17-55 is not all that ...

Started May 8, 2007 | Discussions thread
Howardtheduck
Junior MemberPosts: 45
Like?
Re: 17-55 is not all that ...
In reply to leolo, Sep 14, 2007

leolo wrote:

So I've had it for about a week, the infamous 17-55 mm 'beast' that
is ...
I have read many slagging Ken Rockwell for under reviewing this lens,
essential saying its not worth it, myself being a camera stores dream
will buy it just because its more expensive, and so I finally decided
to ignore Ken Rockwell and go with some of the others claims that its
the one to have ...

Ok, its a nice lens, heavy!, but nice ... solid, the color is nice,
but really, not much better then the 18-200... the 2.8 is a nice
feature, and not for the low light aspect but for the shallow depth
of field, but really I'm battling with whether to keep it. I think i
may just return it and get the sb800 or 600 ... and something else …
a cheaper lens maybe like the 105 micro or the 50mm 1.8.

-- hide signature --

I have 2 things to say, You need to learn how to use your camera or you have a bad copy, There is no way you can compare the 18-200 to the 17-55. Just no way.

-- hide signature --

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Not.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow