Any canon L wide lens on the horizon?

11/13/2007 12:15:51 PM · #1

Is there an image stabilised L lens closer to 17-55mm on the horizon?
Also! How does the 17-40L compare sharpwise to the 40-105L

11/13/2007 12:33:32 PM · #2

FWIW, image-quality wise they might just as well have given the 17-55 an L.

11/13/2007 01:20:03 PM · #3

The only reason the 17-55 IS isn't an L is because it's an EF-S lens. The image quality is right up there with the red stripes.

11/13/2007 02:03:33 PM · #4

Apart from the EF-S could the lacking water sealing not be another reason? But then that only comes into play on the 1 series, so EF-S makes sense.
Anyway, I love it, incredibly versatile.

11/13/2007 02:07:33 PM · #5

Originally posted by gloda:

...that only comes into play on the 1 series, so EF-S makes sense.

Exactly. There's little point in making a water resistant lens that only fits non-water resistant cameras.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

11/13/2007 02:12:22 PM · #6

weather sealing doesn't come into play when designating a lens L. There are LOTS of L lenses without water sealing.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/13/2007 02:56:23 PM · #7

Originally posted by kyebosh:

There are LOTS of L lenses without water sealing.

In those cases, the L represents Leak. ;-)

soup

Canon EOS-30D

11/13/2007 02:58:44 PM · #8

was that snarky... ?

;}

Originally posted by scalvert:

In those cases, the L represents Leak. ;-)

11/13/2007 02:59:50 PM · #9

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by gloda:
...that only comes into play on the 1 series, so EF-S makes sense.

Exactly. There's little point in making a water resistant lens that only fits non-water resistant cameras.

Does that mean the 24-105l cant fit the rebel xt?

11/13/2007 03:02:21 PM · #10

Originally posted by dmadden:

Does that mean the 24-105l cant fit the rebel xt?

ALL EF lenses will fit the Rebel XT (including the 24-105), but EF-S lenses are designed for smaller sensors and will not work with full frame or 1.3X cameras (the pro models). IF the 24-105 had been an EF-S lens, then it probably wouldn't be water resistant since the only water resistant cameras (the pro models) wouldn't be able to use it. Make sense?

Message edited by author 2007-11-13 15:05:32.

bfox2

11/13/2007 03:09:41 PM · #11

Doesn't the 40D have weather sealing like the pro models?

11/13/2007 03:10:33 PM · #12

EF-S! ok i get it. Like the DA for pentax apsc. How does the 17-40L compare to the 17-55ef-s? Is the 17-55 sharper?

11/13/2007 03:13:04 PM · #13

Originally posted by bfox2:

Doesn't the 40D have weather sealing like the pro models?

No. Only the battery compartment and CF door are sealed, not the buttons or lens mount. :-/

11/13/2007 03:14:08 PM · #14

Originally posted by dmadden:

How does the 17-40L compare to the 17-55ef-s?

I would expect similar sharpness, but the 17-55 is faster, stabilized, and offers more zoom range.

11/13/2007 03:19:47 PM · #15

Comparison:
17-40mm 4.0 500g USM L
17-55mm 2.8 645g USM IS

Message edited by author 2007-11-13 16:52:18.

11/13/2007 03:20:25 PM · #16

Sharpness-wise I have no means of comparison, but you'll probably find good reviews of both.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/13/2007 03:23:50 PM · #17

Originally posted by gloda:

Comparison:
17-40mm 2.8 500g USM L
17-55mm 4.0 645g USM IS

You haved those backwards.

17-40mm = f/4
17-55mm = f/2.8 IS

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

11/13/2007 03:25:14 PM · #18

[quote=gloda] Comparison:
17-40mm 2.8 500g USM L
17-55mm 4.0 645g USM IS [/quote/]
I pretty sure the 17-40 USM L only comes in f/4. If you want the 2.8 it comes in the 16-35 f/2.8 USM L and it runs about $1400.

11/13/2007 03:41:10 PM · #19

The dust that's sucked into the camera from constant zooming can be annoying. So I'd prefer a sealed lens. Is the tokina 12-24 a sealed lens? because it would complement the canon 24-105L nicely.

11/13/2007 04:52:00 PM · #20

Oops, sorry guys, I'll fix that.

11/13/2007 05:03:16 PM · #21

Originally posted by dmadden:

Is the tokina 12-24 a sealed lens?

No, but don't worry about it. Even weatherproof L lenses can get dust inside them, and it would take a lot of dust to affect image quality anyway. A few specks bothers you far more than it affects the camera.

11/13/2007 07:52:07 PM · #22

Oh... I think the bokeh challenge might be the first time where lens dust has ever really become noticeable for me. The bokeh shapes have some dust in them that doesn't correspond to sensor dust, and isn't visible anywhere else in the photo. Other than that, I've never really noticed anything the like in any photos. It would be interesting to know though why it appears just then.

11/13/2007 09:40:07 PM · #23

Originally posted by gloda:

Oh... I think the bokeh challenge might be the first time where lens dust has ever really become noticeable for me.

A bokeh photo is the last place you'd ever see internal lens dust (if ever). Dust on the lens itself is too far out of focus to be visible at all, and the shallow DOF required for bokeh would make it impossible to see something like that.

11/14/2007 03:58:54 PM · #24

Scalvert, since you're SC I might send you the same file I sent by ticket to Ursula, perhaps you can tell me what the dust in the shot is?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5