Sorry to say, I am still not getting why all of the excitement. In response to some of the responses...
For those who only want to travel with one lens... there are now some very fine P&S cameras that shouldn't be looked down upon and may prove to be more appropriate for family travel as well as a lot less expensive. The new Canon PowerShot S3 looks interesting for the casual stuff and will be good enough to protect from the life long frustration of missing the shot of the century. (I did this fall and am still kicking myself for leaving the camera home because even the 20D and the 24-70 would have been a pain to deal with.) If I am traveling and shooting seriously, there is no one lens that has a range that is sufficent and at least two lens (regardless of body) are going to be going with me.
For wedding shooters... I tend to doubt that there are many serious wedding shooters out there who are shooting with a 20D and not planning on upgrading at the first available moment. Certainly some are and doing fine work with the camera but I don't think they represent a market for which Canon would build this lens.
There's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the air today.
I think it looks like a great lens. I don't think the price is overinflated if the claims of it's quality are close to true, and looking at the other EF-s lenses I don't doubt the claims. The 10-22 and 60mm macro are completely superb lenses.
EOS20 wrote:
This lens seems to be a nice walkabout lens, I just wish it came in a normal EF mount. If it did I would buy one.
If this were a non-EFS mount L-quality for the same money, it would cannibalize 16-35 and 24-70 sales more than it will now. This is a good lens for EF-S mount camera owners who aren't considering an upgrade to FF any time soon.
This new lens makes me wonder if Canon will be announcing a replacement for the 17-40L and/or the 16-35L, to make these L-lenses more desirable relative to the new 17-55/2.8 IS. Time will tell.
EOS20 wrote:
I would be happy to pay extra for a non EF-S version with L quality. Replace the 16-35 if need be!
L only means FLuoriet element(s) and (mostly) weather-seals. Since it's a EF-S lens its only for APS-C camera's, and they don't have weath-sealing.
Canon says performecne is on par with L-lenses, well.. i'd like to see it.
EF-S doesn't mean bad, it means that the glass is smaller, so cheaper, because it doesn't use all of the glass on EF-lenses...
Yeh the red paint is where the image quality comes from!
The reason I want a normal EF lens is becuse I also shoot film, EF-S lenses are useless on my film bodies. I also plan on upgrading to full frame in the future so I want to be able to use my lenses on future digital bodies. And besides the price of the new EF-S 17-55 is not exactly cheap, Its alot of money for a lens that will only work on a few digital bodies. I don't care if its a "L" lens, It can remain a "Consumer" style lens like the 17-55 IS, I just want to be able to use it on all my bodies.
I think Canon is happy with the triple crown in zoom ranges(16-35, 24-70, 70-200) and doesn't necessarily want to sell a lens that virtually replaces any two of these. For you, the consumer, it would be great. For them, they would rather sell you all three. I doubt if I'll go to a FF body in the next few years and I'll never go back to film. So, it works for me.
I think it will be a great seller for Canon. I just don't think they are worried about creating one lens that works for everybody.
As far as non-L goes, I really love my 17-40 and 70-200, but that new 70-300IS with UD elements is a real nice lens even if it isn't an L.
As far as "useful" range goes, well it is more useful than the 17-40. Sure it isn't as useful as 17-85, but it is probably better image quality, time will tell.
The kicker, for me, is the price. This was the kicker with the 17-85 for me. It is a really good $400 lens, unfortunately it sells for $600. There seems to be some sort of "EF-S" tax on these lenses. Maybe my perception is way off, but that's what it seems. The strange thing is that since the consumer market has been defined to be 1.6 by Canon it would seem that EF-S would be the higher volume and lower margin sector of the market. And yet, it seems EF-S is sold at a higher margin (again, what do I know).
It'll get a pass from me at that price, but then again I've got FF aspirations in a year or so. Based on my experince of using P&S cameras with 38mm widest equiv. focal lengths for a few years as I transitioned from film to digital I've got to say I'd feel better spending my money on a 24-105L even with a APS-C camera. But that's just me, and I've already got a 17-40 in my bag...
I've got to say though, I've seen *lots* of "I want a 17-5x/2.8 IS from Canon" posts over the past months and now there is one. It may sell well in spite of the cost. Though I'd have priced it another $100 or $200 higher and made it an L.
abam wrote:
panos, they're just anti EF-S snobs. try posting the identically superb MTF charts for the 135L and the 60mm 2.8 macro, and put on your flame-retardant suit...
"obviously being marketed as a non-pro lens."
...which would make sense, because the vast majority of canon dslr users are enthusiasts with EF-S compatible bodies.
"We're talking a thousand dollars for a walk-around zoom that ... is useless if one ever goes full frame."
most EF-S body users aren't going to go full frame until FF is in the area pricewise of the 20D/30D. so when 2011 rolls around and one can finally find a FF body for under $2000, they can simply sell their EF-S lenses to one of the millions of 1.6 body users and get new lenses.
