Need advice on lens choices

[quattrophinia]

I agree with you Madison, I have already decided to get it as it gets killer reviews. Some people wonder why it's not an L lens, only Canon knows...


[]

[Rob Gardner]

Apparently, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon will not call any EF-S lens a "L" lens because it does not fit on full frame or 1.3x crop cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S is a "L" lens in terms of optical quality.

[quattrophinia]

Interesting, thanks..

[greggf]

I also have had both before I switched to FF, and I do like the 17-55, BUT, is it really worth more than TWICE the Tamron?? If you look at Brian's ISO comparisons, the Tamron is actually just as sharp or sharper at almost all comparable settings....which leads me to believe that is the Tamron is a great lens for the price. Sure you lose IS, which I like very much....in these hard times, think in my own opinion, that I would like to save $400-500 on a lens to keep for other things-i.e., flash, prime, or to keep a little something in my pocket. Just my two cents...G

[Madison]

For me, the IS alone is worth the difference. As is the build quality. But you're right: those choices are so personal and differ between people.
The price difference is quite big. Tamron is great for the price, and you could invest in an extra prime. True With economic problems everywhere, I canno judge if anybody should or could afford to spend the cash on the 17-55.
I did, and never regretted it. The Tamron had less real world oomph than the 17-55 had for me. Perhaps I had a bad copy. It happened with a 24-105 as well.





One thing that did bug me about the 17-55 was the amount of dust that gathered inside the lens. I had it cleand out twice.





I do wish Canon would make the 17-55 2.8 IS with that quality for a full frame however. It is the one lens I still miss occasionally because I was so used to it. It was my walkaround for quite a while before switching to FF (that turned my 24-105 into my walkaround).

[greggf]

to , Madison and the original poster....that is also why i recommended the Canon 17-40L...it is a great lens, has top notch build quality, superior optics, although you lose a stop. But I don't think that matters to much on a walk-around(which the 17-40 would be on a crop), as it compares to my 28-70L, whick typically i don't use at 2.8, unless absolutely a must, or I want just a little more bokeh. You can find the 17-40 for just around$500, used on ebay or Craigslist.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Apparently, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon will not call any EF-S lens a "L" lens because it does not fit on full frame or 1.3x crop cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S is a "L" lens in terms of optical quality.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Really? Why did they make an exception for the Powershot Pro1's lens? I've never heard of anyone using it on a full frame, and it was an "L". BTW, I'd love to see a Powershot Pro2.

[dancam]

To the OP, this is an obvious choice, as stated by the rest of the posters here. Get the 70-200L and you won't look back. Especially since you stated that you primarily shoot landscape. You don't need 2.8, the IS is top notch, and the IQ is incredible.

[quattrophinia]

Thank you dancam... that's the one...

[Daniel Browning]

Why did they make an exception for the Powershot Pro1's lens?

They did it also for their video cameras. My guess is that the digicam, DSLR, and video each have their own marketing division and each get to choose when and where to use the "L" marketing tool. Chuck Westfall's comments likely only apply to the marketing division that he is in: DSLR, where it's been decided to only use it for full-frame lenses. Personally, I think Canon would make more money if they relaxed that marketing restriction, but it doesn't really matter to me how much money Canon makes.