mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I must say that all the fussing about lenses that won't work on a full-frame camera leaves me somewhat bemused. If and only if you want a 5D (or 1DsMkWhaever) then go for it, I guess.
But I'm likely to stick with crop-factor Canons more-or-less forever and so am incredibly partial to my EF-S 17-55f2.8IS which is a wonderful lens. It doesn't get nearly as much use as my 100-400, but only because I tend to use my film RF cameras for non-long-lens focal-length-ranges. But when I do use my dSLR, that lens (the f2.8 EF-S) just works, solidly, with excellent image quality and without raising a fuss.
And I don't care that it will never work on a full-frame camera, 'cause I'm unlikely to buy one, yet if I do it won't be my only camera. I'll always have an APS-C sensor camera to mount the 100-400 on, simply because I often shoot wildlife. But I like to have a short-range alternative as well. The EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS is brilliant in that regard.
...Mike
But I'm likely to stick with crop-factor Canons more-or-less forever and so am incredibly partial to my EF-S 17-55f2.8IS which is a wonderful lens. It doesn't get nearly as much use as my 100-400, but only because I tend to use my film RF cameras for non-long-lens focal-length-ranges. But when I do use my dSLR, that lens (the f2.8 EF-S) just works, solidly, with excellent image quality and without raising a fuss.
And I don't care that it will never work on a full-frame camera, 'cause I'm unlikely to buy one, yet if I do it won't be my only camera. I'll always have an APS-C sensor camera to mount the 100-400 on, simply because I often shoot wildlife. But I like to have a short-range alternative as well. The EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS is brilliant in that regard.
...Mike