<ul><li><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022113canonefs1755f28g.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022113canonefs1755f28g.asp</a</li></ul>

It's rare I'd use IS in the 17-55mm range.

f/2.8 looks that much more appealing now to the average consumer being almost $700 less. They should have just made a f/2.8 version of the 17-85mm at that price instead.

it wont have the seals and build of a L, but I bet glass will be L quality if its anything like the 10-22 EF-S.

This one does have two UD elements, which if I recall correctly, is something common with all L lens (but I could be wrong). Also, no EF-S mount body have any weather sealing anyways so weather-proofing this lens would be a bit of a waste.

Now to wait for real-world pics...

The way I see this lens, it's awfully close to being an L, only reason why it's not an L - it's an EF-S mount most likely. Pictures will tell hopefully.

A friend is a big Canon user (1D2, 85/1.2, etc) and says the Canon 100/2.8 macro is the sharpest lens they make. It's not an L. The 16-35 is an L and is a bit of a dog compared to the Nikon 17-35.

Canon makes great lenses but it seems many people judge them purely based on the red ring.

I bet the 17-55 EF-S is a fine lens.

I haven't dissected them, but I can certainly feel the difference in casual use, and so far, while some of the EF-S lenses are as sharp (or sharper) than an L counterpart, they still lack the build quality you'll find in an L. I think that's what people are crying about.

That may seem like a petty gripe to some, but that's another matter which doesn't need to be debated.

Though nobody has got their hands on the 17-55 so I'll reserve my judgement until then....

Like the 17-40 or 70-200/4. It's not night and day unless you're looking at a POS 4.5-5.6 zoom.

I'm happy with my Nikon lenses in any event.