New EF-S lens???

[MattG]

I'm going to purchase the 17-55 lens within the week but I am undecided whether or not to also get the 70-200 2.8L IS. I have a T1i (well for know - the T2i is very interesting) and figured I would stick with EF or EF-S lenses considering that I wont benefit from FF. I dnt see myself going FF anytime soon. 7D would be the most.


I love a fast lens with great IQ - can't resist (within reason)


Has anyone heard of a future equivalent to the 70-200 2.8 L w/IS range in an EF-S (comparable to an L IQ) format lens? I am hoping canon starts to recognize the need for more product like the 17-55 and the 10-22. I am unaware of any.





thanks - the wait is killing me.





MattG

[mbaltrusitis]

I have not heard anything about an EF-S 70-200mm lens. Why do you not want to get a non-EF-S lens?

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Welcome to the Digital Picture Forums, Matt.


Canon makes 4 great 70-200s, prices ranging from $650 to $1800. I see no reason they would make another one in EF-S mountwith f/2.8and Image Stabilizer.


Regarding the common question of "Has any one heard ofa new Canon lens (body)?" The answer is "those who knowwon't telland those who tell don't know" My adviceto you is that if you need a lens or a camera, you should get whatever available now. Remember our ultimate goals as photographers are capturing the momments, reserving memories and creating arts. Get that camera or lens now and start shooting, if you wait for that lens which may or may not be made you will miss all of the opportunities.

[MattG]

Thanks for the feedback. I am not against an L lense as they are fantastic just looking to keep my sending in check. I seem to have become slightly addicted. The camera store is a dangerous place for me . I was only hoping the price would be slightly lower, like the 17-55 vs 24-70. I hear what you are saying but I have a few months before my trip to Spain which is what i ramping up for.

If nothing comes up before then well I'll just have to buy the L. Not the worst thing that could happen

Thanks!

[Daniel Browning]

Has anyone heard of a future equivalent to the 70-200 2.8 L w/IS range in an EF-S (comparable to an L IQ) format lens?

I have not heard anything. For lenses that long, there is not as much benefit in restricting it to APS-C only -- cost is only slightly cheaper for the same quality. It's the wide angle lenses that really benefit from being made EF-S only. I think your only difficult choice will be deciding between the Mark I or Mark II version of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. []

[Steven23]

If possible i would get the 16-35f/2.8 or the 17-40f/4 i know you lose out on the IS but you'll have sharper images, plus you'll be able to upgrade to FF when possible. Since your going to Spain i think its more important to carry just 1 lens, by keeping the lowest profile possible and insurance that covers left/damage over seas. If you can only take 1 lens but don't mind the EF-s 18-200f/3.5-5.6 IS is an ok choice some barrel distortion at wide angle. Just the idea of losing an L lens over seas without protect makes me ; ;. 70-200/f4 IS will suit you fine, the extra weight from 2.8 will be very heavy and your arms will be dead half way threw the day. Don't see a very good reason to need the 2.8 since you'll be outside when using it.(1.6 crop on 70-200 inside a bar/hotel ext isn't gonna do well when you need some wide angle). Again if i can only take 1 lens maybe 2 keep it hidden and keeping a low profile. I would take 18-200/f3.5-5.6 ef-s if just 1 lens. If 2 16-35/f2.8(for inside wide angle and extra stop of light might be needed) or 24-105/f4 IS and i would take a 70-200. But it depends where I'm going and where I'm at. Google should help give you an idea where you are going and help plan out what gear you need. Don't forget extra memory cards!

[HiFiGuy1]

Steven,


I normally agree with broader compatibility, all else being equal, but the thread starter stated he doesn't ever see himself going FF. In this case, the 17-55 will be a better choice than either the 16-35 or 17-40 (which I own). It is as fast as the 16-35, as wide as either, and longer than both, all while having IS. Arguably, it is also as sharp or sharper than either of the other two, especially on an APS-C body.


It also leaves less of a gap to the wide end of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, which gives a two-lens combo of great flexibility, speed and image quality, from 17-200mm.

[Steven23]

Silly me, forgot he did say not going to FF. If no FF the 17-55 2.8 should do fine vs the 16-35 2.8 save about 500 bucks to.