11-06-2012, 11:16 PM
You said it was close in price to the f2.8 version (which it is not, MSRP more than 1000 euros difference), then said the price difference for those particular two Nikon's is more significant (it is not, about the same difference). Love it when arguments keep shifting (not really). <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I have agreed on the new Canon f4 IS to be too steeply priced all along <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
On the plus side still are its constant focal length / aperture ratio, its hybrid IS and its 0.7x macro mode. And of course L-class build quality.
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 USM and Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 were not very far removed from this lens' price at introduction either, by the way.
' /> I have agreed on the new Canon f4 IS to be too steeply priced all along <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
On the plus side still are its constant focal length / aperture ratio, its hybrid IS and its 0.7x macro mode. And of course L-class build quality.
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 USM and Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 were not very far removed from this lens' price at introduction either, by the way.