Why doesn`t Canon make a 17-55mm f2.8 L?

[connexile]

any guess? or any rumors for such a lens?

my explanation is that Canon wants its users to upgrade to more expensive ff bodies instead of sticking with the cheap 1.6 crop factor cameras. If I upgrade to a ff body, the only reason will be the lack of such a lens.

[cdifoto]

Because they already make a 16-35 f/2.8L and a 17-40 f/4L.

[arrgeebee]

I tend to agree though, I own the 17-55 and the focal range is much better than both the 16-35 2.8 L and 17-40 f/4 L. A 17-55 (or 17-70 woul be best) 2.8 IS L would rock!

[cdifoto]

Life is full of compromise, even in photography.

[connexile]

the 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4L are designed as wide angle lenses for FF bodies. I would never use a 16-35mm lens on my crop factor body as a walk around lens.

[canonpink]

Because L is EF mount only and although you can use on your crop camera, there would probably be a significant cost to up the manufacturing of EF-S mount lenses to get them to L quality and this would prevent many of the their current EF-S mount market from buying them. They really have things covered well right now. The 17-55 is made to mimic the 24-70L, not the 16-35, nor the 17-40. You can never get the actual 17-55 range for a Canon camera since you cannot fit the 17-55 on a full frame camera; unless they made an EF mount 17-55.

[gjl711]

How about the 24-70 which is almost exactly the same on a FF body as the 17-55 on a crop except for the IS or the 24-105. Both are excellent lenses and easily in the same category on a FF body as the 17-55.

[cdifoto]

As gjl said...the 17-55 was meant to give you approximately full frame 24-70 on your crop camera.

If you want to go wider on full frame or 1.3x, you do have options.

[connexile]

the problem with the 17-55mm efs is its build quality. It`s just better than the kit lens but still feels like a piece of plastic toy.

[wernersl]

Because they already make a 16-35 f/2.8L and a 17-40 f/4L.
correction...TWO versions of 16-35 and a 17-40 (lest we forget the 17-35 or yet...the 20-35).
either way...that fl would be redundant in the L line. now bring on the 24 (or 28 )-70 IS! 8)
or even better...i need a 10-800mm f/1.8L IS :rolleyes:

[pakomo]

correction...TWO versions of 16-35 and a 17-40 (lest we forget the 17-35 or yet...the 20-35).
either way...that fl would be redundant in the L line. now bring on the 24 (or 28 )-70 IS! 8)
or even better...i need a 10-800mm f/1.8L IS :rolleyes:
If you're going to use a polarizer with that, you might want USM as well... takes some time to rotate a filter that big.

[wernersl]

well it would be a rear drop in filter...only about 86mm or so! usm is a no-brainer for that new L lens. thanks for your concern. btw...im taking preorders for that lens. you interested? only $52,000 with a $30 rebate!

[jafrknb]

Man that is a cool lens.Do you have a Photo? or just the drawing? I wonder if it will be cheaper on the grey market? went to B&H site but could not find it.


















LOL are the training wheels and ladder included

[SilverOnemi]

that is all true ... but from my point of view, i'd love 17 50 on a full frame isntead of a 16 35.

[wernersl]

get a 17-40 and walk a foot or two forward for the extra 10mm :)

[Ultimate CC]

yea but its only f4 not f2.8 and IS

[wernersl]

IS is really a non-issue on focal lengths that wide. 16-35 is a 2.8. oh well. i would say that i am more eager to get ahold of the 200 f/2.0 that was just anounced. good luck with the wait.

[krepta]

or even better...i need a 10-800mm f/1.8L IS :rolleyes:Woaa! Take the kids out for a ride on that monster while you shoot, haha.

[Indecent Exposure]

IS is really a non-issue on focal lengths that wide...
Why do people keep saying this as if it's true?

I'd like to see either a 17-55mm f2.8L IS in either EF or EF-S, but prefer to see it in an EF, obviously. It would be the perfect first EF-S L - afterall, Canon has the L designation on XL and GL video camera lenses (of decidedly inferior optic quality AND build quality to the 17-55mm) and even binoculars. An EF-S L wouldn't be anything all that special.

[wernersl]

Why do people keep saying this as if it's true?

I'd like to see either a 17-55mm f2.8L IS in either EF or EF-S, but prefer to see it in an EF, obviously. It would be the perfect first EF-S L - afterall, Canon has the L designation on XL and GL video camera lenses (of decidedly inferior optic quality AND build quality to the 17-55mm) and even binoculars. An EF-S L wouldn't be anything all that special.
hmmm...EF-S L. I guess if you wanted to degrade the designation that would be one way to do it. i suppose it would still have the ef-s (plastic) construction?

[gjl711]

I'd like to see either a 17-55mm f2.8L IS in either EF or EF-S, but prefer to see it in an EF, obviously. It would be the perfect first EF-S L - ....
Does the “L” really make that big of a difference? The only thing missing from the current 17-55 f/2.8 is the case material. The lens optics are clearly equal to, or even surpass the much acclaimed 24-70L and the price tag is in “L” territory as well.

hmmm...EF-S L. I guess if you wanted to degrade the designation that would be one way to do it. i suppose it would still have the ef-s (plastic) construction?
Why would a EF-S moniker degrade the “L” distinction? Isn’t “L” all about IQ?

[cdifoto]

correction...TWO versions of 16-35 and a 17-40 (lest we forget the 17-35 or yet...the 20-35).
either way...that fl would be redundant in the L line. now bring on the 24 (or 28 )-70 IS! 8)
or even better...i need a 10-800mm f/1.8L IS :rolleyes:


I love how badly drawn that is. Makes it even funnier. :)

[wernersl]

I love how badly drawn that is. Makes it even funnier. :)

thanks ;)

Does the “L” really make that big of a difference? The only thing missing from the current 17-55 f/2.8 is the case material. The lens optics are clearly equal to, or even surpass the much acclaimed 24-70L and the price tag is in “L” territory as well.


Why would a EF-S moniker degrade the “L” distinction? Isn’t “L” all about IQ?

for one...ef-s is designed only for crop bodies. kinda hard for canon to introduce L (luxury lenses) in a form factor that is only good for their lower-end cameras.
for another...L designation is not just for IQ. they are also more robust. so yes...build quality is a huge factor in that designation IMHO.
i agree that the optics of that ef-s are very well designed. dont think it surpases 24-70 quality. nothing (excepth my 28-70 :) ) can surpass the IQ of that lens (again IMHO), however, i personally would sell every lens i own if canon introduces a 24-xx mm f/2.8L IS. that would be just fabulous.

oh...FWIW, i earlier stated that 17-55 was a little wide for IS to be much of a factor. well that is assuming that 17 can be used on a FF camera. being an ef-s it cannot, therefore i need to state that i made an error regarding my earlier statement. IS would be handy for 27.2-88mm ;). thanks for your time.

[Indecent Exposure]

Does the “L” really make that big of a difference? The only thing missing from the current 17-55 f/2.8 is the case material. The lens optics are clearly equal to, or even surpass the much acclaimed 24-70L and the price tag is in “L” territory as well.
I would like to see an all-metal construction and weather sealing for starters. That would cover the gap between what it is currently and what it's missing, at a minimum, to be an L.

Ideally, Canon should make an EF 17-55mm f2.8L IS. THAT would be the L that would do the most damage. But, if they aren't willing to go that route, I wouldn't mind them keeping the optic formula and upgrading the fit and finish of the current 17-55mm and giving us an EF-S L.

Although, with Nikon's announcement of a 24-70mm f2.8 lens, Canon could counter with an EF 17-55mm f2.8L IS and, IMO, steal Nikon's thunder a bit.

[Indecent Exposure]

...FWIW, i earlier stated that 17-55 was a little wide for IS to be much of a factor. well that is assuming that 17 can be used on a FF camera. being an ef-s it cannot, therefore i need to state that i made an error regarding my earlier statement. IS would be handy for 27.2-88mm ;). thanks for your time.
IS would be handy regardless of the crop. Anytime shutter speed drops, IS is helpful, and shutter speeds can drop on the wide end, too. Hello, low-lit interior wide shots, nice to meet you.

[wernersl]

IS would be handy regardless of the crop. Anytime shutter speed drops, IS is helpful, and shutter speeds can drop on the wide end, too. Hello, low-lit interior wide shots, nice to meet you.
true...but the wider it gets the slower you can go without is (assuming the 1/focal length theory). either way...on my way to get my tripod for that low-light interior shot. ;)

[Redsnapper]

for one...ef-s is designed only for crop bodies. kinda hard for canon to introduce L (luxury lenses) in a form factor that is only good for their lower-end cameras.

That would make more sense if it wasn't for the high cost of the 17-55 (and high image quality). It's into the L price range, but you aren't getting the L build quality in return.

It's really Canon's typical cheapness. The relatively poor build quality is something I suppose I and others can kind of live with if it saves some money and that is a big factor for the buyer (though it is debatable if you should be spending the $1000 in that case but a saving is a saving), but the lack of a hood on a lens that can cost $1000 is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Almost. Never mind the outrageous cost of those lens hoods when you have to buy them. I've seen those hoods set people back $90+ (What is it made from? Leprechaun bones?). For a plastic lump that must cost pennies to make. They aren't even guaranteed to fit that well so it isn't amazing QC that is to blame. At least the Chinese make knock-offs of them now for a tenth of the price. Hurrah for the open market. Overall, it's the kind of cheapness you'd expect from someone who steals from the penny tray or loose change from the back of a friend's couch. Shame on Canon, I say.

The other problem of it not being an L is the lifetime of it. When a lens is more expensive, build quality starts to come into play more and more. Dropping the famous 50mm 1.8 and seeing it fly apart or having it die is annoying, but not a complete disaster. Seeing a $1000+ lens die is not so easy to shrug off. If "glass is for life", I want build quality that inspires confidence it will live up to that claim. I am sure a lot of people would be willing to pay a little more to get the better build quality and the peace of mind that it brings, though I suspect it wouldn't put much of a dent into their profits even if it was about the same price. They can mange that top end build quality on the cheaper 17-40L (and even throw in a hood! GOSH!), no reason they can't do it on the more expensive 17-55.

It's the gear and what I can do with it that I like, not the company. Unless you have shares in the company, there's no reason to blindly defend Canon and get upset when people criticize. I buy Canon because the equipment does the job for me, not because they are my best buddies for life. Considering the way I have to fight for rebates from them and how they overcharge me for extras, I think the feeling is mutual. ;)

[Redsnapper]

true...but the wider it gets the slower you can go without is (assuming the 1/focal length theory). either way...on my way to get my tripod for that low-light interior shot. ;)

I've seen example photos of hand held work at shutter speeds that would be impossible (or at least impossible to get acceptable results in the same conditions) without the excellent IS in the 17-55. You really should have a look at some sample images that are out there now or maybe try it for yourself before discounting it. Even the new IS kit lens is impressive. IS is a great development and the current generation really makes it worth the money, I'd be happy to see it appear in more lenses. If it means greater possibilities and more acceptable shots where before it would be a no go, then it is welcome.

I also love that I can see the IS effect in the viewfinder, which doesn't happen when you are relying on the camera body doing the IS, like with some other brands.

[krepta]

I also love that I can see the IS effect in the viewfinder, which doesn't happen when you are relying on the camera body doing the IS, like with some other brands.I agree as well! I really appreciate seeing the IS in action as it stabilizes the viewfinder and makes taking the shot easier.

[cdifoto]

That would make more sense if it wasn't for the high cost of the 17-55 (and high image quality). It's into the L price range, but you aren't getting the L build quality in return.

It's really Canon's typical cheapness. The relatively poor build quality is something I suppose I and others can kind of live with if it saves some money and that is a big factor for the buyer (though it is debatable if you should be spending the $1000 in that case but a saving is a saving), but the lack of a hood on a lens that can cost $1000 is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Almost. Never mind the outrageous cost of those lens hoods when you have to buy them. I've seen those hoods set people back $90+ (What is it made from? Leprechaun bones?). For a plastic lump that must cost pennies to make. They aren't even guaranteed to fit that well so it isn't amazing QC that is to blame. At least the Chinese make knock-offs of them now for a tenth of the price. Hurrah for the open market. Overall, it's the kind of cheapness you'd expect from someone who steals from the penny tray or loose change from the back of a friend's couch. Shame on Canon, I say.

The other problem of it not being an L is the lifetime of it. When a lens is more expensive, build quality starts to come into play more and more. Dropping the famous 50mm 1.8 and seeing it fly apart or having it die is annoying, but not a complete disaster. Seeing a $1000+ lens die is not so easy to shrug off. If "glass is for life", I want build quality that inspires confidence it will live up to that claim. I am sure a lot of people would be willing to pay a little more to get the better build quality and the peace of mind that it brings, though I suspect it wouldn't put much of a dent into their profits even if it was about the same price. They can mange that top end build quality on the cheaper 17-40L (and even throw in a hood! GOSH!), no reason they can't do it on the more expensive 17-55.

If the 17-55 wasn't compromised with crop body limitations and lesser build, it'd be a $1900 lens.

[Redsnapper]

Really? A metal body costs 2X the price? Where are you getting those figures from and why doesn't the 17-40L cost anywhere near that?

[cdifoto]

Metal body + IS + sharp image + full image circle + L label = $$$$

Add about $500 to the 16-35mm f/2.8L and you've got your price for a stabilized version. And that even assumes you get the extra 20mm on the long end for free. Compare the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or the 70-200mm f/4L and the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

f/4 lenses aren't very expensive. Compare the 300mm f/4L IS with the 300mm f/2.8L IS or the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

[Redsnapper]

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not asking for the full image circle and therefore a whole new set of optics. I want decent L level build quality on a EF-S lens and a lens hood. That doesn't cost 2X the price.

[cdifoto]

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not asking for the full image circle and therefore a whole new set of optics. I want decent L level build quality on a EF-S lens and a lens hood. That doesn't cost 2X the price.

Not gonna happen. If they built it like an L, it'd have the full image circle and very likely be labeled and priced like an L. At that point, there'd be no reason not to.

[Redsnapper]

That doesn't make any sense. How does not making the body out of plastic magically force it to have a full image circle? It's already an expensive lens. More expensive than the 17-40L.

[cdifoto]

I never said building it better would magically force it to have a full image circle. Once you realize the world doesn't revolve around 1.6x crop sensors, you'll understand.

[Redsnapper]

You said if it had the build quality of an L it'd have a full image circle. I don't see how the two are intrinsically linked. You're not giving any real reasons for your argument against it. Build quality is independent of the image circle. There's nothing stopping them from making all their lenses past a certain price point of a certain level of build quality, or including the extras.

[cdifoto]

I'm speaking from Canon's point of view, not ours. Think a little harder. If Canon builds an L quality lens, it WILL have a full image circle because they will want to sell it to EVERYONE. To sell it to everyone, they will put a full image circle in it. Everyone includes shooters with 1.3x and 1.0x as well as 1.6x bodies. The world does not stop and start at 1.6x.

Full image circle and build quality aren't linked physically or optically but they ARE linked by marketability.

And yes there is something stopping them from building things a certain way. It's called profit margin and market penetration. If you don't think it's built well enough, don't buy it.

[Redsnapper]

I do understand your point of view now. I'm talking from the consumers point of view, what with me not being Canon and all. Wires crossed there. I do agree that if Canon can get away with cheaper build and no extras and charge the same price, it makes sense for them to keep doing it until the consumers kick up a fuss. It doesn't mean I have to like it when I see someone being blatantly cheap. If people didn't complain and demand more they'd never get it. We'd all be using plastic crap if no one would complain about it. The only reason L lenses are as good quality as they are now is because people wanted it and made them aware of the market through demands for it. So really, what's your problem? If there are enough people like me and others complaining and demanding it there is a potential market for it. Time will tell and maybe the will and maybe they won't, but if I and everyone else sit quiet because your or someone else's panties get in a twist over it when people complain about Canon, then Canon will never know there is an issue in the first place.

I don't think the world ends at 1.3 and 1.0 either. No doubt they'll be paying attention more to the 1.6 over time as it's where the real money is made, so it is worth voicing opinions. The very fact they'd produce a $1000 lens for the 1.6 crop shows they are paying close attention to people's demands and complaints and it also well worth making higher quality items for the range than before. It was commented on as a clear statement they were taking the market seriously when it first arrived. It's hardly unimaginable that now that the crops are getting that kind of image quality, they might be getting the build quality to match too. That's all that is missing really. The single biggest complaint about the 17-55? Dust magnet ahoy. That would have been solved with a decent build quality. I am certain Canon will be paying attention to all those returns and complaints about dust sucking inside it, that shows that there is a market for a better build quality at that price point.

A good old gripe gives them the prod to produce what the consumer wants. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The 17-55 wouldn't be there if people with crop bodies weren't complaining and demanding high-quality without being forced into a larger sensor size before. Though considering the fact people, both consumers and reviewers, have been moaning about the lack of lens hoods when Nikon and other brands have had them for years now I don't know how long it will take to sink in.

So really, there is no reason that they can't do it and for reasonable prices. My complaints are reasonable and I'm not asking for something beyond mortal means. Lens hoods could be given away for free with the lens without sinking the company (everyone else and their profit margins manage to survive it) and folks could get decent build quality from everyone, dag nabbit. I hate to see good optics not get the body it deserves. Glass isn't for life if it is trapped in a cheap casing it doesn't deserve, it greatly goes against the grain.

Short version: I'll complain and I'd hope others do because if there's enough demand generated for a product, there's profit to be made and someone is bound to make it. Demand and supply. ;)

[wernersl]

That would make more sense if it wasn't for the high cost of the 17-55 (and high image quality). It's into the L price range, but you aren't getting the L build quality in return.

It's really Canon's typical cheapness. The relatively poor build quality is something I suppose I and others can kind of live with if it saves some money and that is a big factor for the buyer (though it is debatable if you should be spending the $1000 in that case but a saving is a saving), but the lack of a hood on a lens that can cost $1000 is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Almost. Never mind the outrageous cost of those lens hoods when you have to buy them. I've seen those hoods set people back $90+ (What is it made from? Leprechaun bones?). For a plastic lump that must cost pennies to make. They aren't even guaranteed to fit that well so it isn't amazing QC that is to blame. At least the Chinese make knock-offs of them now for a tenth of the price. Hurrah for the open market. Overall, it's the kind of cheapness you'd expect from someone who steals from the penny tray or loose change from the back of a friend's couch. Shame on Canon, I say.

The other problem of it not being an L is the lifetime of it. When a lens is more expensive, build quality starts to come into play more and more. Dropping the famous 50mm 1.8 and seeing it fly apart or having it die is annoying, but not a complete disaster. Seeing a $1000+ lens die is not so easy to shrug off. If "glass is for life", I want build quality that inspires confidence it will live up to that claim. I am sure a lot of people would be willing to pay a little more to get the better build quality and the peace of mind that it brings, though I suspect it wouldn't put much of a dent into their profits even if it was about the same price. They can mange that top end build quality on the cheaper 17-40L (and even throw in a hood! GOSH!), no reason they can't do it on the more expensive 17-55.

It's the gear and what I can do with it that I like, not the company. Unless you have shares in the company, there's no reason to blindly defend Canon and get upset when people criticize. I buy Canon because the equipment does the job for me, not because they are my best buddies for life. Considering the way I have to fight for rebates from them and how they overcharge me for extras, I think the feeling is mutual. ;)
hmmm...17-40 is a stop slower and does not have IS. its still over a 600.00 lens. maybe you should save the 300 bucks and get a 17-40? as far as your complaints of the company?? get over it.

[wernersl]

I've seen example photos of hand held work at shutter speeds that would be impossible (or at least impossible to get acceptable results in the same conditions) without the excellent IS in the 17-55. You really should have a look at some sample images that are out there now or maybe try it for yourself before discounting it. Even the new IS kit lens is impressive. IS is a great development and the current generation really makes it worth the money, I'd be happy to see it appear in more lenses. If it means greater possibilities and more acceptable shots where before it would be a no go, then it is welcome.

I also love that I can see the IS effect in the viewfinder, which doesn't happen when you are relying on the camera body doing the IS, like with some other brands.
i love IS tech but dont have the extra coin for it so, again...ill save the 500 bucks and bring my tripod. thanks.

[wernersl]

If the 17-55 wasn't compromised with crop body limitations and lesser build, it'd be a $1900 lens.
agreed

[wernersl]

You said if it had the build quality of an L it'd have a full image circle. I don't see how the two are intrinsically linked. You're not giving any real reasons for your argument against it. Build quality is independent of the image circle. There's nothing stopping them from making all their lenses past a certain price point of a certain level of build quality, or including the extras.
he said if it had the build qual of an l they would make it a full image circle so that it can be used with all their cameras...not just the soccer mom entry level ef-s bodies.

[wernersl]

I do understand your point of view now. I'm talking from the consumers point of view, what with me not being Canon and all. Wires crossed there. I do agree that if Canon can get away with cheaper build and no extras and charge the same price, it makes sense for them to keep doing it until the consumers kick up a fuss. It doesn't mean I have to like it when I see someone being blatantly cheap. If people didn't complain and demand more they'd never get it. We'd all be using plastic crap if no one would complain about it. The only reason L lenses are as good quality as they are now is because people wanted it and made them aware of the market through demands for it. So really, what's your problem? If there are enough people like me and others complaining and demanding it there is a potential market for it. Time will tell and maybe the will and maybe they won't, but if I and everyone else sit quiet because your or someone else's panties get in a twist over it when people complain about Canon, then Canon will never know there is an issue in the first place.

I don't think the world ends at 1.3 and 1.0 either. No doubt they'll be paying attention more to the 1.6 over time as it's where the real money is made, so it is worth voicing opinions. The very fact they'd produce a $1000 lens for the 1.6 crop shows they are paying close attention to people's demands and complaints and it also well worth making higher quality items for the range than before. It was commented on as a clear statement they were taking the market seriously when it first arrived. It's hardly unimaginable that now that the crops are getting that kind of image quality, they might be getting the build quality to match too. That's all that is missing really. The single biggest complaint about the 17-55? Dust magnet ahoy. That would have been solved with a decent build quality. I am certain Canon will be paying attention to all those returns and complaints about dust sucking inside it, that shows that there is a market for a better build quality at that price point.

A good old gripe gives them the prod to produce what the consumer wants. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The 17-55 wouldn't be there if people with crop bodies weren't complaining and demanding high-quality without being forced into a larger sensor size before. Though considering the fact people, both consumers and reviewers, have been moaning about the lack of lens hoods when Nikon and other brands have had them for years now I don't know how long it will take to sink in.

So really, there is no reason that they can't do it and for reasonable prices. My complaints are reasonable and I'm not asking for something beyond mortal means. Lens hoods could be given away for free with the lens without sinking the company (everyone else and their profit margins manage to survive it) and folks could get decent build quality from everyone, dag nabbit. I hate to see good optics not get the body it deserves. Glass isn't for life if it is trapped in a cheap casing it doesn't deserve, it greatly goes against the grain.

Short version: I'll complain and I'd hope others do because if there's enough demand generated for a product, there's profit to be made and someone is bound to make it. Demand and supply. ;)
dude...if you want an L build then buy a damn L lens. if you want to spend less money then get the cheaper lens. everyone wins. soulds like another person wanting a professional piece of equipment for a gumball price. i dare to say that if you owned canon or noink or whatever, you would be the same way; or youd be outta business.

[krepta]

not just the soccer mom entry level ef-s bodies.I don't believe the 1.6 bodies are for soccer moms or the like only. I have seen works from several successful photographers, serious amateurs and professionals alike, who use those bodies, the Rebel's and XXD's, as opposed to the 1.3 and full frame ones.

[wernersl]

by the way...how many people here have broken their ef-s 17-55 IS from normal consumer use? anyone?

[Redsnapper]

he said if it had the build qual of an l they would make it a full image circle so that it can be used with all their cameras...not just the soccer mom entry level ef-s bodies.

Yeah, I saw what he meant, but if you change the image circle it's going to be a whole new set of optics and not just a change in build quality. That isn't what I'm talking about. I do understand where he is coming from, though.

