| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2006 05:09:49 PM · #1 |
I do.
1200 dollars? gotta get a job.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 05:53:26 PM · #2 |
| I do too. And I have a job, but that money could buy me a new bike, a battery grip, a flash or two and a fisheye lens :P |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 05:59:05 PM · #3 |
I personally don't know if it's worth more than two times the price of Sigma's 18-50 EX DC f2.8 or the upcoming Tamron's 17-50 DiII f2.8.
I really don't like the 18-50 range zoom on cropped sensors. I don't think it's wide enough for dramatic landscape shots nor is it long enough for much portrait work.
If I was going for a do it all one lens solution, I'd go for the 17-85 range. Otherwise, I'd go for an ultrawide like a 10-22 and a 24-70. This is a much more versatile combo.
Currently, I'd get the Sigma versions, 10-20mm and 24-70, they together would cost "only" about $1000, which is still cheaper than the 17-50mm f2.8 IS lens.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 06:06:35 PM · #4 |
$1200? And it's not even L glass!
Range? on a 1.6x crop the 17-50 is like a 28-75 on a FF sensor. I can't see using a 28-75 on a 1.6x.
If you need 2.8, the choices are limited - the sigma 18-50 2.8 ($500).
Upcoming are the sigma 17-70 2.8-4, tamron 17-55 or something in a 2.8, and now the overpriced canon lens.
Sorry, but $1150 when the competition is at $500 or less is just raping and pillaging a consumer.
As for IS...you don't need it in a 17mm 2.8 lens folks. It'll enable you to handhld at what, 1/6 sec or something? Can you? Do you want to? Can you afford to ?
Range wise, the 17-85 is not primo glass nor constant ap nor fast..so it is for another market entirely.
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 18:07:18.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 06:41:29 PM · #5 |
I have the 17-85mm IS lens and like it a lot for its range. But I end up using my Tamron 28-75 simply because of the fixed 2.8. And I'd use the Tamron more, except that sometimes 28mm just isn't wide enough.
So what I really would have liked to see would have been a 17-85 f/2.8 lens. Then I could have replaced both my Tamron and my current 17-85 lens having the best of both worlds in a single lens!
Is there another alternative out there? (f/2.8 with a 17-85 range?)
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 07:29:58 PM · #6 |
An EF-S for more than a grand? Sorry, I'll save my money for "L" lenses.
I was hoping for a 24-70L IS. |
|
|
|
02/22/2006 01:18:24 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
An EF-S for more than a grand? Sorry, I'll save my money for "L" lenses.
I was hoping for a 24-70L IS. |
Ah..... the 10D can't even use EF-S mount lenses anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2006 01:30:53 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I have the 17-85mm IS lens and like it a lot for its range. But I end up using my Tamron 28-75 simply because of the fixed 2.8. And I'd use the Tamron more, except that sometimes 28mm just isn't wide enough.
So what I really would have liked to see would have been a 17-85 f/2.8 lens. Then I could have replaced both my Tamron and my current 17-85 lens having the best of both worlds in a single lens!
Is there another alternative out there? (f/2.8 with a 17-85 range?) |
sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is probably the closest
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 09:51:51 AM EDT.
