I am hoping that folks can shed some light on why there seems to be so much excitement regarding the 17-55 EF-s announcement. From my way of thinking for a general purpose walk around lens... 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. Strikes me that a 10-22 / 24-105 combo would be a much better walk around solution for serious image making with a 20D/30D. For the ultimate walk around combo, it would seem that the 5D and 24-105 is the ticket.
Sure 2.8 is nice, but is it really necessary on a casual lens? I say casual only because it is obviously being marketed as a non-pro lens and doesn't fit into the body upgrade path. Unless it outperforms the L's in the range, I don't see this as being a big whoop and would like to know why others seem to consider it to be a must have lens.
PS. I am not trying to flame the lens. I am merely trying to understand what I am missing.
I'm very intrigued by the new EF 17-55mm. As an owner of the 17-40L, I'm contemplaing selling it, and my Tamron 28-75mm to pick up this new Canon.
Supposedly the new lens will be L quality, and I think this may be true. Although, Canon have made a bad image for themselves with the EF-S line, seeing as the lineup isn't too big yet. The perceived quality for the EF-S line so far has been nothing special, but I think this lens will change all that. Most people are going to think of it as an inferior lens, but considering it's pricetag I think we'll all be surprised when we see the images it will produce. I'm thinking of this lens as the new 28-70L, for cropped cameras. It's an L lens in disguise, but can't be called an L because it's not FF.
Look at Nikon's 17-55DX. It costs over $1k also. This is how it will turn out to be in terms of quality and perceived quality:
Nikon 18-70DX = EF-S Canon 17-85IS
Nikon 17-55DX = EF-S Canon 17-55IS
If it does turn out to be a competitor in quality to the Nikon, then it will be great. What is has that makes it better than the Nikon though is IS!
Some people will argue, is it worth twice as much as the Sigma? To some yes, to others no. The Sigma doesn't have IS, doesn't have USM (or its equivalent), and there's no guarantee of future compatibility of the Sigma on future Canon bodies. Same thing when people compare the Sigma to the Nikon version. To some it's worth the difference, while to others it's not.
I think wedding photographers will want this lens badly. It's a perfect range. Has f/2.8 AND IS to boot!
There's my take on this new gem of a lens. Only time will tell...
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.
17-55 is 28-90. Given that Canon's super-duper standard lens that everyone is buying is the 24-70/2.8, you can see how that lens might be useful to people using a 1.6x crop camera. They finally have a fast lens in that range. The other options so far were the 17-40 (f/4, to short on the tele end), the 16-35/2.8( even shorter on the tele end), the slow and so-so 17-85 IS and some so-so attempts by Sigma at f/2.8 (like the 18-50).
I'll put this plainly, until now, if someone wanted an all-round fast lens they had to look for a 5D with the 24-70L or the 24-105L. If this lens is any good and is near-L image quality, then there is now a choice:
1) 5D + 24-70L
2) 5D + 24-105L IS
3) 30D/20D + 17-55 IS
4) 350D + 17-55 IS
Given that option 4 costs less than the body of a 5D, you might understand my excitement. You might not like the zoom range, but lots of folks (like me) find it very useful.
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.
yep yep yep. I have the 24-70 and 24 is a bit too long for me to view as a walk-around lens. I was considering to buy a 18-200 for that, but now ... i'm not saying i'll be selling my 24-70, because it's 2 damn good and i realy need something longer that 55 for my usual concertstuff, but for vacations it would be a very nice one 2 use (next 2 the 55-200 sigma, which is pretty bad, but nice enough for vacations).
I wasn't intrigued by the length when it was a kit lens. Considering the ratings for the Sigma 18-50, and what might be expected from the new tamron release.... that is one hell of a price tag that Canon put on this thing.
What's it come to $600 for IS? WOW. Based on the size and weight, I doubt the Canon will be anywhere near the build of the other two. Count me in as not impressed by the EF-S G.
I am not excited at all, although the idea of such a range on my 20D made me think about it.
But now : look at this price... what kind of customers are they targeting with a 1k$ EF-S lens? Oh yes it has IS, so what? Useless marketing gizmo if you ask me. Just ask yourself how often you would really shoot in such low light that you would benefit from this, or even ask yourself how you used to shoot when IS wasn't there. Tripod anyone?
Beside the price, I am already looking forward to seing some samples. I remember I compared once my 17-40L to the EF-S 17-85. Boy the L kicked the EF-S to the ground real fast.
So where should the excitement be? Please help me see the light if I am missing something.
If this lense was out 6 months ago, it would have been unlikely that I bought a 17-40L for my 350D.
Given the weak lineup of EFS I really questioned Canon's commitment to the 1.6 crop. This makes me a bit more comfortable that an EFS lense investment isn't going to turn out to be betamax.
I still expect the 17-40L to give better clarity and colour, but the 2.8 and IS offer great indoor value. Until now, the sigma 18-50 f2.8 was the only alternative...i experienced great sample variation in store, and decided to go with the 'safe' bet of the 17-40.
I'm not gonna pay as much for this lens as I would pay for a used copy of the 16-35L.
Here's a big question nobody's asked yet: is this new 17-55 lens going to perform great wide-open? If not, then suddenly it's functionally an f/4 lens. In which case I'll save $500 and go with the 17-40L.
Rob Galbraith quotes canon as that it is on par with L-glass lenses. The only thing is that it doesn't have Fluoriet elements and it isnt weather-sealed. But the last thing isn't a big thing. It's an EF-S! There is no 1.6x camerabody that is weathersealed.
Shmackey wrote:
I'm not gonna pay as much for this lens as I would pay for a used copy of the 16-35L.
Here's a big question nobody's asked yet: is this new 17-55 lens going to perform great wide-open? If not, then suddenly it's functionally an f/4 lens. In which case I'll save $500 and go with the 17-40L.
The MTF charts on the Canon site look better than the 16-35. We'll see. This lens will be the answer to a lot of "What lens do I get for my trip over seas?" posts here. It will also make a great wedding photography lens if it performs like a $1000+ lens.
Does anyone know if Canon has altered the optics in any way? If they reworked the optics so that images favorably compare to the 16-35 and 17-40, they may have a winner. Okay, Canon's consumer lenses have a reputation for being soft wide open, but if you stop this one down one stop to f/4, now you have the potential for images similar to the 17-40 with a wider range, IS, and f/2.8, which takes full advantage of the center focus point on the 20D and presumably the 30D. The only definite loss is weather sealing, but only the 1 series is weather sealed, so I'm not sure that makes that much of a difference. Also, just because the initial price is that high doesn't mean it will always be that high, and consumer grade lenses depreciate faster than the Ls. I won't be getting one, but if I didn't have the 24-70 I may very well consider it.
Shmackey wrote:
I'm not gonna pay as much for this lens as I would pay for a used copy of the 16-35L.
Here's a big question nobody's asked yet: is this new 17-55 lens going to perform great wide-open? If not, then suddenly it's functionally an f/4 lens. In which case I'll save $500 and go with the 17-40L.
MTF charts look rather good so I have my hopes up high
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.
