I love my 10-22. :D Trying to score a 17-55 f/2.8 now.

 

I love my 17-55 IS. Holy crap it's such an amazing lens. Besides my 180L macro, it's the sharpest one I have. It was even sharper than my 70-200 when I had it.

 

:D That makes me want it even more!

 

you SHOULD want it even more. I can hand hold the thing down to like .8 seconds at around 25mm and can hand hold it at 1/4 at 55mm and still get sharp pics. The IQ is as good wide open as it is stopped down, and its a fairly nicely weighted lens, not too heavy yet not a toy.

 

the 50 1.8 & the 55-250 will set you back less than $400 for BOTH. It's not bad.

 

tina you have any pics from spocom? i got some pics of your car but my flash decided to go on steroids and blew out most of the pic.. and my genius ___ decided not to review my pics after i took them.... :facepalm:

 

I have a few shots of Tina's car. I didn't get too many good shots from spocom in general though. I grabbed the wrong lens from my bag because I was in a hurry

 

why do you want the 17-55 if you already have the 10-22 for wide shots?

 

edit

 

That doesn't make sense. As far as I know, the 17-55 is not a wide angle. It'll just replace my 18-55 kit lens for mid-range shots.

 

^Correct.

 

I have a 55-250 already. Loves it.

 

17-55 is wide angle lens

18-55 is a wide angle lens too, btw.
it just that the long end of the lens falls into early mid zooms, however if you want a lens around the 30mm mark and up, then there are better options. with less distortion available in those focal ranges. if you are looking for a mid focal length lens, have you looked at other options that don't have 35mm+ focal lengths towards the end of the zoom?

10-22 is wide too, but thats like super wide.

 

and you say this because?
why hasn't canon released anything wider then the 16-35L, in their L series?
because that IS the wide lens of the L line.
16-35 and 17-40 are the two wide zoom lenses they make for the L line.
mid focal would be 24-105 and the 24-70
telephoto would be the 70-200s and up.

if you are looking for a mid focal length lens, I'd recommend one where the main focal range doesn't fall into the two opposing extremes of the telephoto ends.

 

Just got my Rebel XSi with the "kit" lens.

But, I purchased the additional EFs 70-300mm IS USM and replaced the stock lens with the 17-85mm IS USM. Selling the kit lens.

Love the camera, but still have much learning to do.

 

Well, I was looking at comparisons between it and the 24-70, and the general consensus was that, on a crop sensor camera, the 17-55 was a better lens for mid-range shooting.

 

ok guys im looking for a good camera does some one want to point me in the right direction

 

seriously if your choice is between the 17-55 and the 24-70, the 24-70 is a no brainer. that focal length on a cropped sensor is a much more useful focal range then 17-55.

the 35mm-50mm sweet spot in the focal range falls smack dab in the middle of the 24-70. With room to spare on both ends of the zoom.

anything from 17-28mm on a cropped sensor like yours will still introduce wide angle distortion.

plus since the 24 70 isnt an ef-s lens, it will still prove useful later if you decide to upgrade to full frame.

also 24-70 has ranges that your 10-22 doesn't have.

 

left, go left.

 

Just because a shorter range than 16mm doesn't exist doesn't mean anything. Nikon makes a 12-24 in ED glass. So I wouldn't base your argument on that. Not to mention the existence of lenses like the 10-20. And I'm sure Canon makes lenses wider than 16mm also. If there wasn't a need for a true wide angle then why would there be a segment for it? Has Canon made some kind of announcement that a 16-35 L is the widest lens they're going to produce?

EDIT: An L lens with a shorter range does exist. The 14mm f/2.8 L II USM.