Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS review

[noyjimi]

Photozone has published a review!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

[aparmley]

Photozone has published a review!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm


Thanks for the link.

Blah - Kinda what I was expecting - I think we are going to see this lens at or below the $800 mark before long - Who in their right mind is going to pay nearly as much as Canon's flagship L lens, and in some cases more than some L's, for a lens that isn't up to par on most levels. . .

Maybe I'm jumping the guns. . . but at that price I can't justify it even though I'm very very interested in this lens. after all 2.8 constant with IS and some WA I guess I shouldn't be surprised its soo expensive.. . .

[coldrain]

Thanks for the link.

Blah - Kinda what I was expecting - I think we are going to see this lens at or below the $800 mark before long - Who in their right mind is going to pay nearly as much as Canon's flagship L lens, and in some cases more than some L's, for a lens that isn't up to par on most levels. . .

Maybe I'm jumping the guns. . . but at that price I can't justify it even though I'm very very interested in this lens. after all 2.8 constant with IS and some WA I guess I shouldn't be surprised its soo expensive.. . .
Not on par to most levels?.... It is very very sharp... Very low CA... only vignets quite strong at f2.8... I am confused as to what is not on par with (except build quality... but it has IS and it built well anyway).

It is about the same price as the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX and that one loses resolution at 55mm... and still is considered a gem in their lineup.

[24Peter]

Thanks for the link.

Blah - Kinda what I was expecting - I think we are going to see this lens at or below the $800 mark before long - Who in their right mind is going to pay nearly as much as Canon's flagship L lens, and in some cases more than some L's, for a lens that isn't up to par on most levels. . .

Maybe I'm jumping the guns. . . but at that price I can't justify it even though I'm very very interested in this lens. after all 2.8 constant with IS and some WA I guess I shouldn't be surprised its soo expensive.. . .
Are you "blah-ing" on price alone Andy? 'Cause the review seems to indicate it's a pretty nice lens. In fact the sample images he attached indicate it's better than the 17-40 L I just returned on an XT. $1200 is way steep though so I agree for most potential users of this lens, it's value is overshadowed by the price.

[ReF]

look pretty good to me, and if the price does drop it'll be very tempting. vignetting? i expect it at f2.8 and probably isn't worse than a 28mm lens on full frame. i'm wondering how the figures compare to a 17-40 on a crop?

EDIT: i just saw peter's post on returning the 17-40. i'm expecting these newly designed lenses to beat out the old ones btw

[jamison55]

Actually looks pretty good (though I'm not sure about the bokeh...). Think about this: 17mm = 28mm on a 20D/30D/XT. Using the 1/FL handholding rule, you can hanhold it down to 1/30 just based on the lens' focal length. Now add three stops of IS 1/15...1/8...1/4. That's right, you can handhold this sucker down to 1/4 of a second at f2.8! That's as much light as you'd get with an f1.0 lens!

[jamison55]

...In fact the sample images he attached indicate it's better than the 17-40 L I just returned on an XT...

I knew that "L"ens would be too hot for you to handle!

[DonSchap]

This is obscene... this lens ONLY works on APS-C bodies... semi-pro cams. Who is making up this pricing structure? Some angry PRO? Who do they think is popping for these?

One serious question... Do you really notice IS on a <50mm lens? (What are you, 80 years old?) Okay, another question (I give up...): Does this qualify as overkill? (How many pounds of ___ can you stuff in a ten pound bag?)

I don't know... this just seems wrong. Maybe it has something to do with the ungodly price of petrol in this country, these days. They want their shipping costs back. :rolleyes:

[ReF]

This is obscene... this lens ONLY works on APS-C bodies... semi-pro cams. Who is making up this pricing structure? Some angry PRO? Who do they think is popping for these?

One serious question... Do you really notice IS on a <50mm lens? (What are you, 80 years old?) Okay, another question (I give up...): Does this qualify as overkill? (How many pounds of ___ can you stuff in a ten pound bag?)

I don't know... this just seems wrong. Maybe it has something to do with the ungodly price of petrol in this country, these days. They want their shipping costs back. :rolleyes:

ummm, maybe you missed the part about how it's meeting or exceeding the IQ of a 17-40L/16-35L, is f2.8, has a longer focal length, and IS.

IS at this range coupled with good optics at large apertures will be VERY useful for indoor/low light shooters, will save you from breaking out the tripod on more than a few occasions, and especially for dragging the shutter.

[cdifoto]

I kinda sorta agree with Don but to a lesser extent. I mean...this may be an EF-S but at this price they're really leaving a lot to be desired. At 1200 it should be built just like an L. It should be a magnesium alloy body and include a hood. EF-S/not being an L in and of itself doesn't bother me...but they're clearly aiming a high priced lens at the pros or pro-ams with crop cameras. Those same pros and pro-ams are gonna use it...and probably pretty hard. Probably harder than typical EF-S build can handle.

I just don't see a $1200 lens there, I'm sorry. I'd go so far as to venture into saying it's more like a $500 lens based on build. It seems to be similiar to my 50mm f/1.4 in build quality...and I certainly would not have paid more for it than I did.

And to pre-counter that 17-85 argument...IMO that lens is junk and should be more like $250..and only because it has IS. That one is grossly overpriced too.

[timmciglobal]

JUST gonna do this once... "Told ya so"

Ok I'm done...


Now the lens optics wise does seem somewhat nice but build quality and price a huge letdown. The fact it's EF-s only they should of priced it 899 MSRP, 699 street and I'd hail it as a great lens.

Tim

[ReF]

I kinda sorta agree with Don but to a lesser extent. I mean...this may be an EF-S but at this price they're really leaving a lot to be desired. At 1200 it should be built just like an L. It should be a magnesium alloy body and include a hood. EF-S/not being an L in and of itself doesn't bother me...but they're clearly aiming a high priced lens at the pros or pro-ams with crop cameras. Those same pros and pro-ams are gonna use it...and probably pretty hard. Probably harder than typical EF-S build can handle.

I just don't see a $1200 lens there, I'm sorry. I'd go so far as to venture into saying it's more like a $500 lens based on build. It seems to be similiar to my 50mm f/1.4 in build quality...and I certainly would not have paid more for it than I did.

And to pre-counter that 17-85 argument...IMO that lens is junk and should be more like $250..and only because it has IS. That one is grossly overpriced too.

you do have a point about better build at a $1180 price tag (bh). like someone said, if they can include good build on the lesser cost L's, they can do it here. at least include the cheap-as-hell-to-manufacture hood :rolleyes: . not a fan of the ugly silver ring typical of ef-s designs or the small looking MF ring either but i guess if the thing does it's job well build quality will become a far distant 2nd concern

[DonSchap]

until one of you guys breaks this thing... man, the cryin'! $1200... Whoosh! Gone!

Yeah... see ya in a year... "oh, the tragedy!" (Dr. Smith, from Lost in Space)

[ReF]

until one of you guys breaks this thing

before or after the xt? or tamron? :D

[JTL]

(though I'm not sure about the bokeh...).Right. Look carefully at the shot of the tree with white flowers...pretty weird looking bokeh...especially for a shot at f/2.8. I would be looking for something way smoother than that for the money!

[Bluedog]

Seems like a nice lens for sure but nothing in those images is gonna persuade me to part with my 17-40L ... build quality and IQ is just too darn good.

[24Peter]

I knew that "L"ens would be too hot for you to handle!
I'm ignoring you... :p
Actually, kinda like you and the 5D? ;)

[timmciglobal]

The bokeh does look pretty bad on the flower shot, oh well...

Makes ya wonder why they used 7 instead of 8 blades.

Tim

[Vich]

Actually looks pretty good (though I'm not sure about the bokeh...). Think about this: 17mm = 28mm on a 20D/30D/XT. Using the 1/FL handholding rule, you can hanhold it down to 1/30 just based on the lens' focal length. Now add three stops of IS 1/15...1/8...1/4. That's right, you can handhold this sucker down to 1/4 of a second at f2.8! That's as much light as you'd get with an f1.0 lens!
Ditto!

I think you nailed it. Made to an indoor wedding photographer's order, but the bokeh is a tad bit messy (looks similar to my 24-105L f4.0 although not quite as bad). At f2.8 bokeh becomes even more of a factor. So, nice and sharp, low CA, good color, but not quite the "Prime Look".

And no Jamison, hand-held at 1/4 second would not suck! :)

[timmciglobal]

Not quite as ... bad?

My 24-105 is ALOT smoother then that.

Tim

[snap]

I'm thinking that this lens will be a winner for Canon, even at $1200. The market for SLR cameras is growing, not just in the U.S. and Europe, but in India and the middle east. Canon controls 53 percent of the global SLR market. It seems to be putting more emphasis on crop format cameras (for "enthusiasts"), as it is coming out with more EF-S lenses. Plastic or no, I think it will be a great seller. It has a very useful focal range and IS. Someone asked earlier, "are you 80?" I suspect that retiring baby boomers may be a big market for digital SLR so, hey, IS might be looking good.
(But, I'm a newbie to both digital and SLR, so I'm probably missing something.)

[aparmley]

It just reaks of that line from Tommy-Boy, "...If you want me to take a crap in box and mark it gauranteed..."

don't read that literally. But serious, is it like the oil execs a year and some time ago upping the price of gase to about $2.50/gallon so we'd accept a national average of $2.00 - I mean it was around $1.50-1.60 for a while and then bam up to like $2.50 in no, time, everyone bitched and moaned, after a month or so back down to around $2.00 for a long time it stayed around there, up and down sure but overall around $2.00. Now its up to $2.80 or so. . .any way the point is, what is Canon up to, $1,100 for this lens? what are they trying to do with that pricing?

They clearly made a point to not make an L - distinguishing this as not a pro lens, then they price it as a pro lens. Ok so its sharp, it has IS. . .ok better, but is that all an $1,100 should have? Should Canon decide that or should we?

Cold - I don't think I need to go into all the details that are not the same as an L lens - I think those are clear.

Pete - Yea, pretty much, price is the big one here. Lets say the lens is everything photozone has reported - I tend to think they are pretty accurate and dependable - I think its a $600-700 lens, somewhere close to 10-22 maybe. Thats not saying I think the lens is a piece of crap - I just don't understand why its priced as much as an L. Is the bokeh up to par? How about the color/contrast? Build quality? ability to use on a pro body? how about throwing a cheap hood for 11 hundred bucks . . . all I see is $1,100 for sharpness, constant 2.8, and IS. . . all good things, are they that good though?

Like I said, maybe I'm jumping my guns here, but man that price is just asking for it. . . .

[JTL]

The pricing is a test ballon...a canary in a coal mine...or whatever metaphor you choose. If people pay it...we will live to regret it.

[noyjimi]

Maybe this is a crazy comparison since I have no knowledge of how much the underlying processes and parts would cost, but...just to compare the "L"s that others don't appear to have a gripe regarding pricing:

(I'm rounding numbers to keep it easy)

70-200 F4 = ~$500
70-200 F2.8 = ~$1100
70-200 F2.8 IS = ~$1600

Now I realize that there may not even be anything to draw from here to apply to the 17-55, but just for humor's sake:

F4 -> F2.8 is ~50% increase in $
F2.8 -> IS is ~45% increase in $

So if you're still with me on this absurd experiment, the 17-40 F4 could be our starting point.

