"BTW - maybe by then Canon will be following Nikon's lead and offer something like their 70-300mm with VR and AF-S (IS and USM in Nikoneese) for a bit less even than the current 70-300mm (Nikon's is in the high $4xxs).
Canon, are you listening? ;-)"
Then I read about Nikon releasing an even lower end lens with VR --- maybe Canon is listening!
or maybe their seeing a future of VR/IS DSLR bodies from everyone but Nikon and themselfves, but with Nikon with offering a slew of affordable IS lenses. That future starts to look VERY lonely for them.
Canon already gives you the option of getting a kit lens with IS, the 17-85mm. Need an affordable tele with IS? 70-300mm IS is just for you. I can't see these lenses as being anything more than a rumor.
formula4speed wrote:
Canon already gives you the option of getting a kit lens with IS, the 17-85mm. Need an affordable tele with IS? 70-300mm IS is just for you. I can't see these lenses as being anything more than a rumor.
UCSB wrote:
I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS ... I wonder if the 55-250 will be a similar high quality lens or just a consumer lens to match up with the 18-55 kit lens?
High quality lens? There are already two 70-200IS lenses. I guess if it ever happens, it would be a consumer grade with silver ring...
Because the 70-300IS is a pretty nice lens for only $600, and there are very high quality 70-200s out there, it seems unlikely that an EF-S 55-250 would be a big seller unless it distinguished itself in some major way, and was priced right. The two distinguishing features could be f/2.8 and compact size. Both of those features and priced around $1200 with extremely high quality like the 17-55 and 70-200 series.
But even then it seems that it would eat away or get eaten by other 70-200 or 70-300 offerings that already have IS.
I don't know enough about optics to calculate how compact a 250mm f/2.8 EF-S lens could be.
formula4speed wrote:
Canon already gives you the option of getting a kit lens with IS, the 17-85mm. Need an affordable tele with IS? 70-300mm IS is just for you. I can't see these lenses as being anything more than a rumor.
Exactly what I was going to say. The 17-85 is nothing more than a kit lens, except it has IS.
formula4speed wrote:
Canon already gives you the option of getting a kit lens with IS, the 17-85mm. Need an affordable tele with IS? 70-300mm IS is just for you. I can't see these lenses as being anything more than a rumor.
Exactly what I was going to say. The 17-85 is nothing more than a kit lens, except it has IS.
byteseller wrote:
Funny I had just posted this in another thread:
"BTW - maybe by then Canon will be following Nikon's lead and offer something like their 70-300mm with VR and AF-S (IS and USM in Nikoneese) for a bit less even than the current 70-300mm (Nikon's is in the high $4xxs).
Canon, are you listening? ;-)"
Then I read about Nikon releasing an even lower end lens with VR --- maybe Canon is listening!
or maybe their seeing a future of VR/IS DSLR bodies from everyone but Nikon and themselfves, but with Nikon with offering a slew of affordable IS lenses. That future starts to look VERY lonely for them.
ghs421 wrote:
Exactly what I was going to say. The 17-85 is nothing more than a kit lens, except it has IS.
The 17-85IS can give very good results as long as you're aware of its limitations. While not L or 17-55 IS quality it is a huge step up from the 18-55 kit lens and is the best Canon one-lens solution for a 1.6 crop camera.
I don't see what the purpose of either lens would be. As other posters have pointed out, there's already a lot of similar options in those ranges, unless Canon wants to make an ultra cheap consumer version, in which case I'm not really interested anyway..
Kamil Kisiel wrote:
I don't see what the purpose of either lens would be. As other posters have pointed out, there's already a lot of similar options in those ranges, unless Canon wants to make an ultra cheap consumer version, in which case I'm not really interested anyway..
On a crop camera 70mm is just a to high a starting point. So the 70-200, 70-300 and such are just not that great. The real value of the 70-200mm on FF is its great coverage of the portrait range and for close-ups. You can easily shoot indoors at social gatherings. The 70mm-200mm pretty much fails at this for my usage. If Canon builds a 55-250mm f/2.8 IS, I will order it immediately. It will be extremely useful to me. If it does not materialize, I will try to make do with the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I'm just a little worried about the broad range on the lens ... I hope that they did not sacrifice the quality.
UCSB wrote:
If Canon builds a 55-250mm f/2.8 IS, I will order it immediately. It will be extremely useful to me. If it does not materialize, I will try to make do with the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I'm just a little worried about the broad range on the lens ... I hope that they did not sacrifice the quality.
That's almost a 5x zoom as compared to less than a 3x zoom for the 70-200, AND f/2.8 with VR? And they're not to sacrifice the quality? That's going to be one expensive lens. EF-S does enable some simpler lens designs, but it's no silver bullet...
