Hmm, well this wasnt supposed to be such a long post but, it just went on. And yes, after writing half of the lists below i realize they may sound like boasting, but then, after half the list I'm probably a bit entitled to it
Skrying wrote:The 17-55 f/2.8 is EF-S but consider that there could be a specific reason for that... cost increase and performance degradation that could result when moving to EF coverage. Now, lens consider lenses like the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L and EF 24-70 f/2.8 L, both of these are around $1,500 give or not $100. These, combined, don't even cover danny.e's fantasy camera. The "combination" of these lenses would likely produce greatly inferior results and result in a lens upwards of $2,500. It would also be very heavy for a lens of that range. Most professionals would also rather have one of Canon's excellent Primes, which are going to be sharper, faster, and cheaper, instead. A 16-85 f/2.8, or an easier but not as wide 18-85 f/2.8 just simply seems very niche for its price demands (niche of a niche... what is that?). It just doesn't seem realistic to expect it and even less reasonable to be upset when Canon doesn't launch it.
I think you seriously missinterpretated what i meant by having full 135 format coverage. You can never apply the difference in focal lenght literally since as you say, its not technically feasible. And who would ever need something as a 10-22 on 135-format. What you actually have to compare with is the 135-format equilent. Which for the 17-55 is the 24-70. And while there is some differences, like the 17-55 has IS, and the 24-70 has the reversed zoom/optimum hood arrangement, besides the weathersealing, etc, thats where the main differences is, not in the image performance. The 17-55 could easily have been engineerd for wather resistance and the extra build quality that goes into L-glasses, but they didnt, because its and EF-S, and hence is disqulified from L and the extras that entail.
Skrying wrote:The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the best L lens. The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the lower L lenses.
And that is rather wide off the mark. Or you are just nitpicking on some of the extras that goes into making L-lenses. No, the best normal lenses doesnt compare to L-glass because of the build quality and weather sealing. As far as image performance goes, there are a ton of great lenses available from the normal stock. The L-glass on the other hand, have slightly difference crieteria, just as Canon has slightly different market in mind, and its not only based on image performance. And yes, I have actually tested alot of different lenses since i worked as a reviewer for a photography magazine before i went back into IT again.
* A few choices of L-glass that arent really that good...
100-400L - This is actually a rather weird bird when it comes to L-glass. Variable aperture, not that incredible when it comes to performance, etc.
28-300/3.5-5.6L - Yet again, good build quality, but absolute performance and variable aperture.
The various 1.2L lenses. They are good, but they have some odd things to them except being hugely expensive as not being worth their money in most cases. The only single reason for those is if you cant stand F/1.4 or F1.8.
All that said, the L-lenses are cream of the crop from the Canon line-up, and while not aspect of all lenses is good, the whole of it is usually is.
* Then we have a few lenses that could easily be L, if it werent for the lacking build quality due to not being build as L-lenses and the fact some of them are also EF-S.
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM
EF 50/1.4 USM (put in a ring USM instead of the mikro, a bit better plastic, and voila)
EF 85/1.8 USM
EF 100/2.0 USM
Then you also have the DO-lenses. They are really L-glasses but have the fully separate DO classification instead, but they do include lense-hood, etc.
The 10-22 wouldnt be up that list because of the variable aperture really.
Another point that Canon really bungled with the non-L lenses is the lack of lense-hoods that must be had as an accessories, which is just stupid considering its most often a cheap piece of plastic with some flocking on it.
* My personal choice of lenses is what it is becuase i found they suited my needs so far.
Canon EF 50/1.4 USM
Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 135/2.0L USM
Canon EF 24-105/4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM
Canon Extender EX 1.4x II
Sigma 30/1.4
Tamron 90/2.8 Macro
Although im probably switching the 70-200/2.8L IS for a 4L IS at some time. When i get a new camera with better high ISO. Probably also doing away with the 10-22 and get a 17-40/4L when i switch to 135-format.
* Other lenses that I've owned.
Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 50/1.8 mk2
Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di
Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM
Sigma Extender 2x
* Other lenses that I've tested or used.
Canon EF 16-35/2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40/4L IS USM
Canon EF 24-70/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200/4L USM
Canon EF 100-400/3,5-5,6L IS USM
Canon EF 70-300/3.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Canon EF 85/1.2L USM
Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro
Canon EF 200/1.8L USM
Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM Macro
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM
Sigma 20/1.8
Sigma 105/2.8 Macro
Sigma 120-300/2.8
Nikon 24-70/2.8
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR
Also, a bunch of minolta and Olympus 4:3 gear. But the list is getting far too long already.
For some time i used the 28-135, which is great in some parts, but not that good in others. Then i added the Tamron 24-75/2.8. Both of these was exchanged for the 24-105L, not because of image performance, which really isnt that different. Although Canon bungled it when they remade the 28-135 into the 17-85, which really isnt that good of a lense. The 28-135 was actually better, even on a crop camera, especially togehter with the 10-22.