17-40 (~$600) -> F2.8 (~~$900)
F2.8 (~~$900) -> IS (~~$1305)

How interesting that the current list price of the 17-55 is ~$1200??? :D

How much extra do you think the weather sealing and build would have cost on the 17-55 to bring it to "L" quality? (btw there are those that think that this would not have made any sense on an EF-S anyway since there are currently no sealed EF-S bodies) Does the extra 15mm of the 17-55 cost some $ also, does it offset? Also, the extra hood should factor in, I suppose. Does the 17-55 have equal or better contrast and color than the 17-40, because the numbers on that review have it outresolving the 17-40?

Just wondering what you guys think! ;)

[timmciglobal]

I highly doubt canon said "oh we could make it 100$ cheaper if we build it like a consumer lens, let's do that, because people won't buy a 1300$ lens but they will a 1200"

It was more likly "Why bother? If your on crop you have no real choices but the 17-85 and we all know what a dog that is, the'll pay it why waste the money and expense on L build quality on consumers"

The one thing keeping me from Ef-s is the knowledge that full frame WILL get cheaper as everything else has in the photo industry and 2 years from now I'd expect a 1500>2K'ish full frame out and at that point a crop sensor will be pointless.

Let's remember guys, a 12 megapixel full frame sensor can still have a "crop selector" just like the panasonics have. I expect thast to be the big thing in the consumer line of full frames, a "1.5 mode, 1.3 mode 1X mode"

Tim

[coldrain]

Optics are very expensive to fabricate. Especially optics from special glass formulations. This is what makes "L" lenses expensive... and also what makes Nikon ED lenses expensive.
And belive it or not, but once you go over a certain price point you do get less sales no matter what... even though "L" is favorite with enthousiasts and pro's. And this has an influence on the price too.

So, there is a reason the Nikon and Canon 17-55's are expensive, and that is determined by a big amount on glass used. Whether or not this lens has that "L" colour/contrast will be clear soon enough... Not all "L"'s are equal (look at the 24-105 f4 IS USM).

And a full frame accepting EF-S is not going to happen. There is one drawback of SLRs over view finder cameras, and that is that the back element of the lens if forced far away from the film/sensor by the mirror box.
Canon has taken the opportunity with EF-S to make that design problem smaller... by making the mirror and the space it takes smaller, bringing the back element closer. A full frame giving the option to use EF-S by cropping on the sensor will not happen.

[jamison55]

It just reaks of that line from Tommy-Boy, "...If you want me to take a crap in box and mark it gauranteed..."

don't read that literally. But serious, is it like the oil execs a year and some time ago upping the price of gase to about $2.50/gallon so we'd accept a national average of $2.00 - I mean it was around $1.50-1.60 for a while and then bam up to like $2.50 in no, time, everyone bitched and moaned, after a month or so back down to around $2.00 for a long time it stayed around there, up and down sure but overall around $2.00. Now its up to $2.80 or so. . .any way the point is, what is Canon up to, $1,100 for this lens? what are they trying to do with that pricing?

They clearly made a point to not make an L - distinguishing this as not a pro lens, then they price it as a pro lens. Ok so its sharp, it has IS. . .ok better, but is that all an $1,100 should have? Should Canon decide that or should we?

Cold - I don't think I need to go into all the details that are not the same as an L lens - I think those are clear.

Pete - Yea, pretty much, price is the big one here. Lets say the lens is everything photozone has reported - I tend to think they are pretty accurate and dependable - I think its a $600-700 lens, somewhere close to 10-22 maybe. Thats not saying I think the lens is a piece of crap - I just don't understand why its priced as much as an L. Is the bokeh up to par? How about the color/contrast? Build quality? ability to use on a pro body? how about throwing a cheap hood for 11 hundred bucks . . . all I see is $1,100 for sharpness, constant 2.8, and IS. . . all good things, are they that good though?

Like I said, maybe I'm jumping my guns here, but man that price is just asking for it. . . .


Just because it doesn't have a red ring around it, doesn't mean that this lens is not worth the $$$.

