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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 19, 2006, 5:44 AM   #11
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,564

nelmr wrote:
(I don't want the kit it comes with)
This should do it (same as kit lens but better) - http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomvprimes

-> The truth is they are all OK... so you're running in circle :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2006, 7:37 AM   #12
Senior Member
Trique Daddi's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 282

I bought the Sigma AF 17-70mm f 2.8-4.5 DC Macro a few weeks ago and am very happy with it. I have a 20D.I shot my neices college graduatioin pics for the closer family and group pics and am very happy with it. I have the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L lens and used it for the longer stuff. The picture quality and sharpness is very good. I like having the little bit extra length with the 17-70mm.

Good luck and enjoy your camera!

Trique Daddi
Trique Daddi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2006, 9:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493

Well I read thru all the reviews over at fred mirda's site and must say that the 18-50EX is a very attractive lens. The soft edges at max aperture and 18mm don't bother me as I veiwed the samples at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm.

I would prefer to get the best quality over anything else. It's that simple. I am buying a dslr primarily for more quality and then also low light shooting. Thus it seems a bit stupid not to get a constant 2.8 if that is my goal and an EX at that! Right now I am about 75% sure I will spring for the 18-50EX over the 17-70 Macro.

There are only 3 things that are still naging me. Wereas the CA on the 18-50EX is a bit more than normal it can easily be fixed in PP work. However this is also purple fringing that seems a bit severe. See samples below:

Purple fringing at f/2.8:

verses the chromatic aberrvations:

I will say though that most of the time purple fringing/CA appears in high contrast outdoor shoots. The reviewer (photozone.com) mentions that the purple fringing is only sever at wide appertures but the CA is thruought the range (but worse at 2.8) As such I doubt I'll be using 2.8 for my landscape work anyway and should be able to reduce purple fringing. CA again, is acceptable to me.

A question I have though is can the purple fringe be fixed in PP work? THe reviewer said this much can't be completely eliminated?

The next two things that still nag me is the loss of the 20-23mm (it's been confirmed that the 18-50 is actually a 18-47mm). Also the macro of the 18-50 is 1:5 vs. the 17-70's 1:2.3

The MTF charts on the two lens look very similar with the 18-50 being better in some ways, and vice versa to the 17-70.

Okay one more thing bugs me. The photozone says the 17-70 is just as sharp overall as the 18-50. ephotozine says the 17-70 isn't nearly as sharp as the 18-50. So does this mean that either one had a worse copy of either lens?

I am finding it much harder to shop for a lens than for the camera body. At least I knew with the body what this image quality was. It seems with lens it's all dependent on the copy one gets. As such how do the online stores far with dealing with returns and exchanges for lenses? It seems like B&H, 17th street photo say a 7 day return polocy from receipt for digital lenses. As such with normal shipping that would be almost impossible to return. Any suggestions here would be helpful.

Also no local stores around here sell the sigmas with the except of Ritz camera which isn't cheap at all. One other store has the 18-50 EX in stock for $399 US.

nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2006, 10:51 AM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493

Sorry about all my posts but It is helpful for me to write these things out (I better understand what the differences are) not to mention having some of you guys chime in is helpful too.

NHL, I finnaly got a chance to look thru some of the pbase gallery tests shots.

Most notabley, the 18-50 EX compared to the 17-40L reveals that in sharpness, contrast, and color it holds up quite well and has more focal length and 2.8!

THe purple fringing is cofirmed here ( http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/41769220 ) to be only a issue at 2.8 in high contrast. At f4 and above the CA is more red tone, similar to the 17-40L.

That said I am no longer concered about the CA-purple fringing of the 18-50 EX.

Now the only real things that make me still consider the 17-70 is it's added zoom and macro.

I'm getting closer to finally making a decision..... I need to look at the 17-70 test shots again to know for sure. But right now I am definetly leaning towards the 18-50 EX!
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2006, 11:54 AM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493

Okay narrowing it down a bit here are the pros and cons of each lens

18-50 EX PROS (effective to 29-80mm)
2.8 constant (can use indoors, weddings, etc)
Lower vignetting than 17-70
Lower barel distortion than 17-70
Higher Resolution (just about as good at 17-40L)
Better contrast than 17-70
Better Build than 17-70
usable f2.8 (except see con below)

18-50 EX CONS
Smaller range than 17-70
Macro is 1:5 vs. 1:2.3
More CA-Red and especially CA-purple than 17-70
soft corners at 18mm f2.8 (but only on exterme border 85% off center)

17-70 DC PROS (effective to 27-112mm)
2.8-3.2 aperture in the 17-24 (which means indoor low light ability at 27.2 - 38.4mm)
Better range than 18-50
Macro is 1:2.3 vs 1:5
Build quality almost as good as 18-50
Less CA-Red and CA-Purple than 18-50

17-70 DC CONS
Not as sharp
more vignetting
more barel distortion
worse contrast than 18-50
F2.8-3.2 quite soft at corners (overal morso than 18-50)


That said 17-70 is definetly more versital. From what I've seen online and reading posts it has about 85% the picture quality of the 18-50 EX. For my trip to Eurpoe the extra 20mm may help. I doubt the macro will make much difference as I don't see that as a travel feature (unless i want to do flower shots but I can do those almost anywhere). I could still use this lens indoors but the pic quality isn't nearlly as good as the EX at these apertures and I'm limited to 17-24mm, maybe 34? at best for indoor no flash shots. Since the trip includes muesum shoots and other indoor pictures this may be an issue.

Regarding the 18-50 EX, I loose 20mm which means I can't get as cloose to subjects (supposing I can't walk closer) than the 17-70. This is a mildly big difference especially if reports are true that the 18-50Ex is more like a 19-47 in regards to focal length (not the wide end difference too). However, since macro focus isn't the main issue here for the trip in mind this is the only real disadvantage the 18-50 has over the 17-70. Not to mention I plan to get a telephoto later I won't need the 70mm anyway as it isn't enough to get close enough when you really want to (my old camera has 370mm equiv max so 112 equiv isn't nearly the same). The 2.8 constant will help with the indoor pics I will do on the trip. The added quality means I'll spend less time PPing each picture (I plan to shoot raw but still less vignetting fixing, less distortion fixing, less contrast fixing, less sharpening, albeit more CA fixing)

As such right now my desicion is to get the 18-50EX as I can't see a better lens, quality wise, for it's focal length. I can always get telephoto or wide angle lenses later.

I choose a 350d over the d70s because I value picture qualty over ergonomics and versitility. So it only makes sense to get the lens that follows that ideaology.

The 18-50EX it is!!!

nelmr 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 5:56 PM.