17-55 f/2.8 IS

[petrolhead]

How about the above but std EF and not EF-S

[keheha]

Is this a trick question? haha... How about it then?

- Kern

[Glenn NK]

That would be nice - then I wouldn't worry as much about the future.

Are you predicting something?

[petrolhead]

That would be nice - then I wouldn't worry as much about the future.

Are you predicting something?
No, but it would be nice

There is a L lens lacking in this area

[Glenn NK]

No, but it would be nice

There is a L lens lacking in this area


I think you are right on the mark - but it seems that Canon won't "L" an EFS lens, so we're out of luck.

I tried out one this afternoon - the dealer let me walk around downtown to test it - pretty darn sharp lens.

[Treat me like a tourist]

you mean the 17-40 and the 16-35 are not good enough for you, seriously though that much of a focal length would hit the sales of the 24-70 for those who already own a super wide, the need for 2 lenses becomes less appealing- IMO.

[blackshadow]

An EF L in this focal range would usurp two of the current line up and hurt sales - it would cross the boundaries of the 16-35 and the 24-70 so if Canon were to introduce such a lens I imagine it would be priced at around the price of the 16-35 + 24-70 + a premium for IS which would make it prohibitively expensive.

[Collin85]

I think you are right on the mark - but it seems that Canon won't "L" an EFS lens, so we're out of luck.

I think he's talking about an EF version of the 17-55. I.e something like an EF 17-55 f/2.8L IS (as an UWA for a FF). I don't think he's talking about making a "L" version of the 17-55 for the EF-S mount.


But to the OP, I think you're onto something there. A FF UWA with IS; I'd be sure to grab one (if I had a 5D). But even without a 5D, I'm sure many croppers would still get it (if they felt so inclined to shell out extra cash for a 17-55-on-steroids (didn't want the EF-S mount and wanted L build)) for their crop body.

Similarly (in regards to the UWA topic), I'd personally love it if they made a 10-22 EF-S with IS.

[farrukh]

I imagine it would be priced at around the price of the 16-35 + 24-70 + a premium for IS which would make it prohibitively expensive.

+ 17-40

[Glenn NK]

I think he's talking about an EF version of the 17-55. I.e something like an EF 17-55 f/2.8L IS (as an UWA for a FF). I don't think he's talking about making a "L" version of the 17-55 for the EF-S mount.


But to the OP, I think you're onto something there. A FF UWA with IS; I'd be sure to grab one (if I had a 5D). But even without a 5D, I'm sure many croppers would still get it (if they felt so inclined to shell out extra cash for a 17-55-on-steroids (didn't want the EF-S mount and wanted L build)) for their crop body.

Similarly (in regards to the UWA topic), I'd personally love it if they made a 10-22 EF-S with IS.


An "L" build 17/55?

I'm trying not to think what that would cost; my EFS 17/55 cost exactly the same as my 24/105L.

[Collin85]

An "L" build 17/55?

I'm trying not to think what that would cost; my EFS 17/55 cost exactly the same as my 24/105L.

Yep, it would cost alot, but I wouldn't think exorbitantly much. If it costed around the same as a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (and I didn't already own a 17-55), then I'd consider it for sure.

[TurboDean]

A FF UWA with IS; I'd be sure to grab one (if I had a 5D). But even without a 5D, I'm sure many croppers would still get it (if they felt so inclined to shell out extra cash for a 17-55-on-steroids (didn't want the EF-S mount and wanted L build)) for their crop body.

I would consider it as well. Even though I have a 350D, I would prefer to stay with standard EF lenses for the versatility and resale possibilies. Also, that day may come when I shell out the bucks for a FF, and I won't have much cash left for lenses. :) If an EF/L version was a few hundred more, I would buy it today (presuming the overall quality of the lens was good).