If you look at the MTF charts for this camera compared to the 17-40L, 16-35L, and 24-70L, this lens beats them all! That alone should put it in the "L" price range. Now add IS. Nikon's 17-55 DX (which can only be used on CF cameras) is $1400 without the IS.

I can see why this lens would be hard to swallow since it doesn't have a red ring, but you have to stop looking at it as a consumer lens. According to the MTF in this test, it is the sharpest zoom that Canon makes in this range. In fact, it's prime sharp - look at the MTF for the 24L at f2.8 (stopped down 2 stops). The 17-55 is just a tad under in center sharpness (2074 to 2086, the 17-55 is wide open, mind you) and beats it in edge sharpness (1757 to 1432). Moving on to 35mm. At f2.8 it's a dead heat with my personal favorite the 35L in the center (2076-2077), but again whips its little heiney at the corners (1652 - 1745). What about the 50 f1.4? Finally a prime that beats it...at least wide open (ctr 1877 to 2053). When you stop it down to F4 it wins again (ctr 2088 to 2064).

So what does your $1200 buy you? A lens that is wide open as sharp as most of Canon's L primes stopped down...and IS! To me it's a bargain, red ring or no :D

[cwphoto]

I'm with Jamie - let's no write this one off until he gets one to test...:D

[aparmley]

The pricing is a test ballon...a canary in a coal mine...or whatever metaphor you choose. If people pay it...we will live to regret it.

Bingo! ;) :cool:

[aparmley]

Geez. you guys are killing me. I don't think the lens is cheap, I don't think the lens isn't sharp, I just think thats a lot of darn money. I was really hoping the rumor of its price was MSRP and not street - making this lens more affordable. I just see a 17-85 IS lens that seems to be letting everyone down, yet its very expensive - probably one reason most people did jump on it, at that price, it has to be good, etc etc. Ok maybe a big reason is because I want this lens to, I wanted it way back when it was announced, but I'm having a hard time swallowing that price point.

Jamie - you make an excellent arguement - you have me conviced, but that still doesn't make me happy about the price - which has been the only problem I have with it.

[aparmley]

Having thought about sharpness vs primes - it makes the price sound more worth it - I mean consider zooms vs primes in sharpness, this would be like having a 17,20,24,28,35,40,50,55 2.8 IS primes in your bag. . . . not bad at all. . . maybe thats how I should look at it. . ? :p

[24Peter]

I can't defend Canon's pricing decision - even if it is a great lens - but I can't condemn them either. They're a hugely profitable company the past few years because they've been making good products. Granted they have - IMO - near-monoply power when it comes to pricing their camera's and lenses. Nikon is their only serious competitor in the market and so far they have been able to crack Canon's hold on things. The push to get DSLR's in the hands of consumers expands Canon's market power. Yet I'm free to buy their stuff or not. No one's forcing me to spend $1200 on a lens.

I look at 8.5X11 prints (on the walls of my kitchen :o ) of shots taken with my Panasonic FZ20 last year and they're every bit as good as the 8.5X11 prints from my XT. Of course when I view those same shots on my computer at full size they don't come close. But the point is, I don't have to spend $1200 on a lens to take good photographs.

So far I've held back from such extremes until my photography income justifies it. Good for me. Good for Canon for charging what they think they can get. Good for people who buy the lens because it brings them value. And good for those who hold out/off or make due with something else because at those prices it doesn't make sense for them.

I'm no expert but I agree that long term, prices on camera bodies will continue to come down. But short of a real revolution in terms of manufacturing/technology, I don't think lenses will follow. Of course a little more competition wouldn't hurt. If the Sony's and Samsung's of the world come in with a strong new take on DSLR's and/or lenses, that could shake things up. But from what I can tell, Canon's in a pretty strong position for at least the near future, which means they'll continue to charge what they want for their cameras and lenses.

