Canon Infuriorates me!

Why does canon go and make the EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8, when they could have made an EF mount and all people would be happy (and they could have made it an "L" to boot.)

It seems that the 24-105 L IS f/4 would be the perfect lens if it were an f/2.8.

Next lens? Canon, how about a EF 24-105 L IS f/2.8? PERFECT!!!!
Or an EF 17-55 L IS f/2.8? Another PERFECT lens.

John E wrote in post #2101282
Why does canon go and make the EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8, when they could have made an EF mount and all people would be happy (and they could have made it an "L" to boot.).

If they did, you would have a $1600 street price lens weighing 2 lb, rather than the $1100 street price lens weighing 1.5 lb. Not sure I would want to carry a 17-55 2 lb. lens as a walkaround, any more than I would want the 24-70mm f/2.8L 2 lb. lens as my walkaround on a 5D! (Different situation being paid to carry 2 lb of lens vs. trying to be a tourist with 2 lb of lens!) But your point is made, that it could have been the faster IS successor to the 17-40L.

John E wrote in post #2101282
It seems that the 24-105 L IS f/4 would be the perfect lens if it were an f/2.8. Next lens? Canon, how about a EF 24-105 L IS f/2.8? PERFECT!!!! Or an EF 17-55 L IS f/2.8? Another PERFECT lens.

Not sure I would want to carry a 24-105mm f/2.8L 2.5 lb. lens as my walkaround on a 5D (which I don't own)! I would prefer a 17-85 f/2.8 IS 2 lb. lens as a walkaround on the 20D/30D.

I second this motion for a ef mount...and if they throw in program shift while flash is on I'm happy.

The reason Canon makes EF-S is because that way they can claim that they have lenses made exclusively for the APS-C sensor cameras, like hardware support for the camera. Not that it really matters, but for the novices just starting out in DSLR who don't know any better, if one company has lenses EXCLUSIVELY or DEDICATED (key marketing terms) for your camera and the other just has "makeshift" lenses, most will go for the exclusive one.

just buy non canon lenses, I think they offer more for the buck. What I find silly about that 17-55 IS is that it's over a grand and Canon still refuses to throw in a plastic hood and a bag.
Come on...

I started out wondering where all of these opinions come from, and then I remembered that this is the Rumors forum. . .

Have Fun,

CoolToolGuy wrote in post #2102550
I started out wondering where all of these opinions come from, and then I remembered that this is the Rumors forum. . .

Lol exactly

Tee Why wrote in post #2102239
just buy non canon lenses, I think they offer more for the buck. What I find silly about that 17-55 IS is that it's over a grand and Canon still refuses to throw in a plastic hood and a bag.
Come on...

So your purchase hinges on a piece of plastic? Seems like a silly reason to buy anything.

rklepper wrote in post #2113288
So your purchase hinges on a piece of plastic? Seems like a silly reason to buy anything.

Exactly. Not to mention there are superb L lenses for less than $1k. The 17-40 4L and 135 2.0L for example. They both come with hoods and bags. As much as you can try, you'll not find another company's lenses with such IQ and BQ and complete accessories as these.

mxwphoto wrote in post #2101954
The reason Canon makes EF-S is because that way they can claim that they have lenses made exclusively for the APS-C sensor cameras, like hardware support for the camera. Not that it really matters, but for the novices just starting out in DSLR who don't know any better, if one company has lenses EXCLUSIVELY or DEDICATED (key marketing terms) for your camera and the other just has "makeshift" lenses, most will go for the exclusive one.

Exactly. Notice, there isn't any "L" EF-S lenses? That's because they (Canon) want to seperate EF-S as amature and FF as more pro. So dummies with money think they need a 1Ds MKII to go with their 70-200mmL 2.8 IS.