically why is it that this lens cost so much? Surely a 2.8 constant aperture can't be the reason, so is it image quality?

I would seriously like to know and apologize to the op if this will derail his thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top