Canon 17-55IS now in the USA

i really think the only difference between the 17-55 and any L series of that range is that the 17-55 isnt designated an L, but the specs would tell you differently. from what ive read, and i hope it to be true, is that its an L series lens without the L series construction.

jjcharity wrote:

now thats just uncalled for.

Posted just at my site:

*May 17: Well, THE LENS has arrived http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/1755is . I was only able to snap these three shots with my P&S. I'll be putting together a fairly comprehensive test in the days to come with the 1785IS, 1740L, and 1850EX. Nothing more to come today though, as I'm taking my wife out on a "date night", and photography takes a back seat to this.

Here's the token box shot:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Quite right.Important stuff first


....besides the fact that not looking after her might result in 'less purchasing oportunities'


And on your reasons for not including the kit lens -i would add:
I tend not to even bother comparing lenses to the kit lens anymore.Not because the kit lens doesn't stack up ( it does respectably well) but for the rather important reason that i've found that the kit lens performs much better in tests than it does in actual use

Why does everything keep saying L quality bla bla bla... If they dont know canons History, EF-S glass wont have a red ring around it. But optics quality are usually up to L standards.

The 10-22 is a fine example of that.

As does the EF-S 18-55 3.5-4.5 and the 17-85 - very comparible to the 24-70 and the 17-40 in image quality and performance some say. . .

Samples starting to trickle in...

http://www.pbase.com …anon/ef_s_17_55​_28_is_usm

aparmley wrote:
As does the EF-S 18-55 3.5-4.5 and the 17-85 - very comparible to the 24-70 and the 17-40 in image quality and performance some say. . .

Lol - nice

So does "L" designation mean nothing then?

KAC

The 'L' lenses feature at least one exotic and expensive element to improve the image quality. In ascending order of desirability there is UD, Super-UD and Flourite. Nikon introduced their gold ring to denote the same thing, an ED element. None of the EF-S lenses feature such desirable materials and rely instead on the older (and perfectly good) method of coatings to improve performance.

From the specs of the EF-S 17-55IS:
"Features three aspherical lens elements (two types) as well as a Super-UD glass element for high image quality at all focal lengths."

Jack

I just got an email from B&H that they are now shipping this lens. Still too much for me, but once the initial thrill wears off and the price comes down, who knows?

So that's why it's so expensive! Thanks for pointing that out.

B&H now shows them in stock.

They played a game on their Web site, where it was listed as "May availability" for a while, then it changed to "June availability". I watched it every day anyway, and yesterday it changed to "in stock". So now they have some in stock.

Waiting for the UPS truck - it causes a little anxiety, doesn't it. . .

Have Fun,