Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 40D - which zoom do you think great?  (Read 10507 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2008, 08:41:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
in practice, i don't find the 17-85IS as bad as some of the reports, and the focal length range is really useful

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A agree about the range. Let's hope Canon will give us a new edition of this. Nikon did it with its 16-85.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2008, 08:45:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 17-85 is a good lens.  You will be correcting it at the wide end.  Lots of CA.  Lots of distortion.  It all cleans up by about 24mm.  At 85mm it is extremely sharp.  Contrast is a bit iffy with it but thats what the clarity slider is for.  So if you live at 17mm you'll want something else.  I might be more charitable with this lens because I screwed Dell so badly when I bought it.  (Gotta be fast.)

The 18-55IS is decent.  For a kit lens it is a very good.  I just purchased one because of my spine.  I've been very pleased.

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is one of the best lenses I've ever owned.  It compares quite well with the Canon 17-55IS.

The canon is a great lens.  I've only played with one.  It is heavy.  It was also very sharp.  If I was 100% sure of canon's plans for the x0D line of cameras I'd have bought one.

If I had to pick one lens to get it would be the 17-55IS.  If I didn't have the cash it would be the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I tend to be an f8 and be there kind of guy so most of my  shooting is in the sweet spot of the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, the "kit" lens is reported by photozone to have a very similar resolution curve as the 2.8/17-55.

Regarding the x0D line, I guess it'll stay with us for quite a while. But, sure, as I mentioned in an above post, to collect "glass wealth" one better invested in full frame lenses.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2008, 12:03:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'm taking the plunge and order a 17-55/2.8 IS.

One just needs a good lens on one's camera.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2008, 05:21:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I've had great success with the Canon 28-135 IS lens on my 10D and 20D bodies. About 7 months ago, I purchased the Canon 24-105 IS f4 L lens and sold the 28-135 lens. About 5 months ago, I traded in my 20D for the 40D.

The 40D and 24-105 IS L lens is a great "walkabout" combination - light, good zoom range and the IS is awesome to steady my hand at lower shutter speeds.

I compared images created with the 28-135 to those created with the 24-105 lens, both using the 20D body. Frankly, I cannot see much difference. Both lenses are pretty good.

You can buy a 28-135 IS lens for a few hundred dollars on eBay. If you didn't want to spend $1,000 for the 24-105, the 28-135 is a great alternative. I think that you will not be disappointed.

Cheers.
Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2008, 08:40:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I went for the 17-55/2.8, which I ordered today.

I'm so looking forward to this lens!
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
BradSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2008, 12:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been grappling with the same issue.  Started with the 40D and 70-200 f4L is and the 50 f1.4.   Fantastic.

What to do about the shorter range?  I also want the short zoom equivalent of the 70-200 f4L is, but of course, they don't make it.  Rented the 24-105L is and the 17-85 to see how much worse the 17-85 would be.   Surprise, surprise.  It was sharper!  And of course, lighter and smaller, both good things as far as I'm concerned.  I think I had the exteme ends of the bell shaped curve in both lenses, because I tested another 17-85 vs the Tamron 17-50.   In this test, the 17-85 had problems compared to the Tamron, which was quite good.

So, it is the Tamron for me.  (At least until Canon produces that f4, L wide zoom from about 15-60)
Brad
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2008, 11:32:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Just don't forget that the quality of the Tamron is all over the place, and many have complained about getting a bad copy.

Also it has an issue with focusing in low light. I have read about focus hunting and photozone.de mentions it, too. It will nowhere nearly focus as well as a good Canon lens.

If you take money for shooting I think it is not a good idea to save on a lens. A good lens stays with you for a long time, a poor or middling lens is just waiting to be replaced.

Generally speaking, I think you'll never regret buying good quality, even if you pay more. The real remorse shows up if you didn't buy the quality you need.

As you can see in this thread, I wrestled with the issue, but I had it tap out with my decision to buy a really good lens.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
schrodingerscat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 370


« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2008, 11:20:39 PM »
ReplyReply

So far there has been no mention of the 16-35 II L. I've been using one with a 30D for several months now and find it to be quite up to the task. The color fidelity almost matches the 135/2. This, color consistency,  may be a characteristic of the L lenses.

99% of the time it's used in single shot mode with center focus point at 24mm or so. No vignetting at any focal length and good center to edge sharpness, which is acceptable even wide open.

The situation with most aftermarket lenses is that some perform OK, but the build quality and ability to withstand heavy use are usually sub-par. The repair and customer support usually leave a bit to be desired as well.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2008, 05:39:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The situation with most aftermarket lenses is that some perform OK, but the build quality and ability to withstand heavy use are usually sub-par. The repair and customer support usually leave a bit to be desired as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I found out digging deeper in my research. One lens has trouble focusing at low light, another has field curvature (actually, there's one that has both), and another the production quality is so all over the place with poor quality control that you might get a really bad copy.

I think it's better to have fewer, but good lenses first, and build lens wealth instead of having a  greater number of middling lenses, which will never satisfy.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2008, 06:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

If I have an issue with a lens I just send it to its mother and have them fix it.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2008, 12:19:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Easier said than done!

1) It may take some time until you discover the problem, good to take some test shots on delivery.
2) Vendor may say that your lens is within specs.
3) You probably need the lens instead of sending it back and forth

Best regards
Erik

Quote
If I have an issue with a lens I just send it to its mother and have them fix it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205800\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2008, 02:22:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Easier said than done!

1) It may take some time until you discover the problem, good to take some test shots on delivery.
2) Vendor may say that your lens is within specs.
3) You probably need the lens instead of sending it back and forth

Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's my point of view, too. Too much nerve mileage. Bad things can always happen, but if one buys a lens that is already flawed by its design, such a photographer is asking for trouble.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2008, 11:00:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I never had any particular issue with the 17-85. Though I did use it pretty much exclusively with DXO to correct its shortcomings. It was pretty sharp, I found hardly any CA (though others complained mightily), its flaws were easily fixed in software and it had a nice range and the IS was good, focus nice and crisp, build quality fairly good. Nice walk-around for the crop cameras.

But with DXO I made some very nice prints up to 12x18 and most people cannot tell the difference between my A4/A3 prints with the 20D+17-85 v 5D+24-105. With the latter I find I don't have any use for DXO it doesn't reliably enhance the image at all.

Viewers respond primarily to the image and then if you ask them to take a really close look they will usually pick the latter as having marginally better IQ, but the IQ is close enough that the image itself is far more important.

The chief complaint about the 17-85 when it was first released was along the lines of "not a bad lens, but way too expensive at X$, but if it only cost Y$ I would be happy". Of course the price of the lens has now dropped below what the DPReview crowd initially deemed it to be "worth".

But of course there is now lots of competition at that focal length range.
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2008, 11:14:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One lens has trouble focusing at low light
I think this is a myth. A lens does not focus on it's own; it's the camera, which tells the lens if and how much to adjust. It is possible, that the lens does not follow the instruction properly, but that is not the question of light.

The lens' contribution is the widest aperture: the wider the aperture, the more light for AF, and the more accurate measurement of misfocusing, if the camera supports phase difference focusing. That is, which requires at least f/2.8 on the Canon mid-DSLRs (the 1 series can focus that way at f/4).
Logged

Gabor
HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2008, 04:21:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The 17-85 gets a bad wrap. Yes, it has quite a bit of distortion at the wide end but mine is sharper than my 17-40 L (and another 17-40 I tested when I bought mine) at ALL focal lengths and has image stabilization as well. At 85mm, it rivals my 70-200 f/4 L IS. If I didn't need the build quality and dust sealing of the 17-40, I'd use the 17-85 all the time.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2008, 12:21:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think this is a myth. A lens does not focus on it's own; it's the camera, which tells the lens if and how much to adjust. It is possible, that the lens does not follow the instruction properly, but that is not the question of light.

The lens' contribution is the widest aperture: the wider the aperture, the more light for AF, and the more accurate measurement of misfocusing, if the camera supports phase difference focusing. That is, which requires at least f/2.8 on the Canon mid-DSLRs (the 1 series can focus that way at f/4).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206211\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I read this about the Tokina on several occasions. As you said, the lens can't follow the instructions properly, and maybe it's in low light that this is more difficult than in good light.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad