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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 2, 2006, 11:15 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:
Quote:
Am I the only one that feels that way? :roll:
No - I feel the same way too...
May be because of the 'heft'? :idea:
-> I noticed this on the Tokina ATX-Pro series as well - Metal construction and all that heavy optics (engraved marking and filled with paint too...). I never like polycarbonate lenses, especially after a while when they wear out and get loose. The metal lenses are smoother in operation, hold up better and IMO are worth any extra weight!

The hefty metal just 'feel' right (ditto with the camera bodies) :?

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 2:38 PM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

And I guess I feel the same way too.

When I was looking for an ultra-wide I went to the shop and tried out the Canon 10-20 and the Sigma 12-24.

I went for the Sigma in the end for 3 reasons:
1. It's full-frame, and I knew I would be getting the 5D eventually.
2. The build quality was much better than the Canon.
3. It was much much cheaper (though I was in South Africa at the time where Canon prices are about double what they are in the UK, and so almost 3 times US prices).

Having said that I do believe that I would be getting marginally better image quality with the Canon. But the Sigma is good enough, and I can't wait to see it on a full-frame setup.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 3:04 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Sawyer Duvall

You have mentioned before that you found the 17-85 "inconsistent".

I'm extremely curious as to what you could possibly mean. I presume you only had one copy and found that single lens to be inconsistent.

May be one for the X-files.
Regarding the 17-85, you presumed wrong. I had three lenses: #1, returned to the retailer, #2, stolen, #3 I have. Maybe I used a wrong choice of words calling this lens inconsistent. It does suffer many weaknesses, including CA and soft focus:

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

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...all&page=7

I never knew what to expect from this lens. Maybe I should have said that it is consistently unpredictable or consistently average. It is not really bad, but it is not really good. Sometimes my pictures had CA or soft focus that I could not remove in PP.

I decided to go with the 17-55 because I want to increase my chances of getting good pictures (notwithstanding issues of composition, lighting, metering, post processing, etc.). I cannot get good pictues with an average or poor lens. Yes, the 17-55 is expensive, but it is suprior to the 17-85:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm

For what I want from my photography, I was willing to pay the price. I am happy to sacrafice the difference in focal range for better IQ. The 17-55 is heavier, but I like the heft.


Sawyer Duvall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 5:18 PM   #14
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I notice from another thread that you had a bad version of the 24-105 L too, which lens Canon could not find anything wrong with with 3 returns for calibration.

So you're ranking is that the 24-105 L was worst (consistently?), the 17-85 was inconsistent or consistently unpredictable or consistently average - (which seem like 3 different things to me) and the 17-55 is good.

Curiously you also cannot find any difference in picture quality between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.


Quote:
I cannot get good pictues with an average or poor lens.
Or even sometimes with some rather good lenses it seems. And of course we all know of some extraordinarily good photographers who seem to manage to get amazing pictures with very modest equipment indeed.

Well, I guess some people are just very unlucky with their purchases.

At any rate I'm glad you found something you like, the 17-55 certainly does look like a very nice lens.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 11:26 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
... When I was looking for an ultra-wide I went to the shop and tried out the Canon 10-20 and the Sigma 12-24.

I went for the Sigma in the end for 3 reasons:
1. It's full-frame, and I knew I would be getting the 5D eventually.
2. The build quality was much better than the Canon.
3. It was much much cheaper (though I was in South Africa at the time where Canon prices are about double what they are in the UK, and so almost 3 times US prices)...
The Sigma 12-24 works great on a 1D mrkII :lol: :-) :lol:
-> and that's the crux with this EF-S 17-55mm, beside being polycarbonate it's upgrade path to the larger bodies is pretty much limited...

I didn't go with the 30D since it's not very different from my 10D except for speed. My options is like you: the 5D, but then if one looks @ most full-frame lenses they don't perform as well as their 'digital' lenses counterparts at the edges

I shoot mostly wildlife lately and the 1.3x is like a compromise 1/2 step instead, but the main reason to choose the 1D mrk II is its AF capability down to f/8 (which I confirmed with the 100-400L and a 1.4x TC) since this will allow a greater flexibility in long lenses selections.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 11:28 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Aaarg!

Very good points!!

Now I'm confused again.

But you've gone from a 1.6 crop to a 1.3 crop so that you can use a 1.4x TC! Not much in it is there? :?

But as my main use is landscape and portrait rather than wildlife/action I think the 5D probably still has the lead for me.

Also I'm really not one of those people who thinks that the most important thing about a lens is how sharp it is. Other factors weigh more heavily with me as long as it reaches a level of "very good" - I don't need it to be the very best.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 4:53 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:

Quote:
But you've gone from a 1.6 crop to a 1.3 crop so that you can use a 1.4x TC! Not much in it is there?
Anyone who has tried the AF capability of the 1D series will be amazed :idea:
-> a small compromise may be... to get more usage out of f/5.6 lenses




Quote:
Also I'm really not one of those people who thinks that the most important thing about a lens is how sharp it is. Other factors weigh more heavily with me as long as it reaches a level of "very good" - I don't need it to be the very best.
I'm with you

Plus that 12-24 EX is the widest rectilinear full-frame zoom available anywhere, you can't get it from Canon even if you want to... It's even wider than the 16-35L on the 1D mrkII after cropping out the edges!!! :-) :lol: :G

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 6:22 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

In case anyone needs reminding that sharpness isn't everything...

http://www.keithcarterphotographs.com/images.html
peripatetic 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 10:51 AM.