17-55 f/2.8 or not

Ok ... I have a question. Why would you not get the 16-35L/2.8 for a measly $300 bucks more(you even get the lens hood INCLUDED).

Ok ya...20mm difference. But the 17-55/2.8 has a long history of dust sealing problems, while the L has superior glass and L level dust/moisture sealing.

Is there something I am missing here?

5nap5hot wrote in post #2672802
Ok ... I have a question. Why would you not get the 16-35L/2.8 for a measly $300 bucks more(you even get the lens hood INCLUDED).

Ok ya...20mm difference. But the 17-55/2.8 has a long history of dust sealing problems, while the L has superior glass and L level dust/moisture sealing.

Is there something I am missing here?

Image Stabilization?

5nap5hot wrote in post #2672802
Ok ... I have a question. Why would you not get the 16-35L/2.8 for a measly $300 bucks more(you even get the lens hood INCLUDED).

Ok ya...20mm difference. But the 17-55/2.8 has a long history of dust sealing problems, while the L has superior glass and L level dust/moisture sealing.

Is there something I am missing here?

Superior glass? Haha...read up on your lenses buddy.
Dust = no effect on the image whatsoever in any way shape or form.

And 300 bucks might be "measly" to you, but I'd rather spend that extra measly 300 bucks on some filters, memory, flash, prostitute for the night, etc.

august23 wrote in post #2673600
Superior glass? Haha...read up on your lenses buddy.
Dust = no effect on the image whatsoever in any way shape or form.

And 300 bucks might be "measly" to you, but I'd rather spend that extra measly 300 bucks on some filters, memory, flash, prostitute for the night, etc.

Also the "dust" issue is way too overblown imo. There are significantly way more users with no dust whatsoever than those with it.

In contrast to the opinion of many here, I'm actually aiming for a 17-55 + 24-105 combo. I've had the 17-55 on order for a little while now, but I'm still not sure which is the better one to get first. The range of that EF-S, combined with f/2.8 and IS make it a killer for my indoor work. However I also do alot of 'half/whole day outdoor treks' which suit the 24-105 absolutely perfectly. I often need range more than 55mm but nothing THAT tele. Hence, the 24-105 matches perfectly. Otherwise I would have to swap over with the 70-200 constantly.

I'll probably end up getting the 17-55 first and then the 24-105 eventually. If Canon comes out with a 24-90-ish f/2.8L IS earlier, then I'll probably get that instead. Either way, I'am totally 'in' with the whole 17-55 24-105 combo idea.. but that's just me.

5nap5hot wrote in post #2672802
Ok ... I have a question. Why would you not get the 16-35L/2.8 for a measly $300 bucks more(you even get the lens hood INCLUDED).

Ok ya...20mm difference. But the 17-55/2.8 has a long history of dust sealing problems, while the L has superior glass and L level dust/moisture sealing.

Is there something I am missing here?

The 16-35 is designed as a fast UWA for a full-frame camera. Besides the L-quality build, I don't actually see any justifiable reason to go 16-35 over the 17-55 for a crop body. As extras, the 17-55 has a longer range and also IS. $300 is nothing to sneer at either. I would find the 16-35 very limiting as a walkaround on any of my crop bodies. It all comes down to the notion that for the price, there are there are simply better options out there.

As for lens hoods, do you think it's really free? It's all part of the cost for L glass.

Wilt wrote in post #2660732
... The 17-55 has IS, which provides 3EV advantage in the camera-shake stopping, but not subject motion stopping.

The 24-105 does nothing for both camera-shake or subject motion.

Why does the 24-105 does nothing on the camera-shake with the IS on?

Can you please explain why not, or am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks.

august23 wrote in post #2673600
I'd rather spend that extra measly 300 bucks on some filters, memory, flash, prostitute for the night...

Is that what they're going for these days?

Salleke wrote in post #2673731
Why does the 24-105 does nothing on the camera-shake with the IS on?

Can you please explain why not, or am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks.

I forgot it was IS lens!

Collin85 wrote in post #2673657
In contrast to the opinion of many here, I'm actually aiming for a 17-55 + 24-105 combo.

Yes, this would be ideal. As this is just a hobby for me it doesn't make financial sense (to me) to own both... but if they were a bit less expensive this would be a great setup.

Just yesterday I was in a park during the day. A 24-105 would have been perfect here. Last night I was in a restaurant having dinner with a large group of people. Here the 17-55 would have been perfect.

If anyone knows of a "buy one get one free" deal on these two lenses, PLEASE let me know!