17-55mm f/2.8 **L** IS USM Lens

[Jean-Francois]

May be he would prefer not to pay the extra image circle of the 24x36 format...

[adam]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tim]

The price would have to be doubled, and probably even more.

[Oren]

This sounds impossible... practically.

[Jarhead5811]

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!)

[Tim]

once every canon lens shares the quality of the 70-200 f4 IS lens I'll be quite happy.

[Oren]

(Probably right after I settle for something else!)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yeah... as always - I hate when it happens []