Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> Yeah... I give Canon 6 months before they introduce in-body >>>anti-shake. I think they'll have to to compete. Given that probably 90% >>>of the DSLR buyers never buy another lens other than the kit lens, it's a >>>great selling point. >> >>I think they'll just make all the CKLs (crappy kit lenses) IS from now >>on. They have one ( the 17-85 USM IS) already. Combine that with the >>atrocious 70-300 f4-5.6 IS and you have a full range of image-stabilized >>focal lengths for your "average" digiRebel user. >> > > I was unaware that they had mediocre IS lenses.... I thought they > were all pretty much on the decent-good scale. What you propose makes a > lot more sense, and is more "Canon-esk"... force more lens purchases.
Canon believe in "you get what you pay for." There are very few non "L" series lenses worth buying (EF-S 10-22, 50/1.7 II, 100/2.8 macro). The low-priced IS lenses, in my direct experience, are crap. That being said, your average digi-rebel user is going to be just fine using them. Anyone trying to make quality, sharp images is going to be extremely frustrated. As an aside, because I shoot very little wide-angle, I bought the Canon EF-S 18-55 CKL (non-USM, non-IS). It really does suck. The 18-35 FAJ I had for the *ist D was many orders of magnitude better. :-) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
