Hi all,
after several reports on dpreview.com concerning the optical weakness of the EF-S17-85USM I started wondering.
Optically, is it more difficult to make a decent 17-85 for the 1.6 crop factor than it is to make a 28-135 for 24x36mm?
Or has Canon just optimized for cost?
Talking about cost: I had always understood that the EF-S mount would make it possible to build smaller lenses at lower cost for the 1.6 crop factor.
Now it appears that an EF-S17-85 is around 650EUR while the 17-40L is around 700. So where's the cost saving for the customer? Ok, the former has IS, but the latter is L and can also be used on 24x36, which might be where Canon will eventually end up with all their DSLRs in a couple of years.
So where's the point? Is EF-S just overpriced hype at the moment? I'm still waiting to see a decent EF-S equivalent of the EF28-105, 3.5-4.5 or 28/f2.8 at a similar price, ie. around 300EUR, not 600.
br/Stefan.
-- PGP encrypted email preferred. PGP public key: http://blackhole.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1D42A873 More info: http://www.openpgp.org/
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
