Christian wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > >>Christian wrote: >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >> >>The 70-300's actually quite decent, especially on the 1.6x crop bodies, I >>think you have it mixed up with the 75-300, which is a coke bottle. > > > A friend bought the 70-300 IS and sold it after a couple of days. soft > soft SOFT. Aweful lens. > > The 17-85 IS is supposed to be pretty decent. >
Probably a bad copy. Canon consumer lenses don't have the greatest QC. I've seen examples of that lens that are absolutely superb on the cropped bodies (They aren't that great on the FF bodies, poor corner performance). The 17-85 has average optics, comparable to the 28-135 it is the equivalent of. Inferior to the 16-45 DA from the examples I've seen/used. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
