You gotta admit...

[DonSchap]

You have got to admit that even though we use light as craftsmen, you often feel like we're the blind leading the blind.

11754

There is so much being held back by the lens manufacturers... decisions why they did this and did not do that... and we are left guessing... and testing... and playing... driving each other nuts with aspects we have spotted... defects to the nth degree.

Then... if that wasn't bad enough... they put a "professional-level price" on a non-professional lens body. Uggh! :mad:

Things have to change... and if it won't happen there... we'll have to make it happen here. :p

Just say "no"... to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

11756

If it ain't red... it's dead.

Just like the over-priced kit lens... who will remain nameless (see below)

[coldrain]

Why do we need a better build quality than it already has???
It is better or on same level built than SP Tamrons, EX Sigmas. The build quiality of the EF-S 10-22 USM and EF-S 17-55 IS USM is pretty damn good. The 17-55 from Nikon is also poly carbonate. What matters is one thing, optics. Not a magnesium alloy body or a silly red ring.

And if those optics hold what they promise, its a great lens, period. And such optics just are expensive, whether they are from Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Leica.
What does the Pana/Leica 14-50 OIS cost anyway?

[DonSchap]

is set MAP @ $442.00.

That is a far cry from $1200.00!

You could by an additional EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for the difference! That just doesn't sound like a prudent purchase for effectively the same glass. :eek:

I mean, what is going on here? I will not be a willing participant and I hope others will not, either... in this... chicanery or travesty... take your pick. :mad:

I guess like they always say: "The market will tell all." :D

[coldrain]

The tamron does NOT offer the same optics. Neither does the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
And neither do they offer IS for that matter.

It is like comparing a Ford Focus with an Audi A4. Both will seat 4 to 5 people. Both will get you from A to B. But you will find no one who thinks the Audi should be the same price as the Ford (no one who is being serious anyway).

[TheObiJuan]

The tamron does NOT offer the same optics. Neither does the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
And neither do they offer IS for that matter.

It is like comparing a Ford Focus with an Audi A4. Both will seat 4 to 5 people. Both will get you from A to B. But you will find no one who thinks the Audi should be the same price as the Ford (no one who is being serious anyway).


lol I own an Audi A4 and will be ording the new non-red ringed canon lens. :p

[timmciglobal]

Last time I checked an audi wasn't built like a focus but with a better engine.

This lens it a ripoff.

It may be a nice lens but it's still a ripoff.

Tim

[coldrain]

Why is it a rip off. You you actually know what the lens elements cost? Do you know what makes the Nikon version more expensive? What makes the 16-35 f2.8 L more expensive? It is all the optics that do that.

No idea what is wrong with polycarbonate!!! It has a top notch IS system, and a superfast ultrasilent USM. And great optics apparently. Gee, what a rip off....

"Last time I checked an audi wasn't built like a focus but with a better engine."
Last time I checked the Canon has much more expensive optics. And a top IS. And a USM. And the Tamron and Sigma of comparable basic figures all do not.

[DonSchap]

and get back to ya.

Cripes... go ahead and throw your hard-earned money in the dumper. I, for one, refuse to allow them to do this to the market. The pricing is just wrong... for an EF-S lens. At least $400 too mirror-flippin' high. :mad:

Clues are available at the rear of the line... go ahead, get one while they're hot. LOL :D

[timmciglobal]

It's built like a consumer peice of crap.

By your logic it wouldn't matter if the 500 F4L IS was built consumer either eh?

Build quality counts.

And to the "it's f2.8 man optics" IT'S EF-S.

Much smaller image circle of a true EF lens which "allegidly" reduces costs alot.

It lacks a hood or a case.

It's a ripoff.

Somehow my 24-105 F4L is almost same price, built pro and has great optics. Your telling me they can't do F2.8 instead of f4 in EF-s with same quality, F2.8 transistion EVEN in EF-s demands lower build quality? No sorry. I bet this lens cheaper then the 24-105 to build.

Tim

[snap]

First, let me than you people for a good discussion on the 17-55 -- and for comments throughout the forum. I have learned much from you since I got my XT in September. I also appreciate your intrepretion of some of the numbers on the 17-55 review on another thread.

For me, the 17-55 seems like the ideal lens. It coveres the focal length range I most often use. My current lens is the 17-85. I usually shoot the lower portion of this range. I've been looking for something to replace it. I borrowd a 24-70 2.8L and liked it, but it's too big, and misses the wide angle I want. The 16-35 looked good to me, but missed the longer focal length range I want. To cover the entire range in which most of my pictures fall, I would need two lenses. I want to dump my consumer lenses and get good glass.

From the comments I've read here the 17-55 looks like a good performer. That is what I am looking for -- performance. I don't care about the red ring. The metal body? That would be nice, but the lack of the metal won't dissuade me from buying this lens. If it performs as your comments indicate it will perform, it will be my answer to good glass with one lens. At $1200 this seems appropriate for me. I'm looking foward to reading more reviews of the lens and seeing user comments when it hits the market.

