Anyone have experience with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS? With the current rebate offered for it, it's about $230 cheaper than the 24-70mm f2.8L. I've read good reviews of the 17-55, read that it has "L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements" (despite it not having the L label), and one review even said that it exceeded some L lenses in similar focal ranges. The way I'm looking at it now, here's the good:
1) It has IS. Maybe not a deal breaker, but certainly useful in some circumstances.
2) With the bodies I own being 1.6x, the resultant focal length is in a good range for the kind of work I tend to do, and is flexible for any other type of work I might get into in the future.
3) $230 cheaper... which, yes, when it's already in the range of $1000-1200, that's not much. But in general, to me $230 is enough to not just blow away. I could get the extended protection plan from B&H and a hood with the left over money.
Now the bad:
1) It's not L. Although it having L-series grade UD must mean something. Maybe someone with more knowledge could explain what that means better, and what makes an L lens an L lens and this not. I'm assuming L lenses also have better build quality and aren't EF-S... which is essentially what my next two points are.
2) It's EF-S. Not a deal breaker, but if in the future I do get a full frame DSLR or even a film SLR, it's unusable. The 24-70mm being EF and usable for my known life is a good selling point for that one. However, on the flip side, I can see myself owning the 40D for quite a while, for a while as a primary, and then eventually as a backup if I upgrade to a full frame. So it may still see a bit of use in the future.
3) Build quality isn't quite as good as L. Plus I don't look as bad ass without that red ring
I guess the question is whether the goods outweigh the bads, and if the L is worth $230 when I can get just as good or possibly even better image quality for less.
So, anyone have experience with this lens and can chime in?