Quote Originally Posted by coastalkid88
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


Quote Originally Posted by Bryan
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.