gene A. wrote:
And yet the competition can put IS into the body so you don't have to get gouged on the lenses with this feature.
Yeah, but this one will actually work!
More seriously, you buy a lens and keep it for many years. Bodies, at this juncture, get replaced much more often. So you buy IS once and share it with a series of upgraded bodies. Rather than having to pay for IS every time you replace the body.
Plus, if the IS fails, you only need to send one lens in instead of being without a body for 3 weeks while repairs are made.
wilt wrote:
Why do people complain about the price of the APS-C equivalent to 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS when it is less expensive than the actual lens 24-105 f/4 IS
Why do people compare equivalent focal lengths to actual ones?
wilt wrote:
Why do people complain about the price of the APS-C equivalent to 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS when it is less expensive than the actual lens 24-105 f/4 IS
I think that this lens will be more comparable to the 28-135 IS USM lens as used on full frame. The difference being, this lens has a wider field-of-view on the wide end, and probably improved image quality (Canon has made some significant forward steps in that area, and have really improved their wide-angle offerings). In terms of build, it appears to be similar to that lens as well. The 24-105 f/4 L is of a higher build quality.
The price is high because it is new. I fully expect it to be offered as a kit with the 7D, possibly at around $400 additional cost over the "body-only" option. It will likely be a nice general-purpose lens. Hopefully, the price will drop a few months down the road.
I have the 50D and alway wish there is a EF-S lens focal range like the EF 24-105 on a full frame body. I am glad to see Canon make a lens equal to the EF 24-105 lens.
The focal range 15-85 (24-136) is best for travel. I got the EF-S 18-200 when I bought the 50D. I've been using the 50D and the 18-200 on 2 overseas trips. I always feel need a little more wide and the 15-85 will do. I plan to get the EF-S 10-22 for wilder shots but now the 15-85 will be it. Since most of my shots are daytime the f/2.8 is not necessary besides I have the 50 f/1.4 for low light and museum shot. These two lens is all I need. When the 15-85 become available I will order one and sell my 18-200 to my friend.
Will I miss the 150-200 end? The last 2 trips I took over 1,200 shots only 10 of the shots were over 150 range.
I think if I were the type to want a body with a single "walkaround" lens, but for some reason I were also the type who would spend an extra thousand bucks for a body with an 18 mpixel sensor, then I might like this lens.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
$800... oof! For a 3.5-5.6 zoom? Yikes. But yeah that's MSRP. What does everybody think initial street price will be, and where will it eventually settle?
JoyRider wrote:
I have the 50D and alway wish there is a EF-S lens focal range like the EF 24-105 on a full frame body. I am glad to see Canon make a lens equal to the EF 24-105 lens.
While it may be similar they are not equal. Now if it was a 15-65/4 IS then you can call it pretty even. Apparently Canon felt the additional range was more important than the constant f/4 aperture...had it been the opposite I would think most would be able to justify the price tag.
Doesn't the 50 1.4 use the micro USM but it has a gold ring. I didn't know the kit lens had a micro USM. I always thought that USM made it really quiet which the kit lens is not.
ptys wrote:
I could have sworn that I saw a picture of a kit lens with red USM on the barrel. Here is a confirmation. Apparently, there were early versions which did have USM. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55.html
yeah, Canon usually gives better package in Japan market, like 100mm marco and 60mm marco have lens hood and case included in Japan.
Ron Hew wrote:
EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 (kit lens) is not USM n0b0 wrote:
The EF-S 18-55mm IS version is not USM.
There is (or was) an EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 USM lens (not an IS lens, and maybe never offered in the US as a kit), but it does not/did not have a ring-type USM motor.
gargao wrote:
Doesn't the 50 1.4 use the micro USM but it has a gold ring.
That may be the exception that proves the rule.
According to Canon, the 50mm f/1.4 is the "Only lens in the EF System to combine the extra-small Micro USM and still provide full-time manual focusing when the lens [is set to AF mode]."
BrianO wrote:
The gold ring is for lenses with a Ring USM; this lens uses the less-advanced Micro USM, which lacks some of the functionality of the Ring USM.
The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM also uses the Micro USM motor, and so it, too, lacks the gold ring.
Gold rings are so "yesterday".The new 15-85 DOES have Ring Type USM even though there is no Gold USM ring.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090103canon15mm28mm18mm135mm.asp The EF-S 15-85mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM is as a high quality standard zoom designed to complement the EOS 7D. It offers a flexible 24-136mm (35mm equivalent) range and offers image stabilizer with a claimed effectiveness of 4 stops. It also includes ring-type USM and a close focus distance of 0.35m through the entire zoom range.
There are lots of older non-Ring Type USM lenses that sport the gold USM ring so there really was no way to know if a lens had Ring USM. You had to look it up in the specs somewhere. Generally all Ring Type USM lenses have a focus distance scale while the cheaper Micro USM lenses do not.
Sep 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM