The New 17-55 is on par with an "L" lens

[Rex914]

There are lots of threads on DPR bashing this poor lens for being overpriced because it's not an L lens. Allow me to put these rumors to rest.

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM offers image quality on a par with Canon’s highly regarded L-series lenses.

[sherlock]

There are lots of threads on DPR bashing this poor lens for being overpriced because it's not an L lens.

Hey Rex,

I'm just a little bit curious why if Canon says it has the image quality of an L lens why not slap a red ring around it and call it an L? Is it because it's an EF-S lens and EF-S lenses are supposed to be for amateurs? Just wondering what your (and everyone elses') thoughts are.


Andrew

[erichlund]

Hey Rex,

I'm just a little bit curious why if Canon says it has the image quality of an L lens why not slap a red ring around it and call it an L lens? Is it because it's an EF-S lens and EF-S lenses are supposed to be for amateurs? Just wondering what your (and everyone elses') thoughts are.


Andrew

This is pretty much what I was asking earlier. I went to the Canon site and looked through their lens lineup (That's a chore, they must have a serious volume of visitors right now). They have zero lenses that are both EF-S and "L" designated. That "appears" to be a significant philosophical difference between Canon and Nikon, because there are three Nikon DX lenses with the gold ring that implies a professional standard lens. Probably says more about Nikon sticking with the APS sensor size than anything about Canon, but I suppose you could interpret it as pro lens to pro body where pro body = full frame. Nothing to get worked up over.

[timmciglobal]

Let's see...

It is NOT weather sealed... it is NOT built like an L lens (construction quality) it has 7 aperture blades not 8... doesn't come with a lens hood or case... it's not weather sealed...

Honestly I'm starting to feel ripped off by canon. The price if it stays where its rumored deserves L quality build not a glorified 17-85 but with 2.8.

It'll be a usefull lens if it's optical quality is good @ f2.8 but outside of that nothing about it impresses me over my 24-105 F4L which is built like a tank, I'm waiting to see its sharpness and quality @ F 2.8 to decide. If its not sharp until F4 it's overpriced for its build.

Tim

[coldrain]

Tim, not all L lenses are weather sealed. Not much use for a weather sealed lens for a non-pro non-weather sealed camera. The price sits in the used lens elements anyway, and that is what you pay for (and IS in this case, of course). And the 17-40 f4 L has 7 blades for instance.

And Eric, now there are two lenses in the EF-S line-up that lens element wise are up to "L" spec, this new 17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM. The 10-22 actually has the same kind of elements as the 17-40mm f4 L. The EF-S 60mm macro is also of very good quality, so there are 3 worthwhile EF-S lenses, one cheap kit EF-S, and one disappointing one.... the 17-85.

[erichlund]

Tim, not all L lenses are weather sealed. Not much use for a weather sealed lens for a non-pro non-weather sealed camera. The price sits in the used lens elements anyway, and that is what you pay for (and IS in this case, of course).

And Eric, now there are two lenses in the EF-S line-up that lens element wise are up to "L" spec, this new 17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM. The 10-22 actually has the same kind of elements as the 17-40mm f4 L. The EF-S 60mm macro is also of very good quality, so there are 3 worthwhile EF-S lenses, one cheap kit EF-S, and one disappointing one.... the 17-85.
I was not commenting on the quality, which would be premature, and not even relevant to my personal interest, but merely the fact that no EF-S lense is given the designation "L". As Nikon's "Pro" cameras all have APS size sensors, it's not too surprising to find DX lenses with the gold band, but Canon, who's "Pro" cameras have larger sensors, clearly feels that a lens with a "Pro" designation should be useable on their "Pro" cameras. Once you think about it in those terms, it makes sense.

[coldrain]

I was not commenting on the quality, which would be premature, and not even relevant to my personal interest, but merely the fact that no EF-S lense is given the designation "L". As Nikon's "Pro" cameras all have APS size sensors, it's not too surprising to find DX lenses with the gold band, but Canon, who's "Pro" cameras have larger sensors, clearly feels that a lens with a "Pro" designation should be useable on their "Pro" cameras. Once you think about it in those terms, it makes sense.
Yes, you are right.

[timmciglobal]

Weather sealing in fact has other benefits on a non 1 series body, not the least of which is dust and moisture resistance of the lens itself.

1200$ for a F 2.8 lens in a short range just doesn't impress me. Nikon made a far better "Consumer" lens then this in the 18-200 VR. If it was 699 like the nikon I'd say "oh hell yea" but 1200 for a short F 2.8 lens built like the 17-85 doesn't impress me.

Tim

[coldrain]

The 18-200 VR is just a wide focal range lens like the Sigma and Tamron, what makes it expensive is the VR.

The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is expensive because of the lens elements.

A bit strange to compare those two, it is more realistic to compare the 18-200 VR to the EF 70-300 IS.

The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is in competition with the Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f2.8G. This Nikkor is more expensive than the Canon, and that is without VR.
So, I do not find the price strange, and I hope it will deliver like this Nikkor does.

[erichlund]

Weather sealing in fact has other benefits on a non 1 series body, not the least of which is dust and moisture resistance of the lens itself.

1200$ for a F 2.8 lens in a short range just doesn't impress me. Nikon made a far better "Consumer" lens then this in the 18-200 VR. If it was 699 like the nikon I'd say "oh hell yea" but 1200 for a short F 2.8 lens built like the 17-85 doesn't impress me.

Tim
It's certainly nice to have the extra range, and it's weather sealed (I assume, because of the rubber ring around the lens mount. I'm not weather sealed enough to want to go out shooting in the rain, at least ever since I started wearing glasses). But I suspect that Canon 17-55 will beat the Nikkor 18-200 like a rug in the 17-55 range. OTOH, as I said before, it's a little early to talk about the performance of a lens no one has tested yet. The 18-200 is excellent at exactly what it is, an 11X everyday walkaround lens with a little bit better than average consumer glass and really nice image stabilization. It is NOT pro quality.

You may feel that there's enough left off the 17-55 that it's not worth the amount they are asking. But the Nikkor equivalent is also about $1200, and it doesn't have VR (IS on Canon), so six of one, half a dozen of the other. If it's image quality is up to the Nikkor level, it will be one heck of a lens. I believe the fact that it is an EF-S is the only thing keeping it from being designated "L". Otherwise, it doesn't really make sense for Canon to make this lens.

For someone smart enough to realize that the glass is the thing, this really should be the 30D "Kit" lens, as opposed to the cheap 18-55 that would not do that camera justice (Okay, maybe just a tad overpriced for a "kit" lens ;) ).

Still, not out of line with what I paid for my "prosumer" setup. My D200 was $1700 and the lens was $750 for a total of $2450. The 30D is $1400 and the 17-55 is $1200, for a total of $2600. The longer lens meets my shooting style more, but for a wedding shooter like Jamie, he has to be watering at the mouth for a combo like this.

[cdifoto]

Canon should have just improved the optics (or at least the QC since I hear a lot of negatives, true or not) of the 16-35L and added IS. Same thing really. It makes more sense than limiting such a great lens offering to only APS-C. It's not as though being an EF-S makes 17mm a true 17mm FOV. Unless I'm wrong about the way the crop factor works on EF-S.

[Rex914]

Weather sealing in fact has other benefits on a non 1 series body, not the least of which is dust and moisture resistance of the lens itself.

1200$ for a F 2.8 lens in a short range just doesn't impress me. Nikon made a far better "Consumer" lens then this in the 18-200 VR. If it was 699 like the nikon I'd say "oh hell yea" but 1200 for a short F 2.8 lens built like the 17-85 doesn't impress me.

Tim

Not to pick on Nikon, but they charge $1200-$1300 for the same thing WITHOUT VR. Granted the build quality is nice, the VR is a huge plus in Canon's favor provided that the optical quality pans out nicely.

[cwphoto]

If you look at the two comapnies (Nikon and Canon) they have declared publicly quite different strategies.

Nikon have adopted APS for the entire line so it makes sense that they would market some DX lenses as being suitable for professional use - well they have the D2X which is top-end so this makes sense to me.

Canon on the other hand have a different strategy, their professional line is FF or near-FF, so their pro lens designation would obviously apply to lenses which only cover the full image image circle and are of pro quality.

Obviously this left them in a bit of a hole as even low-end Nikon users (ala D50) had quality glass especially designed for them. So Canon's answer is to launch a competitive product, but without diluting the L history and confusing their customers.

I think they got it spot on.

[cwphoto]

Let's see...

It is NOT weather sealed... it is NOT built like an L lens (construction quality) it has 7 aperture blades not 8... doesn't come with a lens hood or case... it's not weather sealed...

Honestly I'm starting to feel ripped off by canon. The price if it stays where its rumored deserves L quality build not a glorified 17-85 but with 2.8.

It'll be a usefull lens if it's optical quality is good @ f2.8 but outside of that nothing about it impresses me over my 24-105 F4L which is built like a tank, I'm waiting to see its sharpness and quality @ F 2.8 to decide. If its not sharp until F4 it's overpriced for its build.

Tim

For an APS camera like a 30D the new 17-55mm actually makes a lot more sense than a 24-105mm L: it's brighter and covers a more useful FL.

Clearly the 24-105mm L is designed for FF or near-FF cameras - so I think its hard to compare them anyway.

My guess is that they will be optically very similar, and produce similar results on the cameras they were resepctively designed for - so the price seems fair to me.

One easy way to work it out: if the lens sells like hot-cakes then it is probably too cheap! (Market forces at work).

[timmciglobal]

I didnt' say the 24-105 was a perfect lens for 1.6 I said the build quality and other factors of this f 2.8 lens make it a joke at the price point.

The lens is in every way "prosumer" from the small manual focus ring in the rear to the lack of sealing but in no way is it priced for consumers.

What is the point of the 17-50 2.8? It's a pro lens for consumers who don't want pro quality but want f2.8 but arn't concerned about dust/moisture resistance but do want IS but don't care about layout of focus/zoom and so on and so on..

I mean honestly, why? IS? Is on a 17-50 doesn't excite me. In fact the only time I think of IS being that usefull on my 24-105 is at the long end, and in some macro close up shots) which also the max mag on the 17-50 is a joke. The 17-40L focuses FAR closer why?

Sorry, if this lens was 1200$ and 17-50L with a close focus same as the 17-40L I'd be saying put me on preorder list, but I don't buy consumer build quality for 1200$.

Tim

[jamison55]

...The longer lens meets my shooting style more, but for a wedding shooter like Jamie, he has to be watering at the mouth for a combo like this.


Believe me, I am...!

[cwphoto]

Weather sealing really is over-rated anyway, we got by for decades without and now everyone snarls when the lens/body hasn't got it - never have figured that out.

I appreciate that the lens may not be for you, but the facts are that it is cheaper than it's closest competitor (the Nikon). My forecast is that it will outsell the 24-105mm L, so the pricing will be more than fair for a heck of a lot more people than just you Tim.

[cwphoto]

but I don't buy consumer build quality for 1200$.

Tim

Lucky for Canon that many other people do - they will sell every lens they make at this price, no question.

[cwphoto]

What is the point of the 17-50 2.8? It's a pro lens for consumers who don't want pro quality but want f2.8 but arn't concerned about dust/moisture resistance but do want IS but don't care about layout of focus/zoom and so on and so on..
Tim

Ask Jamie, he is a pro and I guarentee you he will be one of the first to order one. It is a great lens for weddings for those whom choose not to use a 1-series.

[timmciglobal]

Oh and with the sigma 18-50 costing 429, I find 1200 for a similar build quality + IS to be rather offensive.

L quality I wouldn't be complaining, but consumer build?

Tim

[timmciglobal]

I don't know what this adds over a FAR cheaper sigma worth the extra 800$

IS isn't usefull with people, if your shutters < 1/60th your going to get motion blur which is going to defeat any "is" sharpness gains.

Tim

[cwphoto]

IS isn't usefull with people, if your shutters < 1/60th your going to get motion blur which is going to defeat any "is" sharpness gains.

Tim

You obviously don't do weddings Tim...

[timmciglobal]

Oh so in the magic of wedding photography you don't get motion blur at say 1/40th of a second?

Bullshit. Rare situation? Sure usually though your going to get blur from motion.

Look at alot of jamies shots he post, notice something? They arn't shot at F 2.8. They are shot stoped down to F4. Notice something else? they arn't 1/40th of a second which is the speed you'd need to notice any advantage to a 50 mm lens .

Think for a second here, I mean think past WOW f2.8 and say "what does IS gain me at F2.8 on a 17-50 lens"

Does it gain you shutter speed hand holdability? Well if you want F2.8 for people then no it doesn't, not in that range.

Now does my IS on my 105 (equiv 168 mm) gain me hand holdability when I shoot someone at 1/60th a second) Yes. Would it gain me anything at all on a 75 mm mm shot at 1/60th? Personally very little I'm pretty stable, maybe a slight slight advantage.


Tim

[Mark_48]

I think I'm a little less than enthusiastic with any of the EF-S line of lenses as good as they may claim to be. I've still got Canon film cameras I use and someday when the wallet can handle it the jump to a full frame sensor. I'd rather make a purchase that I can use now on everything as well as in the future. Does anyone else share this viewpoint?

[cwphoto]

Tim,

There are surprisingly many opportunities at a wedding when 1/30s (even less on occassion) will yield perfectly acceptable images. The subjects aren't always moving all over the place where the advantage of IS is negated.

As for Jamie's work, it may allow him to get shots that would otherwise be nigh impossible without a fast non-zoom lens due to the reduction of camera shake - now that's competitive advantage and I think if you ask him he will see a lot of use for IS at weddings.

BTW, don't forget the minimum shutter speed for the 1/FL length rule needs to be multiplied by 1.6x (corresponding to the camera's crop value). So using this logic you're looking at around 1/90s for this lens at the long end, so IS will help even down to 1/40s in your example above.

As I said, if you did weddings you'd understand.

[cdifoto]

Oh so in the magic of wedding photography you don't get motion blur at say 1/40th of a second?

Bullshit. Rare situation? Sure usually though your going to get blur from motion.

Look at alot of jamies shots he post, notice something? They arn't shot at F 2.8. They are shot stoped down to F4. Notice something else? they arn't 1/40th of a second which is the speed you'd need to notice any advantage to a 50 mm lens .

Think for a second here, I mean think past WOW f2.8 and say "what does IS gain me at F2.8 on a 17-50 lens"

Does it gain you shutter speed hand holdability? Well if you want F2.8 for people then no it doesn't, not in that range.

Now does my IS on my 105 (equiv 168 mm) gain me hand holdability when I shoot someone at 1/60th a second) Yes. Would it gain me anything at all on a 75 mm mm shot at 1/60th? Personally very little I'm pretty stable, maybe a slight slight advantage.


Tim


Tim, people in weddings aren't typically moving very fast. Not to mention the flash can be used to freeze movement (ie dragging the shutter). I have some trouble with that since I do shake when I get too low, but the flash would have frozen their movement otherwise. IS would be awesome. You could use 1/15th with IS and get some nice ambience in a cutting of the cake shot, or waist-ups of the first dance, etc.

[TheObiJuan]

This lens, dragging the shutter, plus a good speedlight would make killer reception/wedding photos.
The 85L II with faster and more accurate AF would also be ideal.
Bokeh magic. :D

[cwphoto]

This lens, dragging the shutter, plus a good speedlight would make killer reception/wedding photos.
The 85L II with faster and more accurate AF would also be ideal.
Bokeh magic. :D

Speaking of 85mm f/1.2 L...

[cwphoto]

Tim,

The above shot is a good example of where IS might be useful. This was shot at 1/80s at f/2.2. If the photographer had IS he could potentially get a bit more DOF or perhaps use a lower ISO for better noise. Either way IS is a winner for wedding photography

[coldrain]

Oh and with the sigma 18-50 costing 429, I find 1200 for a similar build quality + IS to be rather offensive.

L quality I wouldn't be complaining, but consumer build?

Tim
L quality is the GLASS, how hard is that to get. And believe me, that Sigma 18-50 will not beat it optically. I know.
It is NOT build quality that makes lenses expensive. The optical elements is what makes this lens expensive, nothing complex about that and the build quality is not bad anyway. It is optical performance what it is about.

And if I can afford it, I may get one instead of my Sigma. And not because of the IS.

[cdifoto]

L quality is the GLASS, how hard is that to get. And believe me, that Sigma 18-50 will not beat it optically. I know.
It is NOT build quality that makes lenses expensive. The optical elements is what makes this lens expensive, nothing complex about that and the build quality is not bad anyway. It is optical performance what it is about.

And if I can afford it, I may get one instead of my Sigma. And not because of the IS.


As long as it doesn't have a plastic mount! :eek: :D :p

[jamison55]

I don't know what this adds over a FAR cheaper sigma worth the extra 800$

IS isn't usefull with people, if your shutters < 1/60th your going to get motion blur which is going to defeat any "is" sharpness gains.

Tim

I can answer the first one (having used the far cheaper Sigma for 8 or 9 weddings), how about the ability to focus in low light venues, and compatibility with the Canon flash system...both of which my Sigma 18-50 lacked. I had a perfect focal length and great optics, but the faults made it useless.

IS is plenty useful at weddings. People at weddings move slowly. They walk slowly down the aisle, then they stand slowly at the altar, then they slowly put the rings on each other's fingers, etc... Fact is, there's a ton of stuff that happens that a 1/15 shutter speed can easily freeze. SInce I like to turn my flash off during the ceremony, the IS will give me an extra 2 stops or more of handholdability over my 17-40 f4. Add to that an extra 15mm on the long end, and I am already sold.

As for the non-L designation, I'm betting that the only reason this lens didn't get a red ring is that Canon won't put one on an EF-S lens. Makes sense to me. They are making the statement that their pro line of bodies is 1.3x and FF, and their pro lenses are designed for those bodies. There's no reason, however, for them to not make this lens as optically perfect as possible. The other consumer lenses they offer all have an "L" counterpart (i.e. something to upgrade to). This lens is not duplicated by an L counterpart (there's nothing to upgrade to) - it is the "L" counterpart, without the red ring. Putting a red ring on an ef-s lens would be counterproductive to their marketing strategy.

Take a look at the diagram on the White Paper releasd by Canon. Look at the three aspherical elements, then check out the MTF chart. I'm betting this lens will be the real deal! Or is that just me wishing real hard...?

As for the "build quality", horrah for Canon. You carry two cameras around your neck all day while running, ducking, crouching, jumping, and standing on chairs, couches, and beds, and tell me that every ounce doesn't count!

[timmciglobal]

http://web1.canon.jp/Imaging/eos30d/downloads/portrait1.jpg

Look yourself.

F6.3 with the new lens.


Tim

[cwphoto]

Looks tasty...

...lens ain't too shabby either.:cool:

[TheObiJuan]

tasty indeed.
Canon sure knows how to sell lenses. :D:p

I think the pic looks good, but not L sharp. As in 24-70L sharp. But there are too many variables to judge. The photog didnt even focus on her face, it appears its her hair he actually focused on... unless it is BACKFOCUSING!

:D

Hahaha, I am not even going to go there...

[Rex914]

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/EOS_2006/EFS17_55_f28ISUSM/wide_ef17-55.gif http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/EOS_2006/EFS17_55_f28ISUSM/tele_ef17-55.gif

vs. 16-35L

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_16-35_28mtf1.gifhttp://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_16-35_28mtf2.gif

vs. 24-70L

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_24-70_28umtf1.gifhttp://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_24-70_28umtf2.gif

Looking very promising to say the least (in theory).

[timmciglobal]

Keep in mind the MTF for the nikon 18-200 Vr looked VERY VERY good but didn't compare in optical quality to say, an L lens.

Tim

[cwphoto]

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/EOS_2006/EFS17_55_f28ISUSM/wide_ef17-55.gif http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/EOS_2006/EFS17_55_f28ISUSM/tele_ef17-55.gif

vs. 16-35L

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_16-35_28mtf1.gifhttp://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_16-35_28mtf2.gif

vs. 24-70L

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_24-70_28umtf1.gifhttp://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_24-70_28umtf2.gif

Looking very promising to say the least (in theory).

Remember to disregard everything beyond 15mm on the MTF curves of the EF lenses when comparing to EF-S for comparisons on say a 30D.

The scaling is different too which makes it difficult to compare. Still looks promising though.

[sherlock]

Hey,

Can anyone teach me or have a link that could teach me how to read a MTF chart? All I see are lines :confused: :D Thanks!


Andrew

[cwphoto]

Hey,

Can anyone teach me or have a link that could teach me how to read a MTF chart? All I see are lines :confused: :D Thanks!

Andrew

Horizontal axis = image height (ie; the distance from the centre of the lens to the periphery at a point perpendicular to a tangent to the image circle).

Vertical axis = contrast.

MTF = Modulation Transfer Fuction.

The lines represent lens performance in terms of spatial frequency (lines per mm). There are two spatial frequencies measured on common MTF charts; 10 lines/mm and 30 lines/mm on common Canon charts.

The thicker lines relate to 10 lines/mm performance and measure a lens' contrast performance.

The thin lines relate to the 30 lines/mm performance and measure a lens' sharpness/resolving power.

The dotted lines measure the Meridional characteristics, the unbroken lines measure Sagittal (refer: Astigmatism).

Lastly, the Blure lines are measured at f/8, the black lines are measured wide-open.

Phew! So what does it all mean?

Ideally you want the lines running as high as possible on the y axis. The closer to the top the more sharpness and contrast. Also, you want the corresponding pairs of lines (ie; broken and unbroken) to follow each other as close as possible for the most pleasing background blur (Bokeh I guess).

[George Riehm]

Go here:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2

and click on the MTF Chart Guide for a simple explanation.

[sherlock]

Christian and George,

Thanks so much guys! I think i got it now :D . And if I'm reading those charts right for the 17-55mm they do look very promising.


Andrew

[cwphoto]

Christian and George,

Thanks so much guys! I think i got it now :D . And if I'm reading those charts right for the 17-55mm they do look very promising.


Andrew

These comparisons are a little misleading due to the difference in size and scale of the corresponding x axes, but if you take that into account the 17-55mm f/2.8 still looks very competitive.

One more thing, can anyone confirm (or otherwise) that the MTF graph for EF-S lenses as published by Canon is measuring the same spatial frequencies as those for EF. I have a funny feeling that there is possible 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' monkey business going on here...

[aparmley]

These comparisons are a little misleading due to the difference in size and scale of the corresponding x axes, but if you take that into account the 17-55mm f/2.8 still looks very competitive.

One more thing, can anyone confirm (or otherwise) that the MTF graph for EF-S lenses as published by Canon is measuring the same spatial frequencies as those for EF. I have a funny feeling that there is possible 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' monkey business going on here...

Always the cynic. . . :D

[cwphoto]

Always the cynic. . . :D

Well that 17-55mm just looks too good to be true, especially against the 16-35mm.:(

[cdifoto]

I await real live tests and samples. I don't put much stock in manufacturer generated MTF charts and sample photos.

[erichlund]

Fair enough.

[Mr. Peabody]

I would like to 2nd the help and explanation on the MTF charts.

It was just an "economic graph chart" as far as I could tell.

Now i think I have it figured it out.


thanx.

[ReF]

some people say that IS at short focal lengths like 17-55 is useless, but as some have already mentioned it is very useful for dragging the shutter and there are many shooting opportunities where subjects don't move fast at all. it's also nice not having to bump up the ISO to get enough light. there are times when i wish i had IS even with the short focal length of my 17-40 or with the large aperture on the 50 f1.4. sometimes i even find that f1.4 and ISO 1600 (or don't like the noise at 1600) isn't bringing in enough light - f2.8 is a whole two stops dimmer so i can definately see IS being useful on the 17-55. i'm sure this lens will be perfect for a lot of users.

the cost? IT'S CHEAP! think about it, the prices you've seen is FULL PRICE - it'll come down. the 16-35L has less range and is about $1300, and it doesn't have IS. yeah it's EF-S but no one else is making high quality f2.8 lenses with this range for full frame.

third party equivalent? there are quite a few of us who have tried the 3rd party thing and there are VERY GOOD REASONS why we are willing to pay much more for a canon version.

the geeks who are complaining that it doesn't have the L label? i don't think anyone would really care if the lens performs well. how stupid would you sound if you said, "i love this lens. it does everything i want it to, BUT it does have a red ring on it". the 10-22 is great optically and i don't think anyone cares anymore that it's not an L.

build quality? it could be better for the price yes (i'm all for it) but again, if it's doing everthing you want it to, you probably won't care that much. BTW weather sealing is not available on several L's including the 70-200 f2.8 L.

[timmciglobal]

Again, what retail price is will affect it, if it's somewhere around mid 7's retail I'll change my viewpoint but much like when the 17-85 IS came out and people looked at MTF graphs and said "omg"

Could it be as optically good as the L series? Sure. Am I peeved if it's > 1K for a consumer build but optically good lens? Yeap stll.

We'll see, the lay out of the lens (focus ring/zoom ring) to me is odd if it's aimed at pros but hey, maybe they have a good reason for that too.

Tim