[JTL]

Until now...you bought an XT or 20D and if you had the bucks, you bought really good glass because you knew you could use it on the next body you stepped up to...whether that body was FF or APS-C. But after spending $1,200 on this EF-S lens and maybe $1,200 on the next one...you've pretty much have been locked into the APS-C world unless you want to dump your whole setup. So now we have it. As I've noted before...we're being pushed by Canon into market segments. So, if this new lens catches on we will see more high-end EF-S lenses and the future will be this: if you have FF dreams, you better make that decision up front...

Pluncking down $1200 for this lens forces you to rationalize your decision in a way that you never had to before. For most people $1200 is a lot of money to spend on a lens. So you are forced into basically making and rationalizing a commitment to the APS-C line. Some of us will resent that more and more as time goes on. Others (meaning those who never get informed, those who don't think things through or those who consciously opt to commit to APS-C) will never know or care about the difference.

Also, if this works, then what it really means is that they've figured out how to make the enthusiast pay pro prices...

If you have money to burn...well it's not an issue I guess...

[DonSchap]

Canon did NOT build this lens for the EOS 5D... they aimed it squarely at the semi-pro camera line. Just because you fellows and gals appreciate a great lens slapped on the front of your APS-C bodies, does not mean the pros will ever use it.

All I ask... despite its quality of design... is to price it for the market you put it in. Yes... EF-S! Not EF!

That's the bottom line in this gripe... $800.00... no more, I say! :mad: If you folks cave in and buy this lens, at this rediculous price... justifying it any way you can... then you do a disservice to us all... and the boardroom will continue to dictate their terms and you will all have to lap it up.

The point was made, concerning all the jerking around that is going on with gasoline, despite the well-publicized "enormous profits" these oil companies are taking. It's because people are too darn lazy to protest. We are taking a cruel beating because China will pay whatever they have to to bring themselves into the 21st century. Well, they may need gas, but by God... they don't need lenses. Don't let the big corporation do this to this market, too. :(

Stand firm! Make them sit on their new offerings... and they will yield :mad:

So say we all!

[aparmley]

... price it for the market you put it in...

Thats what I've been thinking and saying. . . ;)

[DonSchap]

"SO SAY WE ALL!"

Yes! :D

[Vich]

Lets see:

$400 - Quality IS
$700 - 17-40L level optics. Subtract $300 for non-L body and slightly lower optics. So $400.

So that leaves us with $800 it should cost. But wait, it's a f2.8. What's that usually do to the price of a lens, percentage wise? I'd say 30% (conservatively). So maybe $1200 isn't so bad .........


.
.
.


Yeah, IF it weren't an APC lens.

Seems like they're saying "hey, we decided not to cut back on quality for this APC lens, and it costs us just the same to make them at that size".

[JTL]

Make no mistake...the price of this lens is Canon crossing the Rubicon (or at least, attempting it). Ceaser may have won the day...but we all know what happened in the end...

Someone at Canon has calculated (correctly, most likely) that most will never switch to FF. Since the price that they can charge for a non-pro body is radpidly dropping, they obviously feel they have to make up the margin somewhere else. If this lens sells, all future lens prices will rise, not fall. I think they should be happy with their increased volume and not be greedy about it. Then again, if it sells, they're right and I'm just a cheap, cranky ba$tard. :D

Also, the P&L is probably separate for the lens division, so they probably have difficulty shifting revenue form one division to offset costs in another...which just makes me madder, because we shouldn't be victims of accounting inefficiencies...

Now, take Nikon...I think they've clearly, finally figured out who their new customers are and where they're going. Exibit A: The Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR....for $700.00 and change! IMO, a brilliant marketing masterstroke and a non-pro dream lens.

It's not just about optics. It's about hearts and minds...and intentions...

The pros and hard-core enthusiasts have their L lenses...and they pay a premium for them. Suddenly I feel the rest of us are now on the road to becoming wallets and not customers...the squeeze is definitly on...

[aparmley]

perhaps I should take a brief moment and word better where I am coming from at this point. I see the value in this lens. I love the sharpness it delivers. the handholdability. I want one!

