Yours beat mine to the West by a day, mine is currently on the Fedex plane out of Indianapolis inbound to SoCal. I will pair mine with a 40D, hopefully it nails the focus like yours, but my 40D seems good with every other lens I have tried (24-105, tokina 11-16, 100-300L, ect), so I am not worrying.
I am really impressed with the build and feel of the lens. I have done no tracking and such but it sure locked on in the single image tests.
thanks for posting, I realize the limitations of a lens like this, I want sharpness first, and it looks like I will get exactly that. Yes, there will be vignetting wide open (but I don't usually shoot wide open) and, yes, there will be barrel distortion at the wide end. But it looks really good. I don't know what people expect, the $1000 24-105 has both distortion and vignetting, the 24-70 doesn't have IS and doesn't reach 135mm equivalent. The 28-135 is not as sharp, and has distortion, too. The kit lens, is, well, um, limited in all aspects, but sharp (IS version).
You pays your money and you take your compromises.
It would have been nice if they had made it an f4. I think it will be sharper than the 17-55 2.8. That lens got disappointing reviews from the magazines and various sites. Non of these is as sharp or better price than the 17-40 f4L . imo.
I had a 17-40 that I got here on FM, but was not particularly impressed. It was fine, not mind-blowing. F4, no modern coatings, no IS, some distortion. I sold my 17-40 after a good period working with it.
How long does it typically take for the price on a new lens to settle to "street price" rather than suggested retail. I am sure it won't happen until after they fill all of their pre-orders and the initial rush. I guess that it probably doesn't happen until all of the competitors have it in stock and selling it also. This is in stock 80 miles from me but I am still inclined to wait a bit.
John - no offense, but a digital elph or G-xx can get those shots ... 1/3rd or 1/2 the price. is the doorbell a crop or downrez? the shots seem dull for an $800 lens.
forestmage - thanks, but again wide open landscape is not really desirable. what is asked for in the thread is general walkaround shots with subjects shot wide open... for example.. if there were a person or two standing right in front of your camera shot WIDE OPEN with the af point on their face, seeing how the lens might look and subsequent background blur of the house/trees.
then some people shots, wide open, indoor in mediocre lighting.
Glen_C wrote:
John - no offense, but a digital elph or G-xx can get those shots ... 1/3rd or 1/2 the price. is the doorbell a crop or downrez? the shots seem dull for an $800 lens.
As I said in my post I was rushed and knew there was interest in the lens so I shot what was available. Doorbell is full frame.
I don't know if "dull" means lack of contrast and brightness or the subject is dull. They were not meant to be Ansel Adams masterpieces... because of all the "noise" about noise and AF, I tried to show that the new lens with the new body is showing none of that nonsense.
I will post pictures when I shoot something of merit for this forum...
dull meaning lack of crisp focus & sharpness, which is odd given they're downsized so essentially sharpened with flaws minimized when posting for the web.
i think what is obvious is any reasonably decent lens (probably any with a canon name) is capable of OK pictures. it's that some lenses present huge limitations & at $800 well those limitations are less easily overlooked
n0b0 wrote:
too bad it's not constant f/2.8 aperture.
Not IMHO. Given the size, weight and price of the 17-55/2.8 IS a 15-85 with a constant f/2.8 aperture seems to me as a bit far fetched. Roughly speaking I'd guess double the weight, size and price. And how many EF-S owners would buy such a beast? Personally, I'd happily settle for a constant f/4 aperture. That would also give it a competitive edge over the 16-85.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Not IMHO. Given the size, weight and price of the 17-55/2.8 IS a 15-85 with a constant f/2.8 aperture seems to me as a bit far fetched. Roughly speaking I'd guess double the weight, size and price. And how many EF-S owners would buy such a beast? Personally, I'd happily settle for a constant f/4 aperture. That would also give it a competitive edge over the 16-85.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
+1
I would like to see Canon make a good constant f/4 zoom with IS that works well on a crop camera. Only the 24-105 IS comes close at the moment, but it's not that wide when used on a crop sensored camera. I would like to see either a 17-50 f/4 IS L or 17-70 f/4 IS L added to the lineup.
Hmm... How did you arrive at that weight, size and price estimation Yakim?
I have the Tammy 17-50/2.8 and while I don't use the max aperture all the time, I find it VERY useful at times. I don't think I'll ever buy any walkaround zoom with less than f/2.8 aperture. It's more useful to me than IS.
Actually, Canon can forget the IS and just give me 15-55 or 15-85 f/2.8.
n0b0 wrote:
Hmm... How did you arrive at that weight, size and price estimation Yakim?
Well, by estimation. It's both wider and longer. Keeping the same high IQ of the 17-55/2.8 (3.2X) in a 5.6X zoom is going to be very complicated. The longest constant aperture zoom is the 24-105, a 4.4X zoom, and it is only f/4.
