 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / January 2006Canon! How about producing a decent walk-a-round lens?
Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame DSLR's! Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. The only option at the moment is a slow lens. Or alternatively a 16-35 F2.8L or a 24-70 2.8L. My hand is staying in my pocket, although I have just been informed that Sigma is producing a 18-50 EX f/2.8. Sounds tempting. > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame DSLR's! > Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. Remember that "L" lenses aren't EF-S, they're EF. Making a quality f/2.8 zoom that would go from 17-70mm on an EF mount (full frame) would be prohibitively difficult and expensive. Because of that, it's a near certainty that you'll never see such a lens in the "L" series. But will you see it in the EF-S series? It would certainly be much eaiser to design such a lens if it only had to cover the APS-C sensor size. However, it's still not going to be easy or cheap - most likely far more expensive than an "EF-S" lens *should* cost, either from a marketing or consumer standpoint. Face it, a $1300 EF-S lens isn't going to do very well, and certainly not a $2,000 model. Considering that only one EF-S lens reaches f/2.8 now - and that it's a prime - I just don't see an f/2.8 EF-S zoom, let alone a *constant aperture* f/2.8 zoom. Furthermore, remember that while EF-S *is* here to stay, Canon is using full-frame in lower models of cameras, and that right now, only their two cheapest cameras have EF-S mounts. In the future, that may very well change to only one model. Let's face it, making "L" quality glass that only works on your one or two cheapest models isn't exactly a money-making endeavor. As to how much more development Canon will put into the EF-S lineup, Canon is supposedly going to announce at least two new lenses at PMA. Let's see if any of them are EF-S, my guess is that they won't be. That's not to say that Canon won't introduce another one or two eventually, but that you're just not going to see anything fantastic in that area. steve Good post Steve. However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I don't see why Canon can't. 10-22, 16-35 F2.8L or a 24-70 2.8L. Yeah, nice to know, but doesn't actually create a solution. > > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame > DSLR's! [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > steve > However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I don't > see why Canon can't. Sigma makes a lot of lenses that Canon won't, because Sigma isn't quite as shy about turning out lenses that are a study in compromises. Notice that the 30 lp/mm MTF is pretty poor at a measly 13mm off-center, both at the wide and the long end. Even the 18-55mm Canon kit lens, at about $80, does noticeably better. Why does it do better? Because wide zoom ranges and decent performance are enough of a trade-off, when you add large apertures, then you're *really* facing a herculean task. So, let's imagine making this lens: You design a lens that not only has to perform a millimeter wider (which at those focal lengths is not entirely insignificant), and 20mm longer. Right there alone, in order to just keep the same quality, you're going to have to add more elements and keep tolerances much tighter, which means you've got to throw money at it. Then, because the aperture has to stay the same at a longer focal length, the elements have to be larger - which compounds the increased costs from number and tolerances. All in all, you're talking about a lens that would cost $700 at a minimum, and more likely $800 to produce to the same quality level. Now, here's the rub: Who's going to shell out $800 on a lens of only mediocre quality? Not many people. You'd have to improve the quality where you could, increasing the cost. To make it even worse, Now you have to pitch that $800+ lens to people who have bought one of your two least-expensive cameras. That's not a really good recipe for profits. Don't get me wrong, an EF-S 17-70 f/2.8 would be the bomb. But from a financial standpoint, it's just not going