On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 Stefan Behrens wrote
> after several reports on dpreview.com concerning
> the optical weakness of the EF-S17-85USM I
> started wondering
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
Hi Stefan,
I think the relevant basis for that cost comparision
statement is the *same* focal length (and features) in
EF compared to EF-s, not the the same *relative* focal
lengths.
I can accept that a 28-135 IS (the same *relative*
focal lengths) is cheaper than the 17-85 as it's been
out for quite some time, costs have dropped since new
etc etc... The 28-135 when first released was pretty
much the same cost as the 17-85 is now. I'd expect
the same to happen with the 17-85 over time.
Now if Canon were to build an EF (not EF-s) mount
17-85 IS, I'd expect that it would be a lot bigger and
more expensive than the EF-s mount version is. A full
frame 17-85 would be an expensive proposition.
THAT'S where the cost saving of EF-S is seen, not
compared to relative (to 1.6 crop) full frame focal
lengths.
Cheers
Gary
P.S. I've found the 17-85 to be very similar in
optical performance to my old 28-135 by the way, but
the IS is a bit quieter and seens to perform a bit
better. If you were happy with the 28-135, then the
17-85 is likely to make you just as happy....
DPReview is notoriously full of <deleted nasty word>
that barely know one end of a camera from the
other....
=====
Gravity...It's Not Just a Good Idea. It's the Law.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
