EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS announced!

Why would you want/need Image Stabilization with such a short focal length? :confused:
 
I agree why would anyone want IS with a 17-55. I rather them add IS to a 24-70L or make something cool like a 17-200L f/2.8 IS......
 
I'm more excited by the f/2.8 and the focal length. The IS is useful if you don't want to cary a tripod but want to expose for longer than 1/60th. With good IS a lot of people could probably handhold at 1/8 at the wide end.
 
fugu said:
I'm more excited by the f/2.8 and the focal length. The IS is useful if you don't want to cary a tripod but want to expose for longer than 1/60th. With good IS a lot of people could probably handhold at 1/8 at the wide end.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there. Quite frankly, I think the IS and VR thing is getting gimicky. I recently upgraded away from a VR lens into an f/2.8 - well worth the trade.
 
EF-S, gross. :eek:

Maybe if you only use 1.6x crop cameras. I would *never* spend that kind of money on an EF-S lens. Get the 16-35 L instead, IS is totally unneccesary at this focal length.
 
The 16-35 isn't quite long enough for a walkaround, and the 24-70 isn't quite wide enough. The 28-88 equivalent length is just about perfect. I'll be using my 20D for at least another 2 years, so it might be worth selling the 24-70 and getting this one.

As for the price, it seems right in line with the rest of Canon's f/2.8 zooms and Nikon's cropped 17-55 f/2.8. We'll see how it performs optically, but right now I'm cautiously optimistic about it.

The IS is just gravy; I'd be psyched about the lens even if it didn't have IS. That being said, I can't always pack my tripod or set it up indoors, so the IS won't hurt.
 
You know, the lens donet need to have a 1000000000mm focal length just ot have IS. There are many instances where I could have used IS on my 17-40. It helps for when you dont have a tripod, and for me, that is alomst all the time. Plus, the lens already has a good aperature, so its a double bonus. I'm sure if I got that lens I would use the IS fairly often. You really never know when it could come in handy :]
 
Hooker said:
You know, the lens donet need to have a 1000000000mm focal length just ot have IS. There are many instances where I could have used IS on my 17-40. It helps for when you dont have a tripod, and for me, that is alomst all the time. Plus, the lens already has a good aperature, so its a double bonus. I'm sure if I got that lens I would use the IS fairly often. You really never know when it could come in handy :]
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is, if you can't get a fast enough shutter at the wide end with that aperture, it's probably gonna be so slow that you'll get motion blur from the subjects anyways. Maybe for stationary objects, when you *must* go handheld in bad light. That or if you wanna bump down the aperture a bit. Still, for me, I have film EOS cameras, and very possibly could own the 5d in the near future, I can't justify this EF-S mount. *especially* at 1100 for the lens.
 
DrNigel said:
All I'm saying is, if you can't get a fast enough shutter at the wide end with that aperture, it's probably gonna be so slow that you'll get motion blur from the subjects anyways. Maybe for stationary objects, when you *must* go handheld in bad light. That or if you wanna bump down the aperture a bit. Still, for me, I have film EOS cameras, and very possibly could own the 5d in the near future, I can't justify this EF-S mount. *especially* at 1100 for the lens.
Click to expand...

I agree but disagree. The problem is with large wide angle prints steady is the most important feature so with Mirror lock up, IS, you can pull off a great hand held shot.

On the other hand I dont like EF-S lenses I like FF lenses for the fact once FF body come down in price all the EF-S lenses will be useless but I think that they will be around for the next 5-10 years so they may be worth it to people ho need a zoom lens in that range
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top