I would be happy to pay extra for a non EF-S version with L quality. Replace the 16-35 if need be!

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!

It would be bigger, heavier, and that red paint would cost a lot.

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.

I'll reserve judgement til I see some results.

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.

Ken

Hrow wrote:
Sorry to say, I am still not getting why all of the excitement. In response to some of the responses...



For me I think the "excitement" is that this ends up being a big, waving finger (you know which one) in the face of all the EF-S naysayers.

It shows a pretty strong commitment by Canon to the EF-S mount.

Of course the price tag is such that anyone buying it should be commited (legally, until they get the help they need), but thats a different story.

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.



Yup

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?

Flappie

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.

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:
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.
i disagree...

"so the lens costs more(as much) as the camera?"

ive heard that often

Pic0 wrote:
RobinQW wrote:
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.
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?

And your reason would be....?

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.


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.

I don't get it either. Why is this lens worth 2x more than the 17-85 IS? Sure having 2.8 is great, but I can think of several better ways to blow $1.1k.

RobinQW wrote:
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.

Is it better than a 16-35? Not as good as a 24-70? Do tell. I think everyone here (myself included) is assuming that it is not a piece of crap.

andyjaggy82 wrote:
17mm is too long (which is why I went with the 10-22 and put the 17-40 on the shelf) and 55mm is too short

Yeah that equates to a 28mm - 90mm range. Constant f2.8 and IS. Sounds like a terrible range and lens to me.

Yep, terrible, terrible lens!



The cost, on the other hand (if it really is over $1k) is ridiculous. If this is true, then I suspect Tamron will be selling a ton of their new 17-50 f2.8 lens.

Hrow wrote:
Is it better than a 16-35? Not as good as a 24-70? Do tell. I think everyone here (myself included) is assuming that it is not a piece of crap.


Not that you really want to hear this, but here goes:

Is it better than a 16-35?

I was contemplating a 16-35. To me, the 17-55 range will make this a better walk around lens. To me, the IS will make this a better hand held lens. According to the MTF charts on the Canon web site, the 16-35 is not a more contrasty lens. I am not planning to change to a FF lens in the next couple of years. Therefore, this is a better lens for me.

Not as good as a 24-70?

I have the 24-105 IS. I had considered the 24-70 lens. Canon doesn't make a 24-105 f/2.8L IS lens. I had to choose between the extra range of the 105 with the IS or the f/2.8. I chose the extra range and the IS because the IS works well for me and the range was a bonus. I wish it had the 2.8 because some situations call for it. In my next life I can have both lenses.

The 17-55 is a lot wider than the 24-70. For indoor low light situations the extra 7mm on the wide side seems more valuable to me than the 15mm on the long end. This is just my personal use. For better lighting situations I can use the 24-105 and use the IS and extra range over the 24-70. Or, I could use the 17-55 if I needed a little wider lens.

Although some people discount IS on a 55mm lens, I use it regularly for 24-50mm shots with the 24-105 IS lens. Maybe I don't hold the camera as steady as some, but, it works well for me.

If I were given the choice between the 16-35, 24-70, and 17-55, I would choose the 17-55. If I already had the 16-35 and the 24-70, I probably wouldn't change anything. Or I might sell them both and use the difference to spend on something else. But, that's just me.

This is based on the assumption of the quality of this lens. I assume it will be a sharp lens for > $1000.

I see from your lens collection, you might just be a zoom whore like me. I will probably have a similar zoom collection except for the 17-55 instead of the 17-40 and the 24-105 instead of the 24-70. The 100-400 is on my list after the 17-55.

Edited by RobinQW on Feb 21, 2006 at 05:03 PM GMT

RobinQW wrote:
Hrow wrote:
Is it better than a 16-35? Not as good as a 24-70? Do tell. I think everyone here (myself included) is assuming that it is not a piece of crap.


Not that you really want to hear this, but here goes:

Is it better than a 16-35?

I was contemplating a 16-35. To me, the 17-55 range will make this a better walk around lens. To me, the IS will make this a better hand held lens. According to the MTF charts on the Canon web site, the 16-35 is not a more contrasty lens. I am not planning to change to a FF lens in the next couple of years. Therefore, this is a better lens for me.

Not as good as a 24-70?

I have the 24-105 IS. I had considered the 24-70 lens. Canon doesn't make a 24-105 f/2.8L IS lens. I had to choose between the extra range of the 105 with the IS or the f/2.8. I chose the extra range and the IS because the IS works well for me and the range was a bonus. I wish it had the 2.8 because some situations call for it. In my next life I can have both lenses.

The 17-55 is a lot wider than the 24-70. For indoor low light situations the extra 7mm on the wide side seems more valuable to me than the 15mm on the long end. This is just my personal use. For better lighting situations I can use the 24-105 and use the IS and extra range over the 24-70. Or, I could use the 17-55 if I needed a little wider lens.

Although some people discount IS on a 55mm lens, I use it regularly for 24-50mm shots with the 24-105 IS lens. Maybe I don't hold the camera as steady as some, but, it works well for me.

If I were given the choice between the 16-35, 24-70, and 17-55, I would choose the 17-55. If I already had the 16-35 and the 24-70, I probably wouldn't change anything. Or I might sell them both and use the difference to spend on something else. But, that's just me.

This is based on the assumption of the quality of this lens. I assume it will be a sharp lens for > $1000.


Good rationale. The differing logic that people are using to determine their lens line-up is what I was hoping to hear. For example, I am considering selling my 20D, 10-22 and 24-70 and going to a 5D using my 17-40 (sitting on a shelf) and picking up a 24-105 IS. That gives me 17-105 in two high grade lenses plus a FF body with better resolution. Upgrade cost using what I have is about $1500 bucks. The down side is the loss on the long side. Probably worth it -to me.

I believe that understanding why people do what they do can offer valuable insights as well as expose some little factors that I may have missed. Why not try to get the opinions and thoughts of others? I can't understand the increasing hostile nature of this forum, perhaps it is just the world we live in.

Hrow wrote:
Good rationale. The differing logic that people are using to determine their lens line-up is what I was hoping to hear. For example, I am considering selling my 20D, 10-22 and 24-70 and going to a 5D using my 17-40 (sitting on a shelf) and picking up a 24-105 IS. That gives me 17-105 in two high grade lenses plus a FF body with better resolution. Upgrade cost using what I have is about $1500 bucks. The down side is the loss on the long side. Probably worth it -to me.

I believe that understanding why people do what they do can offer valuable insights as well as expose some little factors that I may have missed. Why not try to get the opinions and thoughts of others? I can't understand the increasing hostile nature of this forum, perhaps it is just the world we live in.


If you are considering an upgrade to FF, you are right. No point in buying another EFS lens. I don't know what kind of photography you do, so I don't know how important IS or fast glass is to you. I do some indoor event stuff, so, the faster the better. Also, IS rules. What is your reasoning for trading your 24-70 for the 24-105?

PS. I edited my last post with comment about you being a zoom guy too, before I saw your new post. I type slow.

RobinQW wrote:
Hrow wrote:
Good rationale. The differing logic that people are using to determine their lens line-up is what I was hoping to hear. For example, I am considering selling my 20D, 10-22 and 24-70 and going to a 5D using my 17-40 (sitting on a shelf) and picking up a 24-105 IS. That gives me 17-105 in two high grade lenses plus a FF body with better resolution. Upgrade cost using what I have is about $1500 bucks. The down side is the loss on the long side. Probably worth it -to me.

I believe that understanding why people do what they do can offer valuable insights as well as expose some little factors that I may have missed. Why not try to get the opinions and thoughts of others? I can't understand the increasing hostile nature of this forum, perhaps it is just the world we live in.


If you are considering an upgrade to FF, you are right. No point in buying another EFS lens. I don't know what kind of photography you do, so I don't know how important IS or fast glass is to you. I do some indoor event stuff, so, the faster the better. Also, IS rules. What is your reasoning for trading your 24-70 for the 24-105?

PS. I edited my last post with comment about you being a zoom guy too, before I saw your new post. I type slow.



The 5D has the same huge fault (in my mind) that burdens the 20D, that being the location of the AF points. I had hoped that Canon would see the light in their 20D replacement and had they fixed it, I would have been quite happy to stay with a 1.6x crop camera. If the 5D prices fall to a more reasonable level which it appears they will given the European rebates, I might get tempted and place IQ over ergonomics. In general, I am not a FF fanatic and see advantages to both formats.

In terms of the 24-70... I had an early 24-105 and returned it. It simply was not as good as my 24-70. The only reason for trying another would be to get the IS as I share your enthusiasm for that technology - it was the sole reason that I switched from Nikon to Canon years ago. However, the 24-105 would have to be on the same level as my existing lens. If not, it is going back as well. Some people have had good luck with theirs while others have had my experience. Quality differences or expection differences? I don't know.

Realistically, most of my shooting is static subjects. I do occasional sports and wildlife shooting for hoots and giggles but nothing serious. I am a zoom guy and traveling with the wife more because the kids are now out of the house.

Hrow wrote:
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.

Sorry about that, let me rephrase: If you weren't excited to begin with, most likely nothing we say will excite you. How about that? As for the rest of my post, it wasn't meant for you, but for others who had bashed the lens.

As for usefulness...I'll again restate that the combination of the focal length range of this lens and speed are things that have been missing in the EF-S mount. Event coverage people (myself included) will find that pretty handy.

Think of all the people sitting there with 'value' lenses and Rebel XT's or 20D's... they want one L quality lens, red ring be damned.

IF this is L quality, then this is a good lens for them.

It's more expensive than the competition, but quite honestly compared with the Tamron and Sigma offerings it has IS, USM w/FTM, and BETTER optics. The last one alone is worth it costing more, ala Canon's usual standard. Add in the other two and you have a good lens that IMO is worth paying for... especially if you shoot a lot of indoor stuff like weddings and such.

And when you compare to to Canon's main rival Nikon it's $50 cheaper at list and will be even cheaper on the street after a couple months. And Nikon's lens is bigger, heavier, and has no VR.

Now 55 isn't that long, I'll grant people that... it's going to feel a little restrictive... but you have a range and you have to decide on wide or long, you can't have both and quality... I think 17 is a great starting point... 17-18ish.

Also, to show more of my thought process for those that can't seem to understand why this lens is attractive, I have an XT right now and it's 8 very clean and usable megapixels. Splitting hairs on IQ with the 20D, used by many *pause for effect*.... pros. Putting my money into glass is more important to me right now. I have no plans on upgrading my body anytime soon. And 24mm isn't wide enough for me, so there goes the 24-70 offerings from Canon and Sigma. My 28mm Tamron is also going by the wayside because of this new lens. The only reason I don't shoot with my kit lens is it's a slow, crappy lens that doesn't give any decent sharpness until f/8.

Yeah, the price is a shocker for some because it's EF-S, but I don't beat on my lenses so the build quality will be just fine for me and I'll bet others too... and for those that need it, you can probably get some red paint and put a little stripe and a little L on it to make yourself feel better.

But it all still comes down to IF this lens is quality - the verdicts obviously still out on that one.