File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have to say this lens is really awkward to use. :f

It extends when zooming out to 24mm and is fully retracted when at 70mm. Very weird when you see it in action without the hood mounted.

Yes, I realize this is optimized so the hood is functional for all focal lengths. Just saying it gets some getting used to.

This is one heavy fucker. But I think it's just awkward to hold on a small body like the XTi. I get along great with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Maybe I just don't like where the zoom ring is positioned, feels too close to the body and it's not wide enough to my liking.

The 24-105 and the 17-55 both feel great to me, maybe I'll get used to this one after a while.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerHercules RockefellerMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:08:30 02:13:17Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height683RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
And....?
>> Anonymous
I hear it gets even sharper if you slide it slowly against some fine grit sand paper.
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
>>245377
i got a chance to use one of these lenses a little while ago on my XTi and i didn't like it much at all. very heavy and just felt unnatural (although part of that may be just that i am a primefag). would not buy for myself
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>245525
Yeah, me too. It's tough to take the camera outside when it's xbox huge. You just look like a big camera dork. And for the price, you can pick up 3 nice primes that cover the range and are quite a bit faster.
>> Anonymous
>>245525
>>245527

lol @ poorfags
>> Anonymous
>>245546
I'd rather be poor than stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>245550I'd rather be poor than stupid.

that's pretty stupid
>> Anonymous
>>245377
Its not supposed to look good. Its supposed to be used to take great images.

I don't personally like it either. Its not a lense i would rank a must have.
>> Anonymous
holy shit, what the fuck? $1200

the 17-55 is also f/2.8 and has IS and it's fucking $200 less

this shit is bullshit
>> Anonymous
>>245680
It doesn't make a image circle of the same size so they're quite far from each other in optical construction.

The 17-55 is alot more costy for what it's optical construction is than the 24-70 is.

Also, IS is for fags.
>> Anonymous
>>245916The 17-55 is alot more costy for what it's optical construction is than the 24-70 is.

rofl what?

$1000 > $1200

awesome logic is awesome
>> Anonymous
>>245946
You sir are an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>246037

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=el
ectronics&qid=1220221791&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WT/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&
s=electronics&qid=1220221800&sr=8-1