coffee

[mattsartin]

this amused me


http://gizmodo.com/5050805/zoom-lens-coffee-mug-helps-keep-photographers-caffeinated

[HiFiGuy1]

I like the latest comment. Something to the effect of"You're right, that's probably the best use of a Nikon lens".

[wickerprints]

fail.

1. It's just a puny EF-S, it's not even an L lens.
2. I would hate to think how much gunk would accumulate in all those crevices. Bet you it's not weather sealed.
   
3. Photographers would inundate the forums asking which brand UV filter they need to protect their coffee.
4. A handle? Shouldn't that be a tripod mount instead?

[][C]

[alexniedra]

It's just a puny EF-S, it's not even an L lens

Puny? Last time I checked, the optics on the EF-S 17-55 were on par with L glass. []

[wickerprints]

It should really be an EF 400/2.8L IS, or an 800/5.6L IS. Imagine how much coffee you could have in one of those bad boys! [{][C][C][}][Y]

[Dan Fleming]

I would buy a lens-mug under the following conditions:


1. It holds 16oz or more, that means it needs to be a decent sized lens.


2. the handle was a tripod mount.


3. It had a fully sealing lid, so I could take it with me on shoots.


4. Said lid is either in the shape of a lens cap, or is glass like a filter.

[gbc]

I don't think i'd want it to look TOO much like a real lens. I can only imagine my horror if someone tried to attach this "lens" to my camera.

[coastalkid88]

Dear alexniedra

I agree that the optics on the the 17-55 are quite compareable. But the 24-70 will allway out perform the 17-55 let's just compare
The 24-70 is all metal, weather sealed, L series and fits all bodies including film.






As for the 17-55
Its plastic, not weather sealed It collects dust horribly!!, and only fits on the digital rebel and xxD series bodies


So let's think the only benifit of the 17-55 is the image stabilzer which is useless on a landscape lens cause you would use a tripod for that and the other is the price is cheaper
But in this case unless you are broke or just well d*#b t here is only one real choice that is the 24-70mm

Hope this gives you some insight into why canon makes L series lenses

Coastal kid88

[Dan Fleming]

As for the 17-55
Its plastic, not weather sealed It collects dust horribly!!, and only fits on the digital rebel and xxD series bodies
So let's think the only benifit of the 17-55 is the image stabilzer which is useless on a landscape lens cause you would use a tripod for that and the other is the price is cheaper
But in this case unless you are broke or just well d*#b t here is only one real choice that is the 24-70mm
Hope this gives you some insight into why canon makes L series lenses
Coastal kid88

Two things.



1) can I refer you to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx The opinion of the website owner widely differs with yours to the point that he says

This is the lens I keep mounted on my 1.6x body (currently a 50D) - I highly recommend it.

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

His opinions are highly reasoned and very detailed, so I give them some weight. Also I don't think he is either broke nor d*#b (which I believe to be symbolic for dumb).


2. Comparing the 17-55 to the 24-70 does not seem exactly fair. They are not designed for the same purpose! Compare the 17-55 to the 16-35 if you want. While we are at it, the same review I linked to above also compares the IQ and sharpness favorably to teh equivalent L series lenses. This includes the fact that there is a UD element in the lens, which is a feature normally reserved for L lenses.


Finally I am broke. I am in seminary at the moment and would be thrilled to have enough money to buy the 17-55, or the cheaper 17-40L. Heck, I would even be thrilled to be able to afford the Tamron 17-50. I would kindly ask you not to look down your nose at us who are broke and/or not smart enough to buy L glass.

[mattsartin]

i'll side with whatsreal on this one, however regardless of image quality or how expensive the lens is, its going to be difficult to shoot through all that coffee [:P]