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:
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:
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.
RobinQW wrote:
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....Show more →
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. ...Show more →
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:
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.
As for the rest of my post, it wasn't meant for you, but for others who had bashed the lens.