17-55mm F2.8 IS - worth upgrading to from my 17-40L?

Well that's news to me, well in that case the extra cost of a genuine one would be worth it I guess if the difference in image quality is there!

Any comparison tests done anywhere?
 
I have lens hoods for my Canon 100mm Macro and my old 28-135 IS and both have felt linings - Neither are L lenses.
 
Well the cheap hood came yesterday, pretty good! the inside is not felt but it is a non reflective matt finish!

17-55_hood.jpg


For so cheap, can't complain and if it works for Sigma/Tamron without felt then meh!
 
I really don't see why you would cheap out on a lens hood. The felt will make the hood perform a tiny amount better but having spent £500 on a lens I would rather pay an extra £15 and get the official one.
 
I just don't see how it can perform a tiny bit better, not £15 better anyway especially considering the high end offerings from all other brands don't have felt innards yet perform good...


If it is that much better than I can simply just raid my sister's sewing box and DIY me some stickyback felt then craft knife it to size with a pro finish :)

In fact I will do just that when I get home today!
 
But it's only 3% of the total value of the lens to get the real thing! Compared the amount you've spent on the lens the hood pales in comparison.
 
Aye but using that type of comparison as a "comparison" I could also state that the lens itself has expensive glass elements, heavy gyros for IS and the optical quality and speed that is deserved of such a price tag whereas the hood is a piece of plastic with some felt for £25+ that you can DIY for over a tenner less!
 
I cant believe people are going on so much about a bit of felt lining!! I used to have the 70-200mm L and it didnt have a felt lined hood but I never had a problem with glare...
 
i think we can all agree that felt-lined lens-hoods pwn and people with felt-free fakes are n00bs

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom