Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
OP Tomm Regular Member • Posts: 285
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Anthony de Vries wrote:

Funny that you consider the vignetting a "HUGE" problem. The lens
is nothing worse than any EF lens does on FF camera's... You've
just been spoiled by the crop factor effects on EF lenses.

I think your price reasoning is hilarious.

A full stop differnce means that for price, you would have to
compare it with the 16-35L. That one is allready 1450 euro. Add
in some 300 for IS, and another 300 for the longer range, and a FF
EF-17-55 IS would go for a 2050 euro. At 'only' 1099 the EF-S
could be considered cheap!

Actually, there's a good example already exists for adding a stop and IS: 70-200/f4 (~$600) vs 70-200/f2.8 (~$1200). Since 17-40 is just a little more expensive than 70-200/f4, and since they're all L lenses, a good initial guess price for a Canon 17-40/f2.8 L IS USM lens would be ~$1300. Now add $300 for the extra 15mm, like you suggested, and we're at $1600. Now take $500 away for the lack of weather sealing, internal zoom, metal exterior, and red ring paint. Take another $100 for the apparent lack of proper flare-controlling coatings. Take another $100 for the missing accessories (hood, bag). And now you're down to $900. Finally, I personally feel that there should be some discount for EF-S lenses, so if you deduct another $100 and throw in the hood, you get my estimate of $800 + free hood. Of course, Canon has so far shown that they're not really discounting EF-S. But even then, $900 seems about the right place to be.

  • Tomm

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow