[tmfwy]

Originally Posted by Klose

The 17-55 is a waste of money. 24-70L.

Klose

Not true..

Each with their personal preference.
I find the 17-55 F2.8IS of more use to me on travel trips than a 28-70mm.

[tmfwy]

Originally Posted by tarui04

why only canon?

Coz me only Canon user.

[iexist]

Originally Posted by tmfwy

Klose

Not true..

Each with their personal preference.
I find the 17-55 F2.8IS of more use to me on travel trips than a 28-70mm.

24-70L. It's the case of optical quality and colours.

[tmfwy]

Originally Posted by Klose

24-70L. It's the case of optical quality and colours.

Lol. It's true that it has good optical quality and colours, but it does not have a wide angle, nor does it have IS. Good range though.

What attracted me to the 17-55, rather than the 24-70, is the Image Stabiliser, and the Wide angle option

I know, you might be saying. Get a 24-70 + 10-22, but, for travelling, packing light is a major concern. Its the same reason why some people pack a 70-300IS rather than a 70-200 F2.8 IS with TC. If one lens can do the job, its preferred.

For your case, its the 24-70. For the reasons you have.

Still, if it was a waste of money. it wouldn't be that hot, wouldn't it.

[iexist]

For travelling the 17-40 is a better option. You may think I'm L crazy but think about this. If it was that good, why is it EFS and not EF. Before canon launches new lenses, they normally send test samples of lenses and cameras to pro's for their opinion and feedback.

Also take the info shared in CS with a pinch of salt. Most of them are equipment junkies and not photographers. Fredmiranda and Photo Net is the place to learn.

[tmfwy]

Originally Posted by Klose

For travelling the 17-40 is a better option. You may think I'm L crazy but think about this. If it was that good, why is it EFS and not EF. Before canon launches new lenses, they normally send test samples of lenses and cameras to pro's for their opinion and feedback.

Also take the info shared in CS with a pinch of salt. Most of them are equipment junkies and not photographers. Fredmiranda and Photo Net is the place to learn.

Klose

Don't worry I never base my decisions on ClubSnap
FredMiranda
PhotoZone.de
are my guidelines. They have a wider range of opinions.

Try to do some reading up and listen to the grapevine.
The 17-55mm is a hidden L lens, a wolf in sheep clothing. It delivers L quality and has a characteristic of an L lens ( minimum UD glass / fluorite crystall.etc ). its also sharper than the 17-40L and 16-35L!!

Now, it CANNOT be called an L lens coz
1. Its EF-S ( L lenses are supposed to be professionally used, and as such, must be able to be mounted on any EOS system
2. Its build. Plastic compared to metal mount.

For an EF lens to be of a similar specification, it will be well above $3500, if you do some comparisons, and will be dang big. Maybe 82mm at least.

Its basically a marketing ploy. You pay L prices for an EF-S lens, which suffers only in terms of build, yet whose performance exceeds many L class lens.
You get a lighter body, an extra 20mm, and IS compared to the 16-35. And is cheaper to boot. If its Build that needs to be sacrificed, then I'm ok with it.

Even the 70-300IS ( which is not an L ), delivers a sharper picture compared to the 70-200 F4L.
Some lenses, even when they are not L, can exceed L quality

Well, maybe you can call me an avid IS fan. But I'm more towards practical lenses, where versatility rules.

For amateurs
17-85IS vs 17-40L - I chose 17-85 for its reach and IS.
17-55IS vs 16-35L - I chose 17-55 for its reach and IS.

I only choose what you need and can afford at the moment, and not because its an "L".
If it is superior to an L and cheaper, i'd definitely recommend it to anyone. In fact, I managed to sway 3 other friends from purchasing a 16-35mm F2.8L, just after showing them what the 17-55mm can do.

For the full frame argument, I do not see myself upgrading to a full frame camera in the near future. Even if i do, one can simply sell/trade the lens away for the EF equivalent.

[iexist]

Originally Posted by tmfwy

Try to do some reading up and listen to the grapevine.
The 17-55mm is a hidden L lens, a wolf in sheep clothing. It delivers L quality and has a characteristic of an L lens ( minimum UD glass / fluorite crystall.etc ). its also sharper than the 17-40L and 16-35L!!

It's a good lens. I know it. I have borrowed it to cover a few shoots before. BUT, there are CONs. The flare is terrible for late evening shots. Worst than the 17-85. Vignetting is evident in late evening shots at 2.8. For a newbie, yes it's a good lens but once you turn it from a hobby to a job. It's a nono. For the price you pay and getting sh!t build quality... it aint worth it.

Originally Posted by tmfwy

Well, maybe you can call me an avid IS fan. But I'm more towards practical lenses, where versatility rules.

I'm more towards making images and making clients happy.

[tmfwy]

Yeah.

Well, different people, different preferences. That's the good part of DSLRs.

binoculars online shop?

which? any powerful model?

[XTimX]

wahhh so cheem

[totoro17]

Walkabout: Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM $450 / <$300
or
Fast: Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO (Model A09) $610 / $450

what do you mean by Walkabout and Fast lens? When is it used for? Can tell me more about it?

[buaya]

Originally Posted by totoro17

what do you mean by Walkabout and Fast lens? When is it used for? Can tell me more about it?

walk about lens - a lens which generally covers a decent zoom range, and light weight. a lens which you'll be using it mostly for general purpose, trips, casual outings.

fast lens - lens with lower aperture value "f number". low aperture value: brighter, shallower depth of field (DOF). however, lenses with low aperture value tend to cost more.

[totoro17]

Sigma 70-300m F4-5.6mm Macro or Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III which is a better choice?

[buaya]

Originally Posted by totoro17

Sigma 70-300m F4-5.6mm Macro or Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III which is a better choice?

both about the same image quality leh =/

[totoro17]

Originally Posted by buaya

both about the same image quality leh =/

i haven been trying to find out what APO means but to no avail. It puts Macro...is it really good in macro? or just a marketing gimmick? can it be consider as macro lens?

so how? which one I should go for? Sigma 70-300mm APO DG macro lens or Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III or Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM