Who's preordered the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S

[Tsmith]

I see where a few places are accepting orders but I'm not sure when we'll see it available. Maybe the same time as the 30D _ at least in the US. > :confused:

Looking forward to a review.

[Tsmith]

So what is it _ the price or uncertainty?

[ed rader]

So what is it _ the price or uncertainty?

maybe they feel a $1179 lens should come with hood :D :D :D ?

ed rader

[Tsmith]

maybe they feel an $1179 lens should come with hood :D :D :D ?

ed rader

That is one thing Canon should address in their marketing for sure.

[Toogy]

I'd like to see some reviews as well as how much it will be selling for in Canada.

[MrChad]

maybe they feel a $1179 lens should come with hood :D :D :D ?

ed rader

Why don't they just roll it into the price, is someone so cheap as to pay $1100+ for a lens and leave out the $30 hood too?

They included it for the DO IS, why not the EF-S IS f2.8?

I'd pre-order but I already own the 24-70L so I can clearly wait for the price drop in a year or two.

[Lightstream]

I ran down to all my brick and mortar dealers, gave 'em my phone number and told them to call me when it comes, does that count? ;)

I don't use a hood that often, but I do agree that for the price, it should be bundled, together with the lens case. I guess it is just 'policy' and I think the DO was classed as a 'green stripe' lens which did get some of the "L" benefits. Luckily we can get nice third party lens cases at good prices (Lowepro).

[alexanderjba]

I've also put my name in the hat at a couple of more local stores to call me if they get any... Want to see reviews first, though no doubt it will be a fantastic lens... Still waiting to pick up a copy of the 10-22 though, so I don't mind it not ebing available for a while... Has anyone seen a diagram of the glass. Canon realeased a Fall 2005 brochure with a diagram of all its current lenses, color coded to illustrate all the different types of glass involved (UD, Super UD, LD, Asp Lens, etc.).

Not hard to understand why everyone says the 10-22 is secretly an "L" lens, as it has an almost identical build (as far as the glass goes) as the 17-40... Wonder what elements were used in the 17-55 and how they compare to others, namely the "L"s...

[MrChad]

My 10-22mm must be missing that secret L glass. My L's show an immediate pop in the LCD once taken.

My 10-22mm has the same pop as any other variable aperture lens I own? It just doesn't look L good, it's very sharp but not L sharp IMO. And the build is EF consumer OK, nothing to right home about. I've drug mine around alot in the last year and I've noticed the zoom ring has really gotten loose. This isn't a lens for L abuse.

[Tsmith]

Chad _ I'll agree somewhat that mines pretty darn sharp but not quiet as sharp as my 17-40L _ but pretty close.

[jylitalo]

So what is it _ the price or uncertainty?
If even L-series lenses have variations between individual lenses, Canon's brand name doesn't justify high price. So I want to see comparisons between Tamron's 17-50/2.8 and Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, before I start putting money on a table.

[spencer87]

i generally avoid pre-ordering anything (except maybe books). especially for such an expensive lens, I'd rather wait and see what others think of it before I drop $1200.

[In2Photos]

If even L-series has variations between individual lenses, Canon's brand name doesn't justify high price. So I want to see comparisons between Tamron's 17-50/2.8 and Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, before I start putting money on a table.

And Tokina's 16-50 f/2.8.

[condyk]

I'll wait on anything until the 'fevered' types do the user testing and found whatever fault there is to be discovered. I Like the length and speed but I can cover indoors better with one of my faster primes I suspect and outdoors at the price I would rather have the 24-105 IS L.

I'm not sure what goes on with Canon and hoods. By not supplying are they saying they're not essential? Are they saying 'consumers' won't notice and if the more fussy do then they can cream them of more cash? People say the 24-70 L hood is 'genius' yet somehow the 'genius' stops there with that lens (of course, those who say it's genius could just be spewing out what some else wrote - another typical internet 'fact!'). Why not roll the 'genius' out to other lenses?

[alexanderjba]

According to the B&H Page (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=425812&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) for the 17-55, it will come with a lens hood :D . Perhaps all of our complaining here finally fell on the ears of Canon Execs. At $1179, I suppose that this is now the most expensive Non-L lens in the line-up, usurping the 10-22? At least with the hood it will keep the package under $1200 (if you had to buy it seperate, add 30 bones, so now its over $1200) Can't wait to read some reviews.

[Tsmith]

Well that is good to know _ not a deal breaker but still they should include one in all their lens.

[picturecrazy]

I've preordered it. I am not nervous being one of the first to get it, as you usually have at least a week to try it out and return it if you don't like it! The 24-70L didn't quite do the trick for me (need it just a little wider) so I'm hoping this one will fit the bill! 2.8 and IS to boot! How could I NOT try this out?

[alexanderjba]

No Joke BDog, other manufacturers do, but I guess its a way for them to extort another $30 bucks out of us... At least we get free lens caps :lol:

Perhaps if this little guy does come with a hood it will mark perhaps a new era with canon... Free hoods for all! Doubtful though.

[ChopstickHero]

i'm waiting for thorough and indepth reviews before i decide to buy. for the price, i'd definitely think about L glass if this doesn't live up to what it's supposed to be.

[picturecrazy]

i'm waiting for thorough and indepth reviews before i decide to buy. for the price, i'd definitely think about L glass if this doesn't live up to what it's supposed to be.

I'm jumping on this because there isn't an L equivalent out there. I returned my 24-70 F2.8L as it just wasnt wide enough for cramped indoor shooting. There is also no L in this range with constant F2.8 and Image stabilization!

There are always a million reviews on this and that, and they're usually mixed. I think the most important thing is to take pictures yourself, in your own environment. If they look good enough to you for what you use it for, then the lens is good enough, no matter what dpreview fred miranda or whoever says about it.

If you want it, I say, just go for it and test drive it. You can always return it! :)

[lost]

I dont think this lens is going to be worth 1100 dollars. I dont think it will say or sell at 1100 dollars. I predict it will be at or arround 800 by year end.

I just don't see canon putting the 1100 dollars worth of quality into a consumer lens when their L lenses clost to this range are just a "very little" more.

[ChopstickHero]

I dont think this lens is going to be worth 1100 dollars. I dont think it will say or sell at 1100 dollars. I predict it will be at or arround 800 by year end.

I just don't see canon putting the 1100 dollars worth of quality into a consumer lens when their L lenses clost to this range are just a "very little" more.

if they designated it an L lens, i think people wouldn't even question the price. people would just buy it. but because it doesn't have the L designation (or even the L features like weather sealing, red ring, etc, the price is debateable. i think it will be a good piece of glass. i just want to know if it comes up to near L status before i decide. $1200 for non L is quite expensive.

[Transonic]

^ Exactly. Once I heard about this lens and read the specs I was gonna pick it up to replace my 17-85 f/4... but then I saw the price. :cry: All that plus the missing L has got me looking into other lenses.

[MrChad]

Chad _ I'll agree somewhat that mines pretty darn sharp but not quiet as sharp as my 17-40L _ but pretty close.

The sharpness was never really the issue for me, but my L's have what I call the Clorox syndrome. White's seem lighter, colors seam brighter :) The 10-22mm just doesn't deliver like the f2.8L's, that could be do to the f2.8 glass though.

But even if the f2.8 EF-S, only delivered on sharpness and had 10-22mm color I still think it would be a must have lens in my book. I think folks get carried away with the L front. They won't buy a lens if it's not an L, and they try to justify lenses as L good if they aren't L's. Why can't we just buy a lens for the sake of it being a good lens?

I'd pre-order the 17-55mm IS, but I've already planned to spend money I don't have on the 30D instead.

[lost]

But even if the f2.8 EF-S, only delivered on sharpness and had 10-22mm color I still think it would be a must have lens in my book. I think folks get carried away with the L front. They won't buy a lens if it's not an L, and they try to justify lenses as L good if they aren't L's. Why can't we just buy a lens for the sake of it being a good lens?

I'd pre-order the 17-55mm IS, but I've already planned to spend money I don't have on the 30D instead.

I agree with you on the over emphasis on an L. I think my choice of lenses prove that I am not too L biased. But there is a lot more to an L that image quality that this lens (probably) won't have, except price.

P.S. This is all pure speculation until it is released.

[Lightstream]

I'm jumping on this because there isn't an L equivalent out there. I returned my 24-70 F2.8L as it just wasnt wide enough for cramped indoor shooting. There is also no L in this range with constant F2.8 and Image stabilization!

Call me one of the fevered who will do the testing. One of us must volunteer to take the bullet.. uh, I mean, be the guinea pig.. uhh.. that didn't come out right, well, take the bullet I graciously volunteer to do anyway ;) (of course I stake a claim too on the reward of a wonderful lens if it really does everything I imagine it will :D)

picturecrazy is right - there is nothing in the L range that does the job that this lens will do. I need my 17mm end pretty badly, plus IS even at short focal lengths is vital because often through no fault of mine I end up shooting in a black hole at many events. Of course I would rather be out in the bright sun with blue skies (I love blue skies), but sometimes, ambient lighting is not for us to dictate. f/2.8 constant with IS will be awesome.

Look at the lens for its features, not for its bling. Although I admit bling is nice.. it would be sweet if I could get Canon to paint it white and add the red ring to this lens :P