"...isn't built like an L...."
how many of us photograph for national geographic? most just mount their L's to non-sealed bodies - negating the whole weather-sealed system concept, and use them for recording the adventures of being an average citizen. for the kind of shooting that 99% of canon dslr users do, the build qualities of the 10-22 and 60mm 2.8 are more than they need to be.
And a 1000 EUR non L walkaround lens with perfect focal range and IS is useless, but a L with wrong focal length (24-70L or 24-105 IS) on a 20D is superb.
If it would have the same build quality and an L ring, it would be superb They are just scared about their ego, honsetly, you can't be a good photographer without professional gear
And if the optically quality will be outstanding (it will, trust me), the build quality isn't up to par... Build quality, for christ sake, what do you do with these lenses?
A 15-55 lens would have been exciting. But that would have cut into the sales of the 10-22. I'm guessing it was a marketing decision. They are trying to maximize the number of people who buy both lenses. The lens designers would have made it exciting but they were forbidden.
mudlake wrote: For me the price will be the key. I would be pretty hard pressed to pay >$1,000 for an EF-S lens, just too many other good choices that I could also use on my 1D.
If street price were down in the $700-800 range it sure would make a nice wedding/event lens.
I agree. $1,000 for a non-L lens that can only be used on cropped sensor cameras seems. . .well. . .CRAZY. We're talking a thousand dollars for a walk-around zoom that isn't built like an L and is useless if one ever goes full frame. I'm shaking my head....Show more →
I totally agree..
Ever wonder why Canon doesn't designate the L series on the EF-S series ?
Its because build quality is subpar as is the Picture quality both in contrast and color. I myself would never invest in the EF-S series because of that and because your are limited to the 1.6x sensor. I just dont get why Canon ever went this route to start with. Probably had to do with production cost.
Anyway, I wont be spending a red cent on any of the EF-S series at the price point they sale for. With Tamron and Sigma producing some very good lenses in the Ultra Wide Range Canon will loose the battle of Ultra Wides. The Pro and Consumer is becoming more educated and you should see the series fade away in the next 5-10 yrs.
RobinQW wrote:
If this were a non-EFS mount L-quality for the same money, it would cannibalize 16-35 and 24-70 sales more than it will now. This is a good lens for EF-S mount camera owners who aren't considering an upgrade to FF any time soon.
i disagree...
I don't understand. If you could buy a 17-55 f/2.8L IS lens for $1150 or a 16-35 f/2.8 non-IS for $1400, you disagree that the 17-55 would cut into sales of the 16-35? You don't think a 17-55 f/2.8L IS lens for $1150 would take away a few sales from 24-70 f/2.8 non-IS at $1150?
Or, is it that you disagree that some people might want a 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens with L quality glass?
If the announcement didn't garner excitement from the OP, I almost find it silly that he's soliciting the forum for reasons that probably wouldn't sway him anyway.
The 20D fits the needs of many, and to have a fast lens in the 27-88 "sweet spot" range will make it very versatile. I too gasp at the price, but if the lens is quality, who cares? Nikon users have been rejoicing about the equivalent range lens in their lineup for a while now.
And as someone mentioned, if one ends up moving to a higher tiered body (and many WON'T--dont' forget, the semi-pro bodies far outnumber the pro ones), this lens can be sold to another 300D/350D/20D/30D user as with any other lens you outgrow (3rd party lenses vs Canon L's for example).
As usual, people like to bash things that don't fit their needs, but to downplay the usefulness of this new lens is shortsighted.
Collins wrote:
If the announcement didn't garner excitement from the OP, I almost find it silly that he's soliciting the forum for reasons that probably wouldn't sway him anyway.
The 20D fits the needs of many, and to have a fast lens in the 27-88 "sweet spot" range will make it very versatile. I too gasp at the price, but if the lens is quality, who cares? Nikon users have been rejoicing about the equivalent range lens in their lineup for a while now.
And as someone mentioned, if one ends up moving to a higher tiered body (and many WON'T--dont' forget, the semi-pro bodies far outnumber the pro ones), this lens can be sold to another 300D/350D/20D/30D user as with any other lens you outgrow (3rd party lenses vs Canon L's for example).
As usual, people like to bash things that don't fit their needs, but to downplay the usefulness of this new lens is shortsighted....Show more →
I was not looking to be swayed. I was simply trying to understand other people's thought processes. People can learn from other people. I also don't recall bashing the lens. Firstly, I have a 10-22 which I think is one of the best bargins out there. Secondly, my question really revolved around usefulness as there is not one person here who has any idea if the lens is good, bad or indifferent.
Hrow wrote:
...as there is not one person here who has any idea if the lens is good, bad or indifferent.
Not correct. If no one here has any ideas, why would you solicit their opinions? If it were the same quality as a $150 lens, I wouldn't be excited. I have an idea if the lens is good. It is based on MTF charts, my experience with Canon lenses, my experience with Canon EFS lenses, the lens specifications, and the cost of this lens.