[coldrain]

These arguements are silly. f2.8 does not make quality optics. What makes quality optics is lens element fabrication, coating, glass compounds. It's an art. Yes, of course, the size of lens elements matters in price also, but not as much as the glass type needed, the polishing and precision needed. Optics are very expensive and labour intensive.

Don, the Nikkor 17-55 is MORE expensive, has NO IS and and also "EF-S" (DX). The Leica 14-50 is f2.8-3.5. Also not full frame but 4/3. Fulminate against them if you want. This is getting old though. So, the lens was not made for you. Understandable. But quit acting like it is just like my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC, it is not. It is a much higher quality lens. Not for everybody, but many will appreciate it.

[DonSchap]

says it all...

11757

They have eyes, yet they do not see... look beyond the end of your lens... can you not feel the delicate touch of the corporate villians in your pocketbook? I certainly do... it's written on the price tag! :mad:

My Gosh, how subtle do you have to be? Got a sledgehammer handy? :eek:

[24Peter]

Here's mine. Yes it's red. I got my first speeding ticket in it in like 8 years when I got it a couple of years ago. The cop (Beverly Hills PD) said it was the reddest car he's ever seen - but that wasn't the reason he stopped me. Now I drive very slowly through Beverly Hills. :o (Oh, I'm sorry. Was this thread about something else? As my therapist says, I try to make everything about me. :( Taken with the kit lens if that helps...)

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/IMG_0464.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/IMG_0479.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/IMG_0488.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/IMG_0511.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/IMG_0544.JPG

[coldrain]

says it all...

11757

They have eyes, yet they do not see... look beyond the end of your lens... can you not feel the delicate touch of the corporate villians in your pocketbook? I certainly do... it's written on the price tag! :mad:

My Gosh, how subtle do you have to be? Got a sledgehammer handy? :eek:
All that is appropriate to say to stuff like this is *sigh*.

[timmciglobal]

Wow nice photos, and kit lens is 100$?

They should make it 1000. Afterall it's got pretty good quality, why not charge more?

/email canon.

:p

Tim

[thebac]

<snip>
The 17-55 from Nikon is also poly carbonate. What matters is one thing, optics. Not a magnesium alloy body or a silly red ring.
<snip>


Just a note: AFAIK, the Nikon has professional metal build. It is a DX lens, but it will mount on a Nikon film SLR or a FF DSLR, if/when it materializes, albeit only useful in the 26-55mm range.

Admittedly, it is also more expensive than the Canon, and I'm sure those lucky enough to be able to afford it are at least somewhat envious of the IS. Nevertheless, I don't understand why Canon didn't give this lens the appropriate build and beat the Nikon on all fronts. I mean, you're giving this lens optics to match (or even beat) the Nikon, and then add the IS to give it an edge over the Nikon, but then give it lower build quality?

I just don't get it. The price (and the optical quality, for that matter) suggests that the lens is geared towards pros, and professional lenses need to be able to take a beating. It just seems that Canon shot themselves in the foot. They should have just given it L-build, add a hood and $100 to the price (still no more expensive than the Nikon), and with the low-noise sensor on the 20D/30D and IS made it the ultimate available light solution short of the 5D for wedding pros.

[ReF]

this subject is really getting old. we already have a seperate thread for this matter and the complaints are not bringing any info that hasn't already been voiced

how about we leave the complaining to the people who are actaully going to be buying and using the lens

[CptOfGondor]

THat photo with the blindfolded kid looks pretty kool..lol

About the Lumix 14-50mm asked about earlier. I really hope its gonna be included with the camera. But its not going to come cheap. The press releases say that the lens has the OIS plus a Venus chip built into the lens just to manage it. LoL. The wonders it gonna do to the price tag. :(

[DonSchap]

No one should buy this lens at this price. That's the reasoning behind the thread.

STOP THE MADNESS... BEFORE it starts something NONE of us wants to see. The Market (that's all of us) can dictate the price. Especially on a NEW lens. A pre-emptive boycott. If the illegal immigrants can do it on May 1st... then why not the legals?

I'm taking a day off of work... the day they release it, in protest to this lens' price tag. So there! :p

[aparmley]

Dude, sweet car! ;)

nice pics too. . .

[CptOfGondor]

No one should buy this lens at this price. That's the reasoning behind the thread.

Yea, I can't agree more. Sometimes, you just have to wonder how on earth the lenses cost more than the camera. LoL. I know I know, there is a certain aspect of quality and the limited market.

Its tough because nowadays there's alot of built-in electronic components and to a certain extent, you pay for it.

Look at today's printers. The replacement ink cartridges costs more than the printer. Some of the new printers have 6 colour cartridges to make the photo/colour print that much better. Plus the built in electronics. LoL. I remember that time when my dad used a filler kit on a Lexmark Ink Cartridge and on the 2nd refill, the electronics melted and the cartridge caught fire. :p

[24Peter]

Dude, sweet car! ;)

nice pics too. . .
Thanks Andy. Took 'em last year while I was experimenting with using flash outdoors. Neighbors thought I was nuts. I haven't been able to round up a warm body for a shoot this weekend so I may have to shoot the A4 again. This time with the 70-200 f4 L ;)

[DonSchap]

NO! to over-inflated pricing for novices... and non-profit hobby prices that are beyond reason.

