07-23-2012, 08:53 PM
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1343068192' post='19565']
I still think with regrets of the EF-S lenses and their shitty build. They got very nice optics but mind you, Canon wouldn't let any of these get close to any L lens. You paid 1000€ for a lens with superb optics in a plastic garbage can. No EF-S "L". This was extremely frustrating.[/quote]
For the past 5 (6?) years I've been using the 10-22, 17-55 and 60. Their BQ is nowhere near to your description. If the best L (e.g. 70-200 variants) is a 10 then they are 8-8.5. Tight fitting, no wobbling or anything alike, high quality polymers etc. And mind you, not all L have the same BQ. The BQ of the 17-40 and 24-105 is nowhere near to the 70-200 variants, 100-400, 300 etc. And of course, IQ is second to none.
Even modern guns use high quality polymers these days. It saves weight and is no less durable then metal.
I still think with regrets of the EF-S lenses and their shitty build. They got very nice optics but mind you, Canon wouldn't let any of these get close to any L lens. You paid 1000€ for a lens with superb optics in a plastic garbage can. No EF-S "L". This was extremely frustrating.[/quote]
For the past 5 (6?) years I've been using the 10-22, 17-55 and 60. Their BQ is nowhere near to your description. If the best L (e.g. 70-200 variants) is a 10 then they are 8-8.5. Tight fitting, no wobbling or anything alike, high quality polymers etc. And mind you, not all L have the same BQ. The BQ of the 17-40 and 24-105 is nowhere near to the 70-200 variants, 100-400, 300 etc. And of course, IQ is second to none.
Even modern guns use high quality polymers these days. It saves weight and is no less durable then metal.