So, who's buying the 1755IS?

I'm (fairly) certain of 2 things:

1) 1.6x is here for a long while.
2) The 1755IS is going to be a killer lens.

I'm most likely going to be selling my 1785IS for the 1755IS. The question I'll need to decide is whether to sell the 1785IS as it is (EF-converted for the 10D/D30/D60 users) or whether to convert it back to EFS mount. If you have thoughts on that, feel free to chime in. Enjoy the light folks!

So, who has decided to get the 1755IS?

I think the idea is intriguing, but would want to know a few things such as cost. Also I think I will wait for your review prior to purchasing.

As far as the converted lens, isn't it more flexible converted? I would provide it converted with the option to convert it back. That way you can please both crowds.

I believe MSRP is $1150 or so. Street price I think will be around $1100 initially and then drop slightly, maybe in the $900-$1000 range would be my guess. I think prima facie people think, "What?! $1100 for an EFS?" But as we consider how good these recent EFS lenses are optically (60 macro, 1022), and that EFS looks like it's here for a while (1.3x probably about to die), and that the 1755 is IS+f2.8, it becomes a little more feasible.

I'll definitely put it up against my 1785 and whatever else I can get a hold of at that time.

I would think so myself, and state precisely what's been done and that I'd be willing to convert it back or whatever if wanted, even after the purchase. I would think 10D/D60/D30 owners would at least consider it. Thanks for the input, Doc.

i have a feeling that canon wont let the L fans sit around wishing while the efs people get a very nice low light perfermor.

fStopJojo wrote:
I'm (fairly) certain of 2 things:

1) 1.6x is here for a long while.
2) The 1755IS is going to be a killer lens.

I'm most likely going to be selling my 1785IS for the 1755IS. The question I'll need to decide is whether to sell the 1785IS as it is (EF-converted for the 10D/D30/D60 users) or whether to convert it back to EFS mount. If you have thoughts on that, feel free to chime in. Enjoy the light folks!

So, who has decided to get the 1755IS?

looks like a nice lens but too short for me as a walkaround. i still prefer the 24-105L, which btw isn't looking so expensive now ($1095) and can be used on any canon DSLR format.

so that would be a no .

the new tamron 17-50 also looks interesting but it doesn't have IS and also is not full frame.

i think if i were interested in this range i would be willing to forgo IS to save considerable $$.

of course i say this without knowing how either lens actually performs.

http://www.pma-show.com …_tamron_17_50mm​_lens.html

ed rader

I am already hiding money in my sock drawer for the 17-55, but we'll have to wait for the reivews to come out... If it feels and acts anything like the 17-85 and if its as sharp as the 10-22, then I'm in. I do wonder about the price though... Awful lot for a lens, but then again, IS and 2.8... And for those of you who haven't experienced the IS... I was a huge skeptic until I tried it, and it works. I get shots that I wouldn't otherwise be able to get at all, especially in low light, where long shutter speeds are necessary... With 2.8 AND IS, wouldn't it almost be as fast as a prime?

I am interested though to see if Canon is planning on releasing anything else this year...

I'm certainly very interested in this lens, but I'm awaiting your review Jojo before I make my mind up!

Yes it is as fast as the 50mm f1, but without the extremely narrow DOF.

I'm in.

The primal fascists in your home town may think what they will, I believe that lens ain't retailing for less than $1100.
How good is it gonna be ? How good is 24-105 ? Ok, that sort of thing, just one stop faster. Which will probably be good enough for many people to plop $1100 on their plastics. Those that will refrain from buying it will undoubtedly find in it yet another target for their "feels cheap and plastic-like, not like an L" diatribe.

Pet-Kal wrote:
Those that will refrain from buying it will undoubtedly find in it yet another target for their "feels cheap and plastic-like, not like an L" diatribe.

Good idea

I'm just glad I am well covered by my cheap rubbish or I could have been tempted

Nick, I'll do my best.

Henrik, it looks like it's you and me.

Dave, I know you're tempted...it's not an L for cryin' out loud!

I hate to disappoint Maestro, but I have two of the very best lenses no money can buy in the Zeiss Flektogon MC 35mm 2.4 and Pentax-M SMC 50mm 1.4. I'm also happy with my crazy bottle-nosed Sigma wide-boy and I have a flasher if I want to shoot indoors (like almost never!!) The final nail in your fantasy is that I don't have da fever, so I think that's me out of it

Pet-kal is your man tho' ... he'll buy anything new and shiny for his nest He's like a very sweet Jackdaw chum!

Yeah, if only they could have stretched it to 70mm I'd have the perfect 1-2 punch with my 70-200 IS, covering 17-200 @ 2.8 with IS the whole way.


I'm interested, but I'll probably wait for the inevitable low cost (relatively speaking) used ones to start showing up on FM. If the IQ is there it could be a contender.

I'm thinking about it, but I just purchased a 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8L's so I'm not sure if I'll jump right away, I might rather invest that cash into a 1D body instead.

Seems to me that IS below 70mm is a "me too" thing. What's the point. It all marketing to me. If company A does it then Company b follows so people don't say "hey, they have this feature and you don't". Seems like the old word processor days.

I'd rather put the $1000 into a full frame body savings.