I have to say this lens is really awkward to use. :fIt 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
And....?
I hear it gets even sharper if you slide it slowly against some fine grit sand paper.
>>245377i 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
>>245525Yeah, 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.
>>245525>>245527lol @ poorfags
>>245546I'd rather be poor than stupid.
>>245550I'd rather be poor than stupid.that's pretty stupid
>>245377Its 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.
holy shit, what the fuck? $1200the 17-55 is also f/2.8 and has IS and it's fucking $200 lessthis shit is bullshit
>>245680It 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.
>>245916The 17-55 is alot more costy for what it's optical construction is than the 24-70 is.rofl what?$1000 > $1200awesome logic is awesome
>>245946You sir are an idiot.
>>246037http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1220221791&sr=8-1http://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