Tom_W Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
p.2 #8 · Re: Screwed one more time | |
CurtPick wrote:
Guy,
I am no where near the quality of a photog as you are but I too have to agree with you. They need a serious Wide angle lens. Hell, its even worse on the 1.6x sensor ! So much ranting about the 10-22mm , but I used one and it was simply the worst piece of crap I ever laid my hands on. Now a 17-55mm ok it fills a gap,, but EF-S What the heck are they thinking .... Now lets insult the prosumer some more lets put it on the market for above $1K just because it has IS ? How often are you going to use IS in this focal range ??
Scratching my head and wondering who smoked what when they thought of this one.
I'm not sure why you would think that an EF-S mount is a problem. If this new 17-55 were a full-frame EF lens, it would be incredibly complex, and image quality would be considerably below that of the 16-35. The design and manufacture of an ultra-wide to normal lens is much more difficult than that of a wide - to - short telephoto.
In other words, you aren't likely to ever see a 17-55 f/2.8 full-frame lens from any manufacturer.
Frankly, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS may be the best thing to come out of this announcement, for it fills a gap for a fast normal zoom, and offers something that its competitors don't - IS.
Actually, I don't agree WRT the 10-22 either - as zooms go, it's a stellar lens in terms of IQ, and really competes well with all the other offerings of its competitors (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina). No, it's not built like a brick outhouse, but that isn't detrimental to most that use it.
|