[wernersl]

I don't believe the 1.6 bodies are for soccer moms or the like only. I have seen works from several successful photographers, serious amateurs and professionals alike, who use those bodies, the Rebel's and XXD's, as opposed to the 1.3 and full frame ones.
my point is...ef-s lenses were designed with the average consumer in mind. millions of people dont want to spend the money on their high end lenses...thats why ef-s exists. to fill that market demand.

[wernersl]

Yeah, I saw what he meant, but if you change the image circle it's going to be a whole new set of optics and not just a change in build quality. That isn't what I'm talking about. I do understand where he is coming from, though.
ok.

[Redsnapper]

dude...if you want an L build then buy a damn L lens. if you want to spend less money then get the cheaper lens. everyone wins. soulds like another person wanting a professional piece of equipment for a gumball price. i dare to say that if you owned canon or noink or whatever, you would be the same way; or youd be outta business.

Noink? Please tell me that it a typo and isn't a silly nickname or insult Nikon.

The 17-55 costs more than the 17-40. The cheaper lens has far better build quality. So how is it spending less money to get the cheaper lens for a gumball price?

[Redsnapper]

my point is...ef-s lenses were designed with the average consumer in mind. millions of people dont want to spend the money on their high end lenses...thats why ef-s exists. to fill that market demand.

True, but the presence of the 17-55 shows that the consumers must want and Canon must feel that there is a market for high quality and higher price lenses aimed at a purely "non pro market"/EF-S (though as it has been pointed out it isn't all soccor moms using these things). It's far from a bad lens. If it wasn't for the build quality it would be as good as the Ls.

[wernersl]

i think i already explained why that lens is cheaper...f4 non is.

[wernersl]

you are asking for the 17-55 for a price less than that of the 17-40L. see above for why it will never be cheaper.

[Redsnapper]

I still think it's not much of a leap to add better build quality for the price. That is the main complaint about the lens. No more dust sucking would make it a perfect lens for the EF-S compatible bodies. I think there is a market for "baby Ls".

I am not asking for the 17-55 to be cheaper.

[wernersl]

True, but the presence of the 17-55 shows that the consumers must want and Canon must feel that there is a market for high quality and higher price lenses aimed at a purely "non pro market"/EF-S (though as it has been pointed out it isn't all soccor moms using these things). It's far from a bad lens. If it wasn't for the build quality it would be as good as the Ls.
i think its an excellent lens. never said it wasnt. as its been said already...if that thing was build as an l...full image circle and better build (plus the fact that its a 2.8) it would be extremely expensive, which proves my point. being an ef-s makes it cheaper...build for certain cameras yet provides ultra fast 2.8 with IS...and its not rediculously expensive for what you get. look at the 17-85...older is and variable (much slower) aperture and it goes for over 400. with that price point id say the 17-55 is a bargain.

[wernersl]

I still think it's not much of a leap to add better build quality for the price. That is the main complaint about the lens. No more dust sucking would make it a perfect lens for the EF-S compatible bodies. I think there is a market for "baby Ls".

I am not asking for the 17-55 to be cheaper.
i must be confused as to what you are trying to say...you want more for less therefore you want it to be cheaper.

[wernersl]

here you go...
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/pho/466333492.html

[Redsnapper]

I don't think to make it a decent build quality and keep it the same otherwise would make the price out of range for people already putting out $1000, even if they passed some of the cost on to the consumer initially before the comparatively huge crop body made it even out. It would remove the only problem with that lens. No dust sucking and returns. As it is the lens is expensive and looking at the people using it and their results, it is clearly not being chosen by "soccer moms only". At that price the build quality as a flaw seems rather glaring and the lens suffers for it. A $1000 lens should not have the same build quality of the cheaper consumer lenses. Even another hundred or two onto the price would be well worth it for some of the best optics money can buy on any crop body.

What's a Craigslist ad for a 30D and bundle got to do with it?

[wernersl]

thought you might be interested.

[wernersl]

well...i would never be able to use that lens anyway so i dont care what they do. i would guess that their build wont get much more robust on the efs. dont really think it needs to. maybe soccer moms was a bad reference...i was generalizing the ef-s line.

[krepta]

The-Digital_Picture.com brought up this point as well. This is not new, but if you haven't seen it yet (fourth paragraph from the bottom): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


I'm not sure why Canon did not go all the way and make the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens an L-Series lens. An upgraded (metal) lens barrel seems to be the missing component - and the red ring. Also, the accessories included with L-Series lenses are missing - the Lens Pouch LP1219 and Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens-exclusive Lens Hood EW-83J are optional. Since Canon has an L-Series lens on the PowerShot Pro 1, making a non-"EF" L lens is apparently not outside of their definition. This lens certainly has the image quality to be an "L".
I don't think Redsnapper is complaining just for the sake of complaining; rather, his point is that if the consumers create the demand, Canon may lend an ear and take it in consideration, but if they do nothing, Canon will definitely not change anything. Now, I won't pretend to know whether or not it is feasible for Canon to make EF-S L lens all the while remaining both profitable and competitive, but, the paying consumer is certainly entitled to raise his voice and offer his opinion.

[wernersl]

The-Digital_Picture.com brought up this point as well. This is not new, but if you haven't seen it yet (fourth paragraph from the bottom): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I don't think Redsnapper is complaining just for the sake of complaining; rather, his point is that if the consumers create the demand, Canon may lend an ear and take it in consideration, but if they do nothing, Canon will definitely not change anything. Now, I won't pretend to know whether or not it is feasible for Canon to make EF-S L lens all the while remaining both profitable and competitive, but, the paying consumer is certainly entitled to raise his voice and offer his opinion.
absolutely. if they do it then it would be interesting. i just dont see it.

[krepta]

absolutely. if they do it then it would be interesting. i just dont see it.To be honest, I don't see it happening either, at least not in my lifetime. The pros and serious amateurs will not care too much, and it is left in the hands of the casual photographers out there to make something happen. For Canon, on the subject of whether or not to introduce L lenses in the EF-S line, I guess the question would be, to which group(s) does Canon want to cater the most - or, alternatively, out of which group(s) will Canon make the largest amount of profits?

[cdifoto]

Keep in mind also that if it's built better, it'd be heavier, and you'd complain about that too.

[wernersl]

Keep in mind also that if it's built better, it'd be heavier, and you'd complain about that too.
amen.

[wernersl]

now bring on the 24 (or 28 )-70 IS! 8)
or even better...i need a 10-800mm f/1.8L IS :rolleyes:
i reference my earlier post!

[krepta]

If you want a monster lens like that, might as well make it something like 10-1200mm f/1.2L (DO?) IS USM (a 1200mm f/5.6L actually does exist!). Gosh, I wonder how one would carry such a lens. :rolleyes:

[wernersl]

actually you would have to drive it. see my earlier post for a preliminary drawing...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4147122&postcount=10

[krepta]

actually you would have to drive it. see my earlier post for a preliminary drawing...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4147122&postcount=10Oh, I remember this drawing! So you are the one behind it (I guess I didn't pay attention at the time). Gotta like those wheels. :D

[wernersl]

special edition dubs

[danielyamseng]

hahah why not limited edition with gold ring :)

[wernersl]

ha...standard edition comes with gold. limited would be platinum.

[MrChad]

Does the “L” really make that big of a difference? The only thing missing from the current 17-55 f/2.8 is the case material. The lens optics are clearly equal to, or even surpass the much acclaimed 24-70L and the price tag is in “L” territory as well.


Why would a EF-S moniker degrade the “L” distinction? Isn’t “L” all about IQ?

L is not a new Eos type lens. What we need to keep in mind is that L in Canon terms stands for Luxury. This dates back to well in the days of full manual only, non-AF, FD lenses.

L doesn't have to stand for better optics, it stands for high level lens, which can mean professional level, but it isn't really a given. After all, I think we would all agree the DO optics, especially the 400mm DO are all serious professional lenses; but not L per Canon's system.

Also L does not mean constant aperture either. Canon didn't really have constant aperture L zooms as a norm until the most recent era of Eos EF lenses. One of the first Eos L zooms was the 28-80mm f/2.8-4.0L.

I for one, have harped about the build of the 17-55mm EFS from day one. I harped even after purchasing a copy of the lens. However, I have started to harp less. The nice thing about the plastic shell is the light weight, I really love having a lens of f/2.8 but so much lighter then either of my f/2.8 L zooms.

I'm starting to come to the terms that perhaps if they did build a new level of EFS lens perhaps simply giving it build closer to that of the 70-300 DO may work. The DO zoom is not weather sealed, and since no APS-C body is at the lens mount - why bother? Second, the DO is a metal outer shell, but a great deal of plastic in other areas. This keeps weight down - I'm all for that too.

Would I like better construction on the EFS 2.8, yes. Would I need this lens to carry a red ring and L build, no. It's a darn nice lens, I suggest anyone on the fence about this zoom should just go and purchase the lens. Budget $1100 and go buy the lens, the shade, and the lens case and forget that it's not an L. Once you have the lens and hood you will forget all about this lens not being and L and having those bits in the box.

Let's be honest if they called it an L, they would shove those bits in the box and charge us $1600 - so lets call the set, as is, a bargain and move on. I'd actually be shocked if someone suggested that as a professional they have worn out one of these zooms from lack of better build. Canon can rebuild any current lens, if a 17-55mm saw that much use I'd suggest it served its owner well - and send it in for a tune-up.

[wernersl]

L is not a new Eos type lens. What we need to keep in mind is that L in Canon terms stands for Luxury. This dates back to well in the days of full manual only, non-AF, FD lenses.

L doesn't have to stand for better optics, it stands for high level lens, which can mean professional level, but it isn't really a given. After all, I think we would all agree the DO optics, especially the 400mm DO are all serious professional lenses; but not L per Canon's system.

Also L does not mean constant aperture either. Canon didn't really have constant aperture L zooms as a norm until the most recent era of Eos EF lenses. One of the first Eos L zooms was the 28-80mm f/2.8-4.0L.

I for one, have harped about the build of the 17-55mm EFS from day one. I harped even after purchasing a copy of the lens. However, I have started to harp less. The nice thing about the plastic shell is the light weight, I really love having a lens of f/2.8 but so much lighter then either of my f/2.8 L zooms.

I'm starting to come to the terms that perhaps if they did build a new level of EFS lens perhaps simply giving it build closer to that of the 70-300 DO may work. The DO zoom is not weather sealed, and since no APS-C body is at the lens mount - why bother? Second, the DO is a metal outer shell, but a great deal of plastic in other areas. This keeps weight down - I'm all for that too.

Would I like better construction on the EFS 2.8, yes. Would I need this lens to carry a red ring and L build, no. It's a darn nice lens, I suggest anyone on the fence about this zoom should just go and purchase the lens. Budget $1100 and go buy the lens, the shade, and the lens case and forget that it's not an L. Once you have the lens and hood you will forget all about this lens not being and L and having those bits in the box.

Let's be honest if they called it an L, they would shove those bits in the box and charge us $1600 - so lets call the set, as is, a bargain and move on. I'd actually be shocked if someone suggested that as a professional they have worn out one of these zooms from lack of better build. Canon can rebuild any current lens, if a 17-55mm saw that much use I'd suggest it served its owner well - and send it in for a tune-up.well stated. until they start weather sealing the aps-c cams then i dont think that the build quality is going to hinder anyone. i could be wrong though. anyone out there ever kill this lens because of physical degradation? i think people tend to forget that EF-S is primarily consumer directed. i will most likely never see the physical rigors that the 24-70 or 70-200 may see. oh well. as much as i would love the range of this lens i cant use it on either of my cams!

[krepta]

anyone out there ever kill this lens because of physical degradation?Not quite, but mine has suffered dust and sand, gusts of wind, and light rain. I take care of it though, inspecting it and cleaning it when necessary. It's not L build but it holds up just fine.
as much as i would love the range of this lens i cant use it on either of my cams!That range is equivalent to 27.2-88mm on full frame bodies, so I guess the 24-105 covers it. I guess you would want that in a f/2.8, though, isn't that right? :D

[MrChad]

Not quite, but mine has suffered dust and sand, gusts of wind, and light rain. I take care of it though, inspecting it and cleaning it when necessary. It's not L build but it holds up just fine.
That range is equivalent to 27.2-88mm on full frame bodies, so I guess the 24-105 covers it. I guess you would want that in a f/2.8, though, isn't that right? :D

At one point Tamron sold a 28-105mm/2.8 if I recall...

Are there really many users shooting a 24-70L on a 5D and a 17-55mm on an APS-C that really find a huge difference between using there gear and these two lenses? I switch between my digital and film body all the time and just don't seam to notice it that much.

I miss my histogram on the film body more then IS :)

[wernersl]

Not quite, but mine has suffered dust and sand, gusts of wind, and light rain. I take care of it though, inspecting it and cleaning it when necessary. It's not L build but it holds up just fine.
That range is equivalent to 27.2-88mm on full frame bodies, so I guess the 24-105 covers it. I guess you would want that in a f/2.8, though, isn't that right? :D
yeah...thats where the 28-70 comes in. but would love ACTUAL 17-55 2.8 is on FF!

[MrChad]

yeah...thats where the 28-70 comes in. but would love ACTUAL 17-55 2.8 is on FF!

The 28-70L is an awesome lens. My buddy has one and I love it, the best part is that it's a tick smaller and just a tick lighter then the current 24-70L.

[danielyamseng]

The 28-70L is an awesome lens. My buddy has one and I love it, the best part is that it's a tick smaller and just a tick lighter then the current 24-70L.
YEah , too bad the new model is gettting heavier and heavier

[wernersl]

The 28-70L is an awesome lens. My buddy has one and I love it, the best part is that it's a tick smaller and just a tick lighter then the current 24-70L.
i have to say that my 28-70 out performs the 24-70's and 24-105's i have tried. and thats too bad because i would love to be able to add weather sealing now that i have my 1D(inosaur). oh well...guess i cant take it in the shower with me!

[MrChad]

i have to say that my 28-70 out performs the 24-70's and 24-105's i have tried. and thats too bad because i would love to be able to add weather sealing now that i have my 1D(inosaur). oh well...guess i cant take it in the shower with me!

Can't say I've ever noticed a difference betweem these two lenses. But a 24-70L in the rain/snow always takes a better shot then a 28-70L in the bag.

[wernersl]

Can't say I've ever noticed a difference betweem these two lenses. But a 24-70L in the rain/snow always takes a better shot then a 28-70L in the bag.

at first i did not notice a difference b/w this lens and the 24-70. in fact, the 24-70 was a little better (concerning sharpness). thats before i sent it to Canon to have it calibrated. it is, after all, 8 years old. now that it has been calibrated there is a slight advantage over the 24-70 (that i have pitted it against) and definately better than the 24-105's i put it up against.

as far as your last sentence...this is true! i will add, however, that i did use this lens on a small ski boat that took on a bunch of water (over me head and camera). the only thing that did not survive was the (at the time) XT! so will i use this lens in the snow? yup. heavy rain? maybe under a plastic bag, but not exposed.

[Overkill]

The 17-55 2.8 IS USM would be much bigger (if it was a FF model)!

It would also disturb the market for the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 IS USM 4L

[Sfordphoto]

they don't want to give EF-S lenses L status

[MrChad]

they don't want to give EF-S lenses L status

who cares about L status? The main advantage would be for weather sealing, since we don't have any Canon Eos crop 1.6x sealed bodies what's really the issue.

We should just be happy we have a true 28-88mm FOV f/2.8 crop body lens. And to boot they gave us IS too, what a hoot.

Plus not being an L it weighs a ton less then my 24-70mm.

[dbdors]

......or even better...i need a 10-800mm f/1.8L IS :rolleyes:
And a pickup truck to carry it around.

[emre2006]

true...but the wider it gets the slower you can go without is (assuming the 1/focal length theory). either way...on my way to get my tripod for that low-light interior shot. ;)


Also, wider you go you tend to use narrower aperture for a bigger DOF, hence slower shutter speed ;) therefore IS is actually desirable..

[emre2006]

I would love the 17-55 L IS however I think its a marketing thing as well..There are a few L lenses coverin 16-35 and surrounding areas (!), so it would be a suicide from the marketing point of view to make something that would kill all other lenses..I think something like an 17-85 2.8 L IS USM (if excellent IQ and not overpriced) would be a no brainer and would kill all other closer L's and the 17-55 IS

[wernersl]

Also, wider you go you tend to use narrower aperture for a bigger DOF, hence slower shutter speed ;) therefore IS is actually desirable..
not necessarily smarty pants. DOF is naturally greater at wider focal lengths. anyway...i think this horse has been beaten!!

[emre2006]

not necessarily smarty pants. DOF is naturally greater at wider focal lengths. anyway...i think this horse has been beaten!!

I didn't say DOF goes down when at wider focal lengths mr. funny. Do you take your wide angle landscape pictures with 2.8 or something like f8, f11 etc.? So, basic photography: F11 needs a slower shutter speed than f2.8. That was my point.

(..and probably now you will say that "wide angle lenses are not ONLY for landscape photography" and I will say "I was trying to say that there are some situations where you will need to use your wide angle lens with narrow appertures which will slow down your shutter speed,hence IS could be useful"...and this will go on, and on, and on...) :)

[wernersl]

I didn't say DOF goes down when at wider focal lengths mr. funny. Do you take your wide angle landscape pictures with 2.8 or something like f8, f11 etc.? So, basic photography: F11 needs a slower shutter speed than f2.8. That was my point.

(..and probably now you will say that "wide angle lenses are not ONLY for landscape photography" and I will say "I was trying to say that there are some situations where you will need to use your wide angle lens with narrow appertures which will slow down your shutter speed,hence IS could be useful"...and this will go on, and on, and on...) :)
no doubt...but if it comes down to critical work my camera finds itself on a tripod anyway...and that is MY point; hence, i would not buy an IS wide angle lens.

[emre2006]

no doubt...but if it comes down to critical work my camera finds itself on a tripod anyway...and that is MY point; hence, i would not buy an IS wide angle lens.

Since we are on the subject and you look like a knowledgeable person could you please comment on my post at: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6301799#post6301799 it is related, any advice would be much appreciated.

