Цитата:от: Nikolay Alex
Не... Я ориентируюсь на качество.
любителям какчества - рекомендую почитать вот такой взвешенный и объективный тест
http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm
что там пишут-то?
CanonEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Strengths: You get what you pay for with respect to image quality with this lens. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS had 50% MTF and resolution scores closest to L-lenses or primes across the focal lengths tested. There was significantly less distortion at wide angles with the EF-S 17-55 than with all of the other lenses tested. Edge and corner sharpness delivered by this lens in large prints was noticeably the best of the lenses tested. Center sharpness and contrast had the best "punch" of the lenses tested. Bokeh produced by the lens at 50mm f/2.8 was close to the quality of that produced by the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L at the same focal length. The 17-55 was more resistant to flare than other f/2.8 lenses tested. Image stabilization is very useful for low light photography. Canon has built a lense with L performance in a relatively light and compact package.
Potential weaknesses: It has none that are photographically significant. This is the largest and heaviest of the APS-C f/2.8 lenses tested. Although the 17-55 has performance characteristics similar to an L-lens, weight has been kept low at least in part by not making a sealed, weather and dust impervious lens.
итого -
резкость по полю
картинка и цвет
отсуствие бочки
бокех (как у 24-70, а это - неплохая рекомендация)
отсуствие всяких засветок и зайцефф
стаб (чего нет у никона например)
и все это в довольно легком корпусе
репортеры и владельцы младших кропов скажут спасибо за небольшую массу
будем дальше сравнивать с темными зумами?
я тут сравнил
вот говнозум сигма 18-125
а вот лька 17-40
все на поджатых
