I've read a number of reports on this lens and they range from very
complimentary (such as the review below) to this is just a so-so lens to
this is a piece of extremely overpriced crap. I don't know which is
correct. The scary part is they all may be correct. I suspect that
Canon may be having a lot of QC problems as they attempt to keep up with
the demand.
Chuck Norcutt
R. Jackson wrote:
> I couldn't tell a lot just pointing it around the store, but it
> seemed like a handy range of focal lengths. 28-135mm would cover
> about 90% of what I want to shoot and it being really compact with IS
> didn't hurt at all, IMO. Not that this site is always on-the-money or
> anything, but I notice there were some kind words about the lens in
> this review of the 20D.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml
>
> On Aug 19, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>
>>OK, so the price leader kit lenses are cheaply built, most reports are
>>that they are optically pretty good. However, the 17-85 IS is not in
>>that category.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|