Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
OP Tomm Regular Member • Posts: 285
Re: Mistake in calculations

Oops. You're right. I did take the +$100 into account ($600 vs $700) but momentarily forgot that the 70-200/2.8 comes in IS and non-IS varieties. Well, so maybe that's where the extra $300 comes from. I'll just keep telling myself that if I decide to swing toward the 17-55.

  • Tomm

mfurman wrote:

70-200 f/2.8 L IS is almost $1700. You are comparing f/2.8 L price
and not including cost of IS in calculations. By the way 17-40
f/4.0L is $100 more exoensive than 70-200 f/4.0L (17%)
--
Michael

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