I like the latest comment. Something to the effect of"You're right, that's probably the best use of a Nikon lens".
fail.
- It's just a puny EF-S, it's not even an L lens.
- I would hate to think how much gunk would accumulate in all those crevices. Bet you it's not weather sealed.
- Photographers would inundate the forums asking which brand UV filter they need to protect their coffee.
- A handle? Shouldn't that be a tripod mount instead?
[][C]
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Puny? Last time I checked, the optics on the EF-S 17-55 were on par with L glass. []
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]
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.
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.
lol, nobody comes anywhere near my camera so this is a moot point
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
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
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote