Why is canon 17-55mm more ex and better than 17-70mm?

[LArdius]

Why is canon 17-55mm more ex and better than 17-70mm?

I dont get the focal length at infinity and all that. could someone explain it to me in layman's terms?

thanks!

[KY1977]

Originally Posted by LArdius Why is canon 17-55mm more ex and better than 17-70mm? I dont get the focal length at infinity and all that. could someone explain it to me in layman's terms? thanks!

Mainly its because of the max aperture.

[djlemon]

I'm assuming that you're talking about the Sigma 17-70 Macro right?

I'm no expert here but looking at the constant aperture of the Canon 17-55mm, its one factor which influences the price.

Some would say IQ is better but i honestly have no idea what does that mean.. I'm sure the more experienced members here can give a better explanation

Oh yea, one more thing, i was a user of the Sigma 17-70 before and its distortion is rather bad especially at 17mm.

[diver-hloc]

Originally Posted by LArdius Why is canon 17-55mm more ex and better than 17-70mm? I dont get the focal length at infinity and all that. could someone explain it to me in layman's terms? thanks!

f2.8 and the using of UD glass..... and are you refering to Canon's 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS ??

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by KY1977 Mainly its because of the max aperture.

well, not only.

there are also qualities like the optical performance, as well as features like IS and USM.

[FTKM83]

YES.. the quality is almost a L lens standard.. but it in EF-S mount... EF-S IQ mostly Godly lens..

[LArdius]

Hey! im sorry i didnt reply to any of the posts, i didnt get any notifications!

Anyyhow, i waws referring to both the lenses as Canon ones.

So what i gather now is basically its more expensive because of its fixed aperture?

And i've heard that most people prefer lenses like 17-85 and all but not too much into telescope lenses?

Any idea why?

[hokkaido88]

The Canon lens has fixed f2.8 aperture and the quality is said to be on par with some L zoom lens. Due to plastic build, Canon 'downgrade' the lens as non L lens.

[Shen siung]

Originally Posted by LArdius Hey! im sorry i didnt reply to any of the posts, i didnt get any notifications! Anyyhow, i waws referring to both the lenses as Canon ones. So what i gather now is basically its more expensive because of its fixed aperture? And i've heard that most people prefer lenses like 17-85 and all but not too much into telescope lenses? Any idea why?

I just don't get your question. Canon does not have 17-70 mm.

Fix aperture is one of the reason for a lens to be more expensive. There are other reasons as well.

Usually, if a lens with more then 3 times zoom, the IQ will be compromise compare to a lens with less then 3 times zoom. Look at most top L lens, there usually not exceed 3 times zooming (16-35mm L, 28-70mm L, 70 - 200mmL)

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by LArdius Why is canon 17-55mm more ex and better than 17-70mm? I dont get the focal length at infinity and all that. could someone explain it to me in layman's terms? thanks!

The Canon one is of cos more expensive mainly due to f/2.8 constant aperture throughout the entire zoom range and IS. The Sigma one cannot compare.

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by FTKM83 EF-S IQ mostly Godly lens..

no way la, the ef-s 60mm f/2.8 macro is the best.

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by LArdius And i've heard that most people prefer lenses like 17-85 and all but not too much into telescope lenses? Any idea why?

cause they find a 17-85mm enough, and don't shoot beyond that?

its a matter of style, and shooting style.

[charlesleong]

Originally Posted by hokkaido88 The Canon lens has fixed f2.8 aperture and the quality is said to be on par with some L zoom lens. Due to plastic build, Canon 'downgrade' the lens as non L lens.

it's not the plastic build, it's the EF-S designation which makes it non-L.

[defn]

Sharpness baby.

[noob117]

Mainly F2.8...F2.8+IS+USM+good IQ=best... thou i faced CA problems at wide aperatures

[ManWearPants]

I owned both the EF-S 17-85f4-5.6 and EF-S17-55f2.8 before. If you have used both, you would know that this thread should not have even existed. The sharpness of the latter is more desirable to the range of the former.

I used to think that the 17-55 is optically comparable to L until I owned an L. I personally feel that L lenses gives more contrast in the colours.

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by ManWearPants I owned both the EF-S 17-85f4-5.6 and EF-S17-55f2.8 before. If you have used both, you would know that this thread should not have even existed. The sharpness of the latter is more desirable to the range of the former. I used to think that the 17-55 is optically comparable to L until I owned an L. I personally feel that L lenses gives more contrast in the colours.

i believe ts is talking about Sigma 17-70.

[ManWearPants]

Originally Posted by LArdius Anyyhow, i waws referring to both the lenses as Canon ones. And i've heard that most people prefer lenses like 17-85 and all but not too much into telescope lenses? Any idea why?

Originally Posted by engrmariano i believe ts is talking about Sigma 17-70.

TS mentioned it is 17-85