So, who's buying the 1755IS?

condyk wrote:
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!

Davie old son, that Jackdaw simile is kinda lost on the N.American diaspora....we have our Magpies and Crows here. Be that as it may, pray find a 24-105 in my signature ? What about 5D ?
You see, you see....

Incidentaly, until very recently, if my failing memory serves me right, you and your "Maestro" have been "pushing" Sigma astigmatics high pitchedly with trenchant vigour and zeal, so much so that it had bethought me that yous lads might have been professional Sigma's provocateurs/agitateur​s . Now then, let us see how many Sigma astigmatics are there currently in your joint possession: two ?

This is a 21st century ENGLISH-SPEAKING post, thanks folks!

Peter, astigmatics?

Ooops, I meant to say "lenses".

I can use IS on any focal length out there. If you're shooting from a moving vehicle (this includes aircraft, boats, . . . ) IS will help damp the vehicle motion. Likewise on very windy places.

I'm not. Something that expensive should have L build quality and so far none of the EF-S have been made like this. I'm sure that the optics are superb, but construction is very important to me too.

I agree with Jon: I'll take IS on any lens and any FL.

David: I can respect that. Build is certainly important to me too.

I will buy it, its going to be a great wedding lens. Currently there are no "L" lenses that give you 2.8 and IS in this focal length.

I'd love built-like-an-L quality on this lens too - well, they can drop the weather sealing and the red ring if they REALLY don't want to call it an L, but make the barrel nice and solid.

It was either this or the 24-70L - IS and 17mm at the wide end were the two winning factors and the compromise would be in the build. Agreed with all of the above - I can find a use for IS and f/2.8 even at 17mm. Handheld 1/3 sec..

Dave from Australia (see his post in EOS Camera section) has already received his 30D and I was wondering if the new lenses come out as fast after announcment as the newly announced cameras?

Papaw

I just think it's a tad pricey for a non-L lens...

Steve

And what mightcha' be wantin' for that 17-85mm??

Ditto. I'm sure it will be a great len, just like the 10-22, however I'm not paying 1100 bucks for it. Maybe $750-800 depending on the reviews, but never 1100 for a non L.

Seems kinda high for a non L. I would prefer the 24-70mm 2.8 L if it's in that price range

Pet-Kal wrote:
Incidentaly, until very recently, if my failing memory serves me right, you and your "Maestro" have been "pushing" Sigma astigmatics high pitchedly with trenchant vigour and zeal, so much so that it had bethought me that yous lads might have been professional Sigma's provocateurs/agitateur​s . Now then, let us see how many Sigma astigmatics are there currently in your joint possession: two ?

Well that argument only works if I do push Sigma over anything else. I don't. I'm all for diversity. However, if I've owned something and been happy with it then I will recommend it 110%. Maybe you mistake enthusiasm for bias

I believe I recommended the 300mm IS L to you (tho' with a warning it might be too short for birds much of the time). I often recommend the 100-400 IS L and the 70-200 L.

Of course, I am normally anti the 24-70 L based on my own usage and 'inconsistent' reports given there is great, much less fussy competition ( didn't one well meaning chump suggest it had taken him a year to learn how to use his and that was the problem with many users of this lens ... what? Impatience while some other nutty lad felt his copy had taken several months to run in ) Love gone as blind as a Bat methinks You yourself had to return a few copies to the orphanage I believe. So, let's say I advocate the stuff I trust and try to warn against the stuff I don't. Anyone is free to do the same and disagree.

While I do get some 'interesting' PM's from the Canon Fodder types who feel I am enemy at their gate (I suspect they haven't been out huntin' for a few days so seek a melloe target!) I think any able 'content analyst' could firmly back up my balance should a kindly benefaKtor (this is for the lovers of good spelling!) wish to fund the necessary acedemic research.

condyk wrote:
Well that argument only works if I do push Sigma over anything else. I don't. I'm all for diversity. However, if I've owned something and been happy with it then I will recommend it 110%. Maybe you mistake enthusiasm for bias

I believe I recommended the 300mm IS L to you (tho' with a warning it might be too short for birds much of the time). I often recommend the 100-400 IS L and the 70-200 L.

Of course, I am normally anti the 24-70 L based on my own usage and 'inconsistent' reports given there is great, much less fussy competition ( didn't one well meaning chump suggest it had taken him a year to learn how to use his and that was the problem with many users of this lens ... what? Impatience while some other nutty lad felt his copy had taken several months to run in ) Love gone as blind as a Bat methinks You yourself had to return a few copies to the orphanage I believe. So, let's say I advocate the stuff I trust and try to warn against the stuff I don't. Anyone is free to do the same and disagree.

While I do get some 'interesting' PM's from the Canon Fodder types who feel I am enemy at their gate (I suspect they haven't been out huntin' for a few days so seek a melloe target!) I think any able 'content analyst' could firmly back up my balance should a kindly benefaKtor (this is for the lovers of good spelling!) wish to fund the necessary acedemic research.

That's one I have never seen before....a run-in or a shake-down period (curve ?) required for the "brick" ? That would be now in addition to the "learning curve", I presume ? And good sharp photos are produced only when the two curves intersect ?
Do not worry laddie, considering those fine classic lenses currently in your posession, no reasonable soul could suggest that you may still be on Sigma's payola.