Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 21, 2004, 10:02 PM   #11
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 23

ah ok! :-) cool! :-) And now this "PSMUAATGA" :-) speaking of lenses, does anyone tried the 55-200mm USM. According to Canon it was design for Digital SLRs...

dive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2004, 6:14 PM   #12
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1

Hello there everyone,

I guess I'm in the same position as speedxtreem. I'm about to buy a digital rebel but I'm agonizing over which lens to buy.

In the camera store today I filled a flash card full of shots taken of the same subject, with different lenses. I tried a Canon L-series lens (17-55 mm I think it was) , for reference. Then my own Tamron 28-300, which I hope to use with this camera. Surprisingly I did not notice much difference in sharpness between the lenses when comparing shots at similar focal length and aperture. Could this be because the the L-series lens really needs more than 6 Mpix to capture its true sharpness, i.e. the lens outclasses the CCD?

Two other lenses I tried were the Canon 17-55 kit lens, and the Tamron 17-35 Di (digitally integrated) lens. Unfortunately due to user error (duh!) I was not able to do a useful comparison. I like the specs of the Tamron 17-35 lens, the option of going f2.8 at wide angle, the supposed sharpness, but is it worth the extra 500 CAD over the kit lens?

So here are my options right now. 1) Buy the body only, use my Tamron 28-300 for now, and get the Tamron 17-35 eventually (when I can afford it); or 2) buy the kit (body plus cheap lens), and use my Tamron 28-300 for the occasional telephoto shot.

I do mostly outdoor photography: landscape, some sports, and I'm starting a stock photography collection with this camera (outdoor industrial equipment, farming, cityscapes etc).

Any thoughts much appreciated! Arie
switchback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2004, 11:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

Welcome to the forum!

It's all a question of your standards, what you'll do with the pictures and how much money you're willing to spend.

You say your making a "stock photography collection". Do you mean literally to sell the photos to stock agencies and the like? Or are you just building up a collection of photos? To sell your photos they have to be amazing sharp and have no disortions or aborations. If it isn't tac sharp, it won't print at the size and DPI that print advertising needs so it will be useless. This requires a good lens and a good tripod. I'm not even touching good composition and useful subjects (which is market dependent.)

The kit lens for the DRebel is surprisingly good for the cost. It isn't "pro grade" but it doesn't have to be. And wide angle lenses are expensive, so getting one cheap is nice.

I'm going to say something which might sound like I'm insulting you, but truly I'm not trying to. I'm just making a point. A badly made picture with a good lens will look just as bad as the same bad picture with a bad lens. I'm going to assume that you didn't take a bad picture, but its one of the possible reasons for you not seeing the difference.

Second, how did you compare them? Did you print them? With a desktop inkjet? With a photo quality printer? At a professional printer? Did you get prints done at a high dpi?

Did you view them on a lap top computer? A desktop? With a good monitor? With an LCD? A laptop LCD is not a great way if you really are checking for quality at the "sell to stock agencies" level.

And all of this is dependent on the subject of the pictures having the details and color variety to show the differences in the lenses.

There are several lenses in the zoom range you listed. One is not an L lenses. They are:

EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

(those all come from www.canoneos.com.)That first lens is not in the same league as the other two. Of course, the other two are MUCH more expensive. I have the 17-40L, and it's very nice.

I wanted to cure you of a common misconception. There is a lot more to lenses than just sharpness. That is important, very important. But an "L" lens is about a lot more than just that. Here is a short list. Faster focusing. Larger aperture. Weather sealed. Full Time Manual Override of auto focus. More rugged build. Better coatings of the elements. Internal Focusing.

Just to be clear, not all "L" lenses have all of these things. But they are all good things. (The 100-400L is fairly fast focusing, has FT-manual override, good lens coatings. It isn't weather sealed and f5.6 isn't exactly a big appeture.)

For landscapes, the focal lengths you mention will all work. For sports, it's sport dependent. In football, you are further away from the people than in tennis. So you need a different lens. The 28-300 should do, baring that the aperture is good enough to give you a good shutter speed.

I hope that helps.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2004, 1:24 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192

Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape says the following about the 17-85 EF-S:

[align=left]I was unable to complete a DxO Analyzer test of the new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/5.6 IS lens in the time that was available to me. My field testing showed though that it appears to be a very fine lens. I have one on order for my own use and will publish a full test report once I have had an opportunity, likely before the end of September. The new EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 will also be tested once a sample becomes available later in the year.[/align]

[align=left]And he shows a few images in his review.[/align]


[align=left]Because of the nice range of this lens, I think it's worth considering further -- to see if it any good (esp. compared to the Tamron 28-75), and if it's well priced. [/align]

[align=left]Moreover, the 10-22 might be intended for the true wide-angle nuts, and it's also a potentially interesting item, although at a steeper price (which the nut might be able to rationalize). In terms of range, it could mate well with one of the many 24/28+ zooms. For me, it would also be a question whether that's / I'm nutty enough, and whethera high-quality prime from Zeiss or another fits that role better (if not film bodies).[/align]

[align=left]If these are still too pricey for you, then don't worry. Eric's right -- you can take worthwhile images with the kit lens & the 28-300. They might not stand up to loupe scrutiny in some cases, but most casual images won't in any case, and that's not the best part of what photography's about.[/align]
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:07 PM.