Which lens to buy.....

[Mondo]

For £700....it better be, the 24-70L is only £180 more (and its 2.8 through out).

[Mark]

It's a new lens, so it'll command a premium price. Happens with bodies too. Jessops (yeah, I know, sue me ) were demanding around £950 for a 500D the week of launch. Now they want £600, which isn't much more than I paid for my 450D.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Mondo

For £700....it better be, the 24-70L is only £180 more (and its 2.8 through out).

Well the latest rumours I'm reading are that it's supposed to be to the 24-105L what the 17-55 is to the 24-70 and the 10-22 is to the 16-35, i.e. an EF-S lens which works out at around the same focal length as the L would on a FF sensor.

No doubt the 10-22 and 17-55 are pretty special lenses but I'd still baulk at spending that much on a non-L, EF-S lens which doesn't have a particularly wide fixed aperture. Surely, at this price point you'd go with either the 24-70 or, if you couldn't afford it, the 17-55. I'd rather lose 30mm off the long end in exchange for constant f/2.8 and it'd be cheaper to boot!

[Tysonator]

I have the 70-300 IS USM lens and it is a decent lens. Though it is not the same build quality as the Canon L range. It is a really good alternative to an L lens. Of course I would love to have an L lens which will look cool on my camera ! ! !