where the heck those Lenses

[AjP]

Dang, where they are????? Canon 17-55 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8.... no one has it on stock, no reviews... dang it

[Jake]

Here is a test of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm

[JohnT]

Have you ruled out the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? It's a good lens, and you'll probably find one in stock somewhere.

[AjP]

No, I didn't ruled Sigma.. but the reason for Canon is IS, really would like to see what people saying and of cause wider is better, I already have 24-70...so I'm looking either 17 or 16 wide, might go with 16-35 so, but Tamron version suppose to be interesting considering price apr 450-500

[bbailey]

Just a heads up - the Canon 17-55 shows as in stock at B&H: Link

[satyr]

Camera Co-Op in houston had two of the canons in stock day before yesterday.

[cmalana]

If I were you, I'd get a used 10-22 and use that as your wide angle...17 is a bit different than 24 but not THAT much different.

[AjP]

I as actually thinking about getting 17-50 or 55 and with 70-200 it going to be only 2 lenses instead 3.. the n sell my 24-70.....15mm gap between 2 lenses is not too big a deal. IMHO

[cmalana]

In that case, that's not a bad strategy either.

17-55 and 70-200 both with IS will be enough lens to adequately cover weddings. You can always throw in the primes but between 17-200, you'll be just fine. You can have the lenses attached to 2 camera bodies and you're always ready.

[AjP]

yup, that is my thought right now...just waiting on reviews on Canon and Tamron so I can make a decision which one to get, since Tamron is about 450. and Canon about 1200

[Glen_A]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

Here is a test of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm

Wow, that review of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is most impressive. Performance is definately L quality even if the build isn't quite there. Looks like it is excellent wide open at all focal lengths. Just what I need, another lens I can't afford to drool over. I know alot of people may think that the IS isn't necessary on a lens this fast but I can see where it would be a great help sometimes. On another forum I saw a beautiful picture of Notre Dame Basilica in Monteal Quebec that the poster had taken. No tripods were allowed. He rested his 10D with a 16-35 F2.8L on the back of a church pew for the photo. Exposure time was like a full second or more. I can see this as a great Catholic Church Wedding Lens.

[AjP]

yes indeed, it looks like great lens.. the only thing is it made only for 20-30D... can't use it on Mark or 5D
Cameras change, lenses stay for long time .....hmmmmm

[cmalana]

Also the Rebel, and rebel xt...

[EOC_Jason]

Originally Posted by AjP

... then n sell my 24-70.....

Blasphemy! How could one ever consider selling a 24-70 L?!?!

On a more serious note though in response to your other point about camers changing but lenses lasting longer... That is very true, and one reason I shy away from expensive EF-S models and stick to EF. Who really knows what Canon will do 5 years down the road, they might continue to expand the EF-S lenses & Camers, or they could kill it off all together and say "sorry" to everyone.

[AndrewCCM]

I use the 24-70 and the 70-200IS F2.8 for weddings nearly exclusively. Wonderful combination. I honestly cannot think of an instance where I feel I need IS at a wide focal length. It would be nice I suppose, just not worth the $ to me...unless...I didn't already own the 24-70 on a 5D. 24 on full frame has me covered. I agree with the above poster too, I just can't get myself to buy an EF-S lens, even for my 20D's...If you get it, let us know how it works for you..

Good luck,

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media