Consider the pricing here:


70-200 4.0 L $584.95
200 2.8 L $659.95
17-40 4.0 L $679.95
135 2.0 L $899.95
35 1.4 L $1,134.95
70-200 2.8 L $1,139.95
24-70 2.8 L $1,149.95
17-55 2.8 IS EF-S $1,179.00
24-105 4.0 IS L $1,249.95


hmm look at all those "Pro" lenses that are cheaper than this thing. . . [scratch | scratch]

Initially, yes, I am pretty turned off by the price. I think thats everyones first reaction, "Damn, look at all that quality glass thats either cheaper or nearly the same price as this puppy." Then you think, "What !#$!#$!@, its just an EF-S lens!" Without knowing Canon's man. cost and their profit margin on this bad boy its difficult for me to say I'm comfortable standing up and screaming, "Way tooooo much money for this puppy!" It is my opinion, but we all know those are subject to change. Will we discover upon its release that we all value it close to its rank in price? Will we find that this lens is worth what they are asking for? Maybe, maybe not. I know its hard for me to see that all those lenses listed before it are going to be viewed as lenses that aren't quite as good as this EF-S lens. Its a hard pill to swallow. Its also a hard pill to swallow because Canon have gone out of their way to distinguish this lens as "not a pro" lens. Ok - but if its as useful as we think and as useful as Jamie and other WPs think it will be, the pros will use it, oh yes. The pro WP will use it big time - which lets face it - it must be Canon's thinking - "Get the pros to use this on their backup 20/30D, let them use their pro bodies with some L's and we have just increase demand for both the lens and are non pro bodies." Is this crazy thinking? I don't know. But anyway - I think I'm done expressing my concerns and hopes until this thing finds itself into Jamie's or someone elses hands here and we get a proper introduction. I want this lens to be worth the money, trust me, at the same time though, I feel a little odd in being so hopeful. . .:eek:

[cdifoto]

If it's aimed at pros...build it accordingly. Canon did not do that. How often do you hear about people breaking their lenses? Not often...but more with consumer level than pro grade.

If it's aimed at amateurs...price it accordingly. Canon did not do that. How many threads have we seen right here on this forum that say "I'm a newbie to dSLRs...just got my first _____. Now I need a lens. I want a good one but I'm no pro so I can't afford to spend a thousand dollars like many of you guys have."

------------------------------------------

Canon, there is absolutely no valid reason that you couldn't have at least build it to take a beating and provided a hood if you honestly want that much money for it. Sorry Canon, I'm not falling for it, stellar optics or not. I don't want to feel like I have to cradle my most expensive lenses.

[timmciglobal]

Anyone who says anything about build quality I challange you to fight me! When I'm done beating you to death with my 24-105 I'll remount it and take a picture of your body for insurance!

Now you can't say the same for a consumer lens! Your lucky if it lasts the beating!

;p

Tim

[Vich]

perhaps I should take a brief moment and word better where I am coming from at this point. I see the value in this lens. I love the sharpness it delivers. the handholdability. I want one!

Consider the pricing here:


70-200 4.0 L $584.95
200 2.8 L $659.95
17-40 4.0 L $679.95
135 2.0 L $899.95
35 1.4 L $1,134.95
70-200 2.8 L $1,139.95
24-70 2.8 L $1,149.95
17-55 2.8 IS EF-S $1,179.00
24-105 4.0 IS L $1,249.95


hmm look at all those "Pro" lenses that are cheaper than this thing. . . [scratch | scratch]

Initially, yes, I am pretty turned off by the price. I think thats everyones first reaction, "Damn, look at all that quality glass thats either cheaper or nearly the same price as this puppy." Then you think, "What !#$!#$!@, its just an EF-S lens!" Without knowing Canon's man. cost and their profit margin on this bad boy its difficult for me to say I'm comfortable standing up and screaming, "Way tooooo much money for this puppy!" It is my opinion, but we all know those are subject to change. Will we discover upon its release that we all value it close to its rank in price? Will we find that this lens is worth what they are asking for? Maybe, maybe not. I know its hard for me to see that all those lenses listed before it are going to be viewed as lenses that aren't quite as good as this EF-S lens. Its a hard pill to swallow. Its also a hard pill to swallow because Canon have gone out of their way to distinguish this lens as "not a pro" lens. Ok - but if its as useful as we think and as useful as Jamie and other WPs think it will be, the pros will use it, oh yes. The pro WP will use it big time - which lets face it - it must be Canon's thinking - "Get the pros to use this on their backup 20/30D, let them use their pro bodies with some L's and we have just increase demand for both the lens and are non pro bodies." Is this crazy thinking? I don't know. But anyway - I think I'm done expressing my concerns and hopes until this thing finds itself into Jamie's or someone elses hands here and we get a proper introduction. I want this lens to be worth the money, trust me, at the same time though, I feel a little odd in being so hopeful. . .:eek:
Somehow the old saying comes to mind: "First impressions are usually right".

Everyone's first impression of the 24-105L IS f4.0 was "too much". Same as 17-85 IS. For me, both have proven true.

For the former (24-105), I think $1050 would be about right due to f4, no panning on IS, and bad bokeh.

For the latter (17-85), $450. It's a kit lens with longer reach, better body, and mid-grade IS.

For the new 17-55 IS f2.8, $1000. Similar to 24-105 in IQ, IS, and bokeh but it's f2.8 (a plus) and and AP-C sized (a minus).

The main advantage to AP-C sized lenses are that they can accomplish the same thing cheaper, isn't it? So where's the extra money gone? Not in "L" build quality (ie: weatherproof alloy). Not in bokeh. IQ, yes.

Just a first impression. The longer we discuss it, the more distant we are to that first feeling that will probably prove correct.

I just CAN'T BELIEVE this is actually more than the 70-200L f2.8! One of the greatest zooms out there! Oh well, at least its still less than the 70-200L IS f2.8.

[aparmley]

Somehow the old saying comes to mind: "First impressions are usually right".

Everyone's first impression of the 24-105L IS f4.0 was "too much". Same as 17-85 IS. For me, both have proven true.

For the former (24-105), I think $1050 would be about right due to f4, no panning on IS, and bad bokeh.

For the latter (17-85), $450. It's a kit lens with longer reach, better body, and mid-grade IS.

For the new 17-55 IS f2.8, $1000. Similar to 24-105 in IQ, IS, and bokeh but it's f2.8 (a plus) and and AP-C sized (a minus).

The main advantage to AP-C sized lenses are that they can accomplish the same thing cheaper, isn't it? So where's the extra money gone? Not in "L" build quality (ie: weatherproof alloy). Not in bokeh. IQ, yes.

Just a first impression. The longer we discuss it, the more distant we are to that first feeling that will probably prove correct.

Vich - I like where your mind is buddy! ;) we're like right [ - - ] "there." Thats probably a scary thought for you! LMAO! ;)

[ReF]

Anyone who says anything about build quality I challange you to fight me! When I'm done beating you to death with my 24-105 I'll remount it and take a picture of your body for insurance!

Now you can't say the same for a consumer lens! Your lucky if it lasts the beating!

;p

Tim

how are things holding up for ya? cuz you've been sounding a little... angry lately :confused:

[timmciglobal]

ANGRY?

/me smacks ReF with an L lens

I'm not angry I'm product durability testing!

:)

Tim

[Vich]

Good point! I'll feel far safer roaming the streets with my L from now on. Maybe they'll start issuing 70-200 f2.8's to police photographers!

[ReF]

ANGRY?

/me smacks ReF with an L lens

I'm not angry I'm product durability testing!

:)

Tim

me smacks back with big white L's

nah don't take it seriously. just thought it was weird that a "hidden side of tim" (a violent one at that ;) ) comes out with when the subject turns to build quality (oh yeah and dust :D )