View Full Version : 17-55mm f/2.8 **L** IS USM Lens
Are we going to see this one anytime soon? What do you think?
Or at least, will we get a 24-70mm f/2.8 L **IS** USM soon?
I really think that it's about time that we get at least one of these... that would be sweet [:D]
Tom Wertman
01-02-2009, 12:26 PM
I have the 17-55 2.8 and it is so close to a L lens I doubt Canon would see much of a market for a "perceived" upgrade. I shoot weddings with it and when comparing print IQ to the 24-105 f/4.0L which I also use, people can't see a difference.
Yeah, but I want the build quality and weather sealing of an L lens :P
(and the nice red line - I must admit it lol)
Matt P
01-02-2009, 01:16 PM
I want to see a 17-85 2.8 L. The 17-55 isn't long enough to match my 70-200, and the 24-70 or 24-105 aren't wide enough, and I don't feel like carying around (not to mention changing) more than 2 lenses.
abadlovesong
01-02-2009, 04:48 PM
i'm with matt on this, i would love to see a 17-85mm f2.8, with better IQ than the current 17-85mm. But it probably won't happen, because a walk around lens, it would more than likely be too large and heavy. Then again, the 17-55mm isn't as heavy as the 24-70mm. So, it may be do-able. Heck, i'd even take a 17-85mm f4 constant aperture that performed as well as the 17-55mm in terms of image quality.
I of course I agree too, but it just sounds less possible.
I want to see a 17-85 2.8 L. The 17-55 isn't long enough to match my 70-200, and the 24-70 or 24-105 aren't wide enough, and I don't feel like carying around (not to mention changing) more than 2 lenses.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
I'd much rather see an EF-S version of the 70-200 series...sorta like the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8, except without the CA and with IS and USM. I think Canon could make that lens with awesome image quality, and it would match up very well with the 17-55 f/2.8.
The problem is, while 17-85 is a great range, it is 5x zoom. The current state of the art in lens design doesn't really allow for a handholdable 5x f/2.8 zoom...MAYBE it would work at f/4, but even that's a bit of a stretch. The current EF-S 17-85 is a compromise lens...you get an ideal single-lens range for a crop body, but at the expense of variable aperture, sub-par wide-open performance, and noticable distortion.
Jean-Francois
01-03-2009, 05:49 AM
I apply for EF-S 17-85 f/4 L constant and especially for an EF-S primes collection.
My 17-55 is great but the long end is short outside (or the short end [H]) and too much heavy for a confortable walk carried by the strap. I really prefer a few little prime barrels into my pockets. I tend to use it at 17 or 55.
But they will never be released. Prime's are reserved 24x36 market. Those 24x36 are definitely over marginned. 5-6x the price of a good APS DSLR. It's still too much.
For the 17-85 II (false L), it's still possible...
Matt P
01-03-2009, 11:03 AM
Why would you want an EF-S 70-200? There are 4 amazing EF ones! You may be right about a 2.8 5x lens, but look how far lens tech has come in 5 years, 10 years ago who would have thought we could focus on a dime and stop camera shake all in a tiny lens.
Matt P
01-03-2009, 11:03 AM
Why would you want an EF-S 70-200? There are 4 amazing EF ones! You may be right about a 2.8 5x lens, but look how far lens tech has come in 5 years, 10 years ago who would have thought we could focus on a dime and stop camera shake all in a tiny lens.
Jean-Francois
01-03-2009, 02:18 PM
May be he would prefer not to pay the extra image circle of the 24x36 format...
Why would you want an EF-S 70-200? There are 4 amazing EF ones! You may be right about a 2.8 5x lens, but look how far lens tech has come in 5 years, 10 years ago who would have thought we could focus on a dime and stop camera shake all in a tiny lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
First of all, I wasn't looking for an EF-S 70-200...I am looking for an EF-S *equivalent* to a 70-200 that matches up to the 17-55, the way the 70-200s match up to the 24-70 L. The 17-55 has a field of view similar to a full-frame 28-90 lens...an EF-S 50-150 would have a field of view equivalent to a full-frame 80-240, and I suspect a high-quality EF-S 50-150 f/2.8 IS USM wouldn't weigh much more than a 70-200 f/4. That's a lens I'd pay a lot of money for, if I had money to spend on camera gear :)
Mr Chad
01-04-2009, 11:11 PM
Since no APS-C (EFS) body 30D, 40D, 50D etc. yet supports a true robust weather seal the L build treatment might be moot. If you really desire L in asimilarfocal length try the 16-35L or 17-40L.
I've used a 17-40L as my general lens for a long time on my 30D and then 40D prior to buying a 17-55 EFS. I currently use the 16-35L on my 40D from time to time. 9 out of 10 days it's very difficult to tell these 3 lenses apart in use - save for the constant type length of the L's. Of all 3 I think the 17-40L was actually my favorite, it's also the least expensive if you can forgo the stop.
abadlovesong
01-06-2009, 01:07 PM
The problem is, while 17-85 is a great range, it is 5x zoom. The current state of the art in lens design doesn't really allow for a handholdable 5x f/2.8 zoom...MAYBE it would work at f/4, but even that's a bit of a stretch. The current EF-S 17-85 is a compromise lens...you get an ideal single-lens range for a crop body, but at the expense of variable aperture, sub-par wide-open performance, and noticable distortion.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
i'm not too convinced that a f2.8 version of the 17-85mm, even a f4.0 version, isn't entirely possible. Canon currently makes an L series 10.1x zoom lens. The 28-300mm. it does compromise on a few things, esp. a fixed max aperture. Also, the lens is very large, very heavy. While i think if canon did produce a meager 5x zoom at f4.0, it'd only be slightly larger than the 24-105mm, itself sitting at slightly more than 4x. The tricky thing would be to produce a f2.8 version. It would be large and heavy, much more than the 24-70mm. But it wouldbenowhere near the size of the 28-300mm.
Sinh Nhut Nguyen
01-07-2009, 01:48 PM
How about EF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM? This lens will eliminate all the "I can't decide between 24-105 f/4L IS and 24-70 f/2.8L"[:)] posts. 17-105 f/2.8L ISsounds better but that will cut the sale of Canon's other ultra wide lenses like the 16-35 and 17-40.
The price would have to be doubled, and probably even more.
This sounds impossible... practically.
Jarhead5811
01-07-2009, 08:54 PM
I'll keep my wish simple a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM L. Just add IS to a fineexisting lens. I feelsure we'll see one eventually but just how long will they take getting around to it?
(Probably right after I settle for something else!)
once every canon lens shares the quality of the 70-200 f4 IS lens I'll be quite happy.
(Probably right after I settle for something else!)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Yeah... as always - I hate when it happens [:(]