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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2006, 11:18 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Default

Hi,

I have had my xt for about a year now and I think I am ready to upgrade to a better lens. My budget is between $500-700. I take photo ranging from people to places and everything else in sight. I want a fast focus lens which has good optical quality so that i can get good enlarges. I was thinking canon L series or canon 17-85 IS.Thank you for all your help. i love reading everybody's posts and comments.

NV
nv1983 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 11, 2006, 12:01 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Well, what did you think of the kit lens? Not long enough? wide enough? I think you'll enjoy a USM zoom... you'll definitely not want to go back to a noisy AF system. Isn't the 17-40L or 70-200 f/4 the only L lenses in your price range?

The only problem I see with the 17-85 is dust collecting in the lens

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm

maybe this copy went through a higher-than-average abuse. And even though people may tell you seom dust won't effect the pictures... it's just plain annoying to see IMO.

That, "everything else in sight" may mean you'll need a longer focal length (i.e. a squirrel) - so the 17-85 will probably serve you better...
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 8:32 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Default

Hi,

I am planning to build my lens collection slowly. As i am making a trip of a lifetime to india in december, so I was think of buying these lenses:-

1. Canon 10-22mm (wide)

2. Canon 17-40mm / Canon 17-85mm (mid-range)

3. Canon 70-200mm f/4 (telephoto)/with converter

So, my first purchase was going to be a good quality lens, which I maybe could used instead of the kit lens.

Thank you,

NV
nv1983 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 1:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

The only experience I've had was in the store when I was trying out the 16-35L (should be similiar to the 17-40L) and the 17-85 IS . First thing I noticed was the feel. The L is built significantly better. It may or may not effect your judgement (it certainly does for me ). Second is that I could clearly see the distortion on the 17-85 IS (wide angle) when taking pictures of shelves or poles or anything vertically straight. I could also see it on the L but to a lesser extent. You can also see a bit of CA with the 17-85 wide open. In terms of sharpness, I don't think either were significantly better than the other. It was kind of hard using a slow lens like the 17-85, and taking pictures indoors. I never had any experience with IS. I tried putting it to manual, set the focal length to 85, set to widest aperture, ISO 1600, and setting the shutter to 1/15s ( 136 / 2 / 2 / 2 for 3 stops) .... or maybe it was 1/30? anyway, I kept getting underexposed shots, so it was difficult to see the the "overall" quality. Yesterday, I was trying the 70-300 DO IS and the 70-300 IS , and I thought about just leaving it at aperture priority, and check that the shutter speed doesn't go slower than what IS can handle. I don't remember why I initially thought IS was tricky to deal with.

Anyway, since you mentioned the other lenses, I would go for the 17-40L. Personally, I'd feel better spending more money on optics/build than IS. On top of that, with the L, you wouldn't have to spend as much time on pp as having the 17-85. And just incase you didn't know, you MUST get rid of CA from a picture if you plan to print out big pictures. I could not believe how noticeable CA was the first time I printed out an A4 size photo.

Before choosing, you need to find out what type of person you are. If you want to switch lenses as few times as possible, then I'd suggest the 17-85 (the consequence is lots of PP and slight corner sharpness). If you don't mind switching, then I'd suggest the 17-40. Even if something demanded a longer focal length (and you do not have the time to switch), you can take the picture at 40mm and try cropping. If the shot was good enough (good focus, low ISO) then it should still be possible to make large prints. I do that a lot of times with my sigma 30mm. One time I cropped out around 1/3 of the image and an A4 print of it looked fine.

my 543531421323424 cents. :roll:
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 5:08 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 42
Default

So what did you think of the 70-300 DO IS ? I was reading a review that really did not say many good things.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
Bucky Badger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 5:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I would be careful of that reviewer. He's a hardcore canon professional (evident from his suggestion list of L's)... even though he has recently began to review third party lenses.

At any rate, the build quality of the DO is really nice. It's takes effort to turn the focal length ring so I don't think zoom creep will be 'too' much of an issue - I wouldn't really know because I don't have a tele lens.

The optical quality is pretty nice... In regards to the softness issue ... I couldn't really see any softness- but then again, my camera was set to parameter 1 so there was a little bit of camera sharpening. I've heard from many people that this lens lacks a certain type of sharpness that can easily easily be compensated by sharpening software. Sounds reasonable when you think about the term "Diffracting" Optics. Anyway, the lens is nice - build quality AND optics.

That aside, however, the non-DO 70-300 IS has the same optical quality (I honestly could not distinguish any difference). I was really impressed. And the "fake" USM is definitely better off than a DC motor found in the kit lens. But the build is lousy compared to the DO (99.99% sure that zoom creep will be a lot more frequent than the DO model).

If you could live with the cheaper build quality and a slightly slower AF, I would highly suggest the non DO 70-300 IS - you would just save so much money that could be spent elsewhere.




BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 6:16 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 42
Default

Thanks for the reply, I really like how compact the "DO" is tho. Something else to kick around..:?So many damn choices.
Bucky Badger 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 1:33 PM.