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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 17, 2006, 5:57 PM   #21
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

It seems clear that you want an ultra-sharp lens and you also want the 17-40.

Unfortunately you're asking us to tell you something that simply isn't true; that the 17-40 is an ultra-sharp lens. It's not.

It is a very good lens in many respects, but in terms of its sharpness it's a good lens not an excellent one. There are lots of sharper lenses around. Every lens has its trade-offs.

I've never understood the obsession that some pixel-peepers have with "sharpness" - with the right processing it's possible to make a picture seem as sharp as you like.

If you spent half as much time worrying about your composition and exposure as you do about your lens' resolution your photographs would be a great deal better.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 3:20 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

can you suggest a night shot lens
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 3:49 PM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 62
Default

Why not ask in the Canon Lenses forum ?
Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 4:57 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I will, thanks
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 12:31 AM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
can you suggest a night shot lens
The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 even though it's not an L, a 'digital' lens only can be sharper than an L and @ f/2.8 is also better for lower light:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...40_4/index.htm

Someone suggested the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which is also not far behind the EF-S 17-55:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 6:11 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Canon 17-55mm: way to expensive (for a little bit more of sharpness 400$ more.. phootshop will do it for free)

Canon 17-40mm L: I can get it cheap, fits 35mm also (need to think about the future..)

Tamron 17-50mm: A good one, but still preffered to stay with canon brand.


If I wanted sharpness I would have gone with the sonn to come Sigma SD14 that will put all other lenses and cameras in terms of sharpness to SHAME. So my decision to go to canon from the fist place is that I belive in that company to deliver great products in the future and I want to invest in my lenses inorder that I can use them in the future on larger sensor, what the point investing your money twice as I paid for my camera for a lens that will be good only for this specific camera, not a good investment, so I decided to buy a cheaper digital only lens for the not so used telephoto and a 35mm lens Canon 17-40mm, and I can get it much cheaper than the 17-55mm EF-S, and it will stay with me longer the road for my next body to come, don't you think it is wiser.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 7:38 AM   #27
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
Canon 17-55mm: way to expensive (for a little bit more of sharpness 400$ more.. phootshop will do it for free)
You are missing a few points... (But by all mean get the 17-40L since your heart is set) :-)

The EF-S 17-55 is f/2.8 (as well as the Tamron)!!!
-> A comparable full-frame lens with the same speed is the 16-35 f/2.8L (how's the price here?), the 17-40 is a full-stop slower hence the lower cost... You are comparing apples and oranges here: Photoshop can also makes an already sharp lens "sharper".
Beside the EF-S 17-55 also comes with IS which is not available on the full-frames - For some photographers in low-light (weddings especially) this feature is a godsend!
... and I agree with you on the SD14 entirely :idea:
We just need to wait for reviews and see how it does on the dynamic range front!
I might be getting 1 myself (and I already owned several Canon bodies)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 9:55 AM   #28
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
can you suggest a night shot lens
The answer, as always, depends on your intended use. For city scape or skyline type shots the answer isn't a lens it's a tripod and remote release.

Depending on application, the right result is a good external flash.

Depending on application, 2.8 might not be fast enough.

Depending on application, IS may or may not help.

So, please be more specific on what you mean by 'night shot' lens.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 10:23 AM   #29
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I'm also interested in how well the SD14 turns out.

But to say at this point that:
Quote:
Sigma SD14 that will put all other lenses and cameras in terms of sharpness to SHAME.
Is rather premature to say the least. It's a 4.75x3 Mp camera. Its resolution therefore may be far far less than a 10Mp camera, or it might be better. I personally would be very surprised if it outperforms a camera like the 5D.

Bayer interpolation is not perfect but I reckon it must be at least 95% effective in the general case, and probably closer to 99%, which gives the ordinary cameras a big edge on the foveon. All we've seen from them so far is marketing hype. It would be great if the reality matches the rhetoric, but I'm a bit sceptical at this point. We also have no idea what the DR will be.

We will simply have to wait until we see the images before we know.

How long do you plan on owning your 400D? Choosing a lens which is not as useful now simply because you think that someday you might want to upgrade to a FF camera is silly IMO.

I have had the 17-85 on my 20D for two years and have found it to be fantastically useful.

When I upgrade to the 3D/5D or whatever I will simply sell my 20D and lens, or keep them as backup. The one lens that I really am not that interested in for FF is the 17-40L.

I have the Sigma 12-24 for superwide, and will be using the 24-105 as the main lens for the 5D.

A lens is not an investment, if you want an investment put your money in the bank or buy some shares, it's a tool to help you take photographs. Why choose a tool that is not the right one for the job?

Everyone has different needs or desires, the 17-40 is a lovely lens, if you fancy it then get one. But try not to pretend that it's a perfect lens and the best possible choice for every possible application. If you really manage to convince yourself of that then you will be in for some disappointment when you discover it's not true.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 5:16 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Is rather premature to say the least
A least I brought some proofs, this is nothing to do with 'premature' it is about facts and for people of spend thousands of dollars on equipment for the big companies, it is a kick under the belt !

I've looked at same photos in a review post here of the most expensive Canon DSLR and the Sigma SD10 of a building, In the canon photo you can see the roof it is all massed up looks like a potatoes mash, but in the sigma you can see every brick of the roof, that funny cause the canon cost much much much more. So if the best canon can offer can resolve those details and the Sigma with much less resolution can what can you say about that, I can post a link if you want to.


EVERYBODY OPEN YOUR EYES FOR JUST ONE MINUTE AND LET YOUR EYES BE THE JUDGE !


take a look: Canon 1Ds mark II Sigma SD10



CCD used in the sigma is the most critical component in the camera for image quality as you can see in the example above shot by Steve, not by me.


Almost all cameras today except sigma are based on a terrible sensor that takes out the quality from the image, how come a top model camera can't show a roof bricks correctly, pay how much you want on lenses 'L' and whatever you want to call it, it will not matter cause only third of the colors are passing through 66% of them goes to waste , why ? why ? why? to you think this is the future or take a look at the Foveon sensor, I will tell you that the Sigma as simple as it may be brings the BEST QUALITY for the sharpest most pixel for pixel that any top camera can get with thousand of dollars spend, this is so funny that all the industry does is sell low tech sensors instead of investing in a real sensor that will bring quality and realism to out photos and then we will stop talking about sharpness :-) because the sharpness is in the sensor tech not (only) the lens.

The pros has no other option cause sigma didn't invest and released new bodies as often as the other and nobody wanted to ivnest in a gear that will probably begone next year, but so amateurs and now professionals, sigma is back BIGTIME with new body SD14, and I don't need to wait for the review in order to tell you that it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED and maybe VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED at least in the IQ department, no camera in the world ca beat this, Just wait and see that you don't need to wait and see, just buy when you can. :blah:

For that image quality you will except noise and other things that you will probably miss cause we ere become spoiled for functions instead of having the best image quality our money can buy and it i not that expensive has other companies are trying to sell you.

Color problems if exist you can fix with an image editor, but the lack of IQ you can't fix because the details and the color information are digitally lost and can be restored, what the bayer sensor does is trying poorly to restore what it is lost but so much effort and money is spent to try so much, I mean so much to get those fine details, but it is lost and we all know it, the foveon sensor has all the information in the file ,everything !, nothing is lost everything is inside just open the file and be amazed because you didn't leave anything in the field you got it ALL in your file !!!!!!!

The 'Superb image quality' etc etc. that every article and review talks about is only 'in comparison', do you think just by looking at the links above that the canon can be 'superb' it can be 'average minus' in comparison to the Sigma, if canon were to use a foveon chip in their cameras new line up, you would have seen CRAZY 'MULTI ULTRA SUPERB !!!' marks, but again it is all about squeezing money from customers, so they are becoming addicted to invest thousand of dollars just to get a small lead, a very Small lead in photo quality, instead of investing their money wisely, we are all victims, and the problem is that we will probably deny that because we want to be happy with all the money we gave to canon, and dam it is so hard to admit.


I admit that I want such equipment but I can get canon equipment for much less so but in the future I will surely buy it, and all of you who read this till here, and saw the photos, please open your eyes so maybe just maybe Canon would invest the money so we ALL can enjoy this GREAT innovation from Foveon.


by the way, I use canon equipment, so it is not from sigma user. A new generation is born with people who can throw away advertisement to the garbage and see with their eyes the truth as it is and not as a 'sells man truth'.



Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 9:52 PM.