[gregpphoto]

Because L is EF mount only and although you can use on your crop camera, there would probably be a significant cost to up the manufacturing of EF-S mount lenses to get them to L quality and this would prevent many of the their current EF-S mount market from buying them. They really have things covered well right now. The 17-55 is made to mimic the 24-70L, not the 16-35, nor the 17-40. You can never get the actual 17-55 range for a Canon camera since you cannot fit the 17-55 on a full frame camera; unless they made an EF mount 17-55.

Well why not? If 55 is normal, 24 is wide and 17 is extra wide (on ff), wouldn't that be a lens at comparable, if not better than, the 24-70?

[daleftw]

I'm gonna have to agree that there is no point in making it an "L". Professionals who swear by Ls won't have a 17-55 because it won't fit on their FF/1.3x camera. To make it L is to make it appealing to professionals who use professional equipment.

L seems to be some sort of crazy aspiration for people who hopped on these boards shortly after buying their xxx/xxD cameras. If you won't have anything less, what exactly did you do with that kit lens before you registered on these forums?

[Nathan]

Seriously, isn't a bit of an exaggeration to say that the 17-55 feels like a plastic toy?

[gregpphoto]

L seems to be some sort of crazy aspiration for people who hopped on these boards shortly after buying their xxx/xxD cameras. If you won't have anything less, what exactly did you do with that kit lens before you registered on these forums?

Some of us bought bodies and lenses separately.

[Nathan]

I had the kit lens for like a month, bought primes, and sold the kit.

[BLACK MAMBA]

Because they already make a 16-35 f/2.8L and a 17-40 f/4L.

^+1

[Dan P.]

For example, the 18-200 is <2 months old, and already has a big glob of dust inside. It's not the end of the world, but for the borrowed cash I doled out (on plastic), I expected something built a little better.

I would like extra dust protection, the longer focal range and better optics than the IS. Call it 'L', if you want to. It makes no diff to me.

[Collin85]

I know the thread is old, but I'll chip in anyway. To the OP - you're really better off asking why there isn't an L series for EF-S lenses. That's pretty much where you're going with this - and the answer is simple. Canon's marketing dictates that professionals don't/shouldn't use crop cameras. Hence it does not fit in their business model to have an EF-S L series. If you want a 17-55 "L", then go to FF and buy a 24-70 or 24-105.

This then raises a second question: why doesn't Canon make a 24-80 f/2.8L IS then? Because Canon is making a healthy profit selling two different lenses.

As for the 17-55 feeling like a toy - that's a bit extreme. I do however agree that it's a lens which you can't afford to bang around like you can with an L.

[sonofjesse]

I was thinking of going full frame...and i'm sure I will one day. But no focal range with IS is sad :( ONce they make 2.8 L with IS with a good focal range man that thing will sell like HOTT cakes.

[MrChad]

Seriously, isn't a bit of an exaggeration to say that the 17-55 feels like a plastic toy?

The plastic build of the 17-55mm didn't feel too bad, but a lens this heavy and expensive is a bit akward. I had a 17-40L prior to my 17-55EFS and I never worried about bobbing my 17-40L walking around but I did with my EFS.

I have since replaced my 17-55EFS with a 16-35L after getting my 5D2, and I'm very glad to be back to an all metal L type build lens with fixed lens focal length in use while zooming.

When I first purchased my 17-55EFS I nick named it my plastic fantastic. Ideal on a Rebel series IMO but those with more upscale kit in cost may find the EFS lacking at times.

[cccc]

If you want an ef-s L, you want an L for the wrong reason.

[Hermione]

I think something like an 17-85 2.8 L IS USM (if excellent IQ and not overpriced) would be a no brainer

....this would be amazing! Actually, I don't even care if it's an L. Good quality, 2.8 would be phenominal! Or even a constant 3 - 3.5 ish?

Basically a nice update of the 17 - 85 that exists now.

[CAL Imagery]

I think something like an 17-85 2.8 L IS USM (if excellent IQ and not overpriced) would be a no brainer

....this would be amazing! Actually, I don't even care if it's an L. Good quality, 2.8 would be phenominal! Or even a constant 3 - 3.5 ish?

Basically a nice update of the 17 - 85 that exists now.
That would a) cost A LOT more and b) weigh a lot more.

[fiorano94]

After reading this thread, i've come to the conclusion that im a total idiot. How dare i have a 17-40 and use it on a crop body! I'm so dumb.

[Synovia]

by the way...how many people here have broken their ef-s 17-55 IS from normal consumer use? anyone?

Bueller? Anyone?



Don't forget, the lighter something is, the less momentum when it hits the ground. Ie, the lighter it is, the less strong it needs to be.

[MrChad]

If the 17-55mm lens in probuild is a must for some, Nikon's 17-55 DX is very well built and the cost of a D90 or D300 won't break the bank for something to mount on it either.

One of the lenses I have been waiting for is the Tokina 16.5-135mm DX. It accepts a 77mm filter, so my thought is if built like other Tokina glass of recent could be a great general use APS lens. Since all of my current lenses are 77mm L zooms. I like being able to share filters and caps at random.

I can't say switching between a 17-55 or 16-35 has ever been a huge deal breaker for me. 35, 55 both seem very short vs. 70mm on APS to me :)

[Just Be]

the problem with the 17-55mm efs is its build quality. It`s just better than the kit lens but still feels like a piece of plastic toy.

...and a damn fine plastic toy, at that! ;)

[Jethro790]

I wouldn't trade the build quality of my 17-55 for anything else. I do a lot of motorcycle and snowmobile touring, and a lot of backpacking. For my purposes I would not want anything heavier at all. I would never want a lens like a 24-70 to carry with me on my swift, silent and deadly sportbike or snowmobile touring missions.

[dolina]

Because the pressure now is 14-24/2.8L to compete with Nikon. ;)

[gregpphoto]

I wouldn't trade the build quality of my 17-55 for anything else. I do a lot of motorcycle and snowmobile touring, and a lot of backpacking. For my purposes I would not want anything heavier at all. I would never want a lens like a 24-70 to carry with me on my swift, silent and deadly sportbike or snowmobile touring missions.

Personally, I don't mind the weight. We're spoiled, us of the DSLR generation. Have fun toting a large format around.

Plus, if you're on a bike or snowmobile, you're not carrying anything, so who cares about the weight?