PDA

View Full Version : Small and sharp


EOS Man
18th of April 2008 (Fri), 08:34
After carrying my camera in an already stuffed non-camera bag for a week, I suddenly noticed the 'weight' issue people have been mentioning, especially about their 24-70 "brick" lens.

Now I really wish Canon would make a decent Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 competitor since the 24-70 is a sharp but fat lens, and the 18-55 is a small but yucky IQ lens.

Wish:
EF-S 16-80 f4 IS lens with L-like image quality and a small design. EF-S because it'll be small to make, IS because I know Canon can do IS in small lenses like they did with their 'mini, shrunk down IS in the 18-55 IS design'

EDIT: And no, I refuse to buy Sigma, I'm not taking risks to get a bad copy ;)

sadatk
18th of April 2008 (Fri), 08:36
17-55 IS?

DStanic
3rd of May 2008 (Sat), 21:31
The do have such a lens, the 17-85... unfortunatly it's just not very good. They need to make a MK II version with f/2.8-4 or at least constant f/4. The 17-85 is light also, 475g compared to 550g of my Sigma 24-60 2.8

EOS Man
7th of May 2008 (Wed), 07:47
17-55 IS?
I'd love the f2.8, but it doesnt have enough reach :(

The do have such a lens, the 17-85... unfortunatly it's just not very good. They need to make a MK II version with f/2.8-4 or at least constant f/4. The 17-85 is light also, 475g compared to 550g of my Sigma 24-60 2.8

I'm sure that a high zoom range, small lens would appeal to many who want to travel light. Aperture range isnt much of an issue provided the aperture is a constant f4

Neilyb
16th of May 2008 (Fri), 04:44
EDIT: And no, I refuse to buy Sigma, I'm not taking risks to get a bad copy ;)

Yet you will risk 2 or 3 times the cash on a canon bad copy.....more fool you!