11762

Keep it!

[JTL]

Here's mine. Yes it's red. I got my first speeding ticket in it in like 8 years when I got it a couple of years ago. The cop (Beverly Hills PD) said it was the reddest car he's ever seen - but that wasn't the reason he stopped me. Now I drive very slowly through Beverly Hills. :o (Oh, I'm sorry. Was this thread about something else? As my therapist says, I try to make everything about me. :( Taken with the kit lens if that helps...)

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/IMG_0464.JPG








Hey Peter...
Whats that funny thing covering the seating area? Oh...it's a hardtop! Oh, that's right, mine doesn't have one! :p

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/51907042-L.jpg

[24Peter]

Hey Peter...
Whats that funny thing covering the seating area? Oh...it's a hardtop! Oh, that's right, mine doesn't have one! :p

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/51907042-L.jpg
Sweet! Another A4. (Plus yours came with the babe. :o )
I had a convertible 3-series BMW for 10 years before I got my Audi. No more rag tops for moi!

[JTL]

Sweet! Another A4. (Plus yours came with the babe. :o )What good is a convertible without the matching blonde? It's the most important accessory as far as I'm concerned! :D

[Vich]

Oh No, not another Bash-the-lens-nobody-has-even-seen thread!

I also believe it's probably over priced a little, but it sure does fit the bill for many uses! I think THAT is what makes it marketable. Sort of the reverse of "it's not a bargian if it's not what I need".

BTW DonS, did I see a Hum-V in your "My Wheels" photos?

So then, if you decided to follow suit and get an A4, you could by 3 of these expensive lenses with the gas you'll save!

[JTL]

Can't you see that Peter and I are trying to change the subject and talk about something importart...like cars and babes...:rolleyes: :D :p

[aparmley]

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/51907042-L.jpg

What good is a convertible without the matching blonde? It's the most important accessory as far as I'm concerned! :D

Is she allowed to enter the vehicle or just stand behind it??? LOL ;)

[JTL]

Is she allowed to enter the vehicle or just stand behind it??? LOL ;)LMAO...I'm in pain...:D :D :D

Of course she's allowed inside...how else is she supposed to chauffer me around? :cool:

[CptOfGondor]

I read some british photography magazines at the local bookstore and I cannot agree with Don more on this one. (They make very nice magazines. Lots of techie stuff aside from all the gorgeous photos)

The EFS 17-55mm IS looks nice and all but its price is way too high for the lens coverage of a typical 35mm kit lens. Taking in the 1.6x conversion of the APS-C sized CMOS on the Canon XT/20D/30D, you are pulling a 27.2-88mm coverage. Thats not far off the typical 28-90mm lenses bundled with many of todays 35mm SLRs. :(

[EDIT] : The price of the EFS 17-55mm IS f2.8 = [Canon EOS 20D w EFS 18-55mm kit] or [Nikon D70s with AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED]

Take your pick...LoL :D

[DonSchap]

Again, just don't be blind to what is going on here...

11778

There is a level of greed that is being TESTED... and you will fall
prey to it if you buy this latest offering. The future of all quality
lenses depends upon the successful rejection of this particular lens.

[coldrain]

Don, can you stop this annoying nonsense please? thank you very much.

[CptOfGondor]

LoL the L line of EF Lenses..lol

[JTL]

Don, can you stop this annoying nonsense please? thank you very much.Oh, come on. it may be a little over the top...but it is funny...really, I'm cracking up...:D

[ReF]

Don, can you stop this annoying nonsense please? thank you very much.


don, you can believe what you want and mention it a few times, but what's with constantly trying to push your opinions onto everyone else? why don't you respect that other people can different opinions - what you think we're too dumb to make up our own minds? or do you do this for kicks?

[cwphoto]

The EFS 17-55mm IS looks nice and all but its price is way too high for the lens coverage of a typical 35mm kit lens. Taking in the 1.6x conversion of the APS-C sized CMOS on the Canon XT/20D/30D, you are pulling a 27.2-88mm coverage. Thats not far off the typical 28-90mm lenses bundled with many of todays 35mm SLRs. :(

[EDIT] : The price of the EFS 17-55mm IS f2.8 = [Canon EOS 20D w EFS 18-55mm kit] or [Nikon D70s with AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED]

Take your pick...LoL :D

Using your logic, an EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM should draw a Senate inquiry.:rolleyes:

Three major differences: optics, lens-speed, and IS.;)

[TheObiJuan]

I will wait for images, pref. my own, before I cast blanket bulletins all over the web. This lens and the 24-70L are making it tough to choose.
People make comments that the lens should be built from metal, but really, a sensitive piece of equipment, especially with IS no matter the encasing, will not take any abuse.