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. > > -Cory >
The original IS lens, the 75-300, is a hunk of putrescent crap. Non-L zooms are typically mediocre to poor, the exception being the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 (the f4-5.6 version is craptacular), the 70-300's (good on 1.6x crop bodies, average on film, poor on FF) and the two 'almost L' EF-S zooms, the 10-22 and 17-55 IS. Non-L primes are all over the place, mostly excellent, but there's a few dogs (Same goes for the L line, the 14L in particular is a dog). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
