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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 31, 2005, 5:24 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

its true that a prime lens will be sharper in general than a zoom.. the line between them is getting smaller and smaller with today's computer engineered aspherical and low dispersion optics.. so while the 85 1.8 is a wonderful lens, it is not as practical as a good zoom.. so if i were to only have a couple lenses in my bag, i would have a couple good zooms..

then when i had some more $$, i would pick up the 85 1.8 or a sigma 105 2.8 macro :G
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 7:00 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I won't bother repeating the detail of my long process of coming to a conclusion for a lens, but if you haven't read them then check out the Cunningly Original ... posts.

To save a not inconsiderable sum of money I considered getting the 75-300 IS USM instead of the 70-300 DO IS USM.

One thing is certain: both my new lenses are much better than the 18-55 kit lens.

For what it's worth I have no regrets so far with my choices, though it's too early to tell for sure.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2005, 9:25 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I concur with Hards80 with today's computers and NC machines - the Sigma 100-300 IF HSM constant f/4 is an amazing lens:



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 8:32 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

If you fancy looking deeper into MTF charts then check out this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-mtf.shtml

And the HK Canon website seems to be the best at giving MTF charts for all the Canon lenses. Look carefully - the results may surprise you. Also remember that on the 20D you only need to consider out to 13mm from the centre.

http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/S...category_id=25
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2005, 3:57 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Default

As perdendosi said...



I had the same dilema few weeks ago when i took my 20D.

I chose 17-40 L, 50 f1.8 and 70-200 f4 plus B&W filters both UV and circular double coated and a TC AF 1.4X from Canon too.

I wanted to buy one 28-135 too but finally was over the budget so i quit the idea after some research on the reviews forums.



Well i must say i am very very pleased with my choice. Both L lenses are just amazing at that price i must say. In the future i will go for a faster 70-200, maybe the one with IS... Anyway this is a good choice.

Still my curiosity made me to ask for a 28-135 IS from a friend and i must tell you that is a good all around choice too.

I am bodybuilding contest photographer and i used 28-135 IS at one ocasion. Very good lense, very sharp for the money, not one of the good L lenses but made the job very good. Not to mention the contest was at the mountains and i spent few more days there at skying facility...Just amazed that a relatively cheap lense from canon can offer such quality in various situations.



My conclusion: I use my gear to live, is my job. I sell my photos. That is why i consider My choice is the best for someone with limited budget but aiming for very good results.

But for usual ocasion when i go in some trips with my girl and my dogs, family reunions , etc... i think 28-135 would be a smart choice.

Is small, is resonably acurate and fast, have IS which helps many times...one of best walk around lense you can get fot that amount of money. I will reconsider buying one and keep it on the camera most of the time, i have my camera even in my bed adn not allways i can carry my other 2 lenses, 70-200 for example is one piece of a gun



SO my advice is to take a good look on that 28-135 IS and if you are not aiming for extreme quality but just have a hobby in photography..is a smart choice. If you want more go for L's....But still, remember not everytime you can carry a bag full of lenses....and considering the price and comparing the cost of the other choice i offered....you will found that those 400 were well spent and you will keep the 28-135 IS.



Good luck
parintele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2005, 11:58 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11
Default

I have been reading the discussions on the lenses for 20d for quite some time now. The 28-135 is a good lens but on a 20d, that translates to about 44-216. So what about the wide side? The digital equivalent of 28-135 is the ef-s 17-85. I saw some very nice and sharp, contrasty pictures taken with this lens on a site www.photosig.com. Browse by lens - and you will find some very nice shots. I am getting my 20d soon and i intend to get the 17-85 with it.
jhsurti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2005, 9:46 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11
Default

Well, I just got the news that 17-85 is out of stock. It is pretty difficult to get these things in my country. I already have :

1. 50mm f/1.8

2. 100mm f/2.8 macro usm

3. 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USm and

4. 75-300mm IS USM

Should I be looking at 10-22 EF-S?

BTW, peripatetic, I liked your convincing reasons in the other thread for getting what you finally got. It was like you gave words to my thought. Many of us in such forums may not be professionals and may not be getting any returns(financial) from their equipments. It is sheer interest in the hobby of capturing nice images that we invest in the equipments and so for us may be the ultimate sharpness and contrast may not be that important considering the size of prints we get. And to be frank if one is going to tear apart every image with finding flaws rather than enjoying the image the fun of photography will be lost - to be replaced by the "thing" in front of the eye rather than the "eye" behind the camera.

As I read somewhere - "Nice dish! What pot did you use? Nice book! What pen did you use? Nice photograph! What camera/lens did you use?"


jhsurti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2005, 7:39 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Default

If you really need wide go for 10-22. If not, the wider end of 17-85 is 17

So really you shpuld take a look at 17-40 f4, the price is similar to 17-85.No IS, is true, but to be honest i never needed IS on my 17-40 till now, Is true is not so long as 85 but...

On the other hand 17-40 L is a little better re image quality.

Also u are doubts about 28-135 IS but own 28-105, a cheaper lense not only re the money but image quality.


parintele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2005, 9:13 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11
Default

I am not happy with the 28-105 as has been the opinion of many. So I am seriously considering changing it to 28-135 IS when I go to collect my 20d (I ave to travel to another city to get it!). And I will give the 17-40 4L a thought meanwhile. Because if the guy gets the 17-85 by the time I get to him, I will have to buy it. Otherwise the options are open.
The reason I was considering 10-22 is that I feel 28mm is not wide enough. something like 20-24mm wide should do well.
Thanks for the input.
jhsurti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2005, 12:30 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO the 17-85 is the way to go... Before this lens was available, the 28-135 was the most popular choice since it's quite flexible of an all-around lens (and cheap) -> but then one is obligated to get the 17-40 next to fill the void at the WA

Technically the 17-85 (check its MTF) is better suited for cropped dSLRs such as the 20D (unless you want to move up to a full-frame in the future) even though it's not an 'L'... plus you won't have to do too many lens changes and it costs less than a 17-40/28-135 combo :?
FYI - http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...62&forum_id=65

-> with the money saved you can then focus on a better long tele zoom! :idea:
NHL 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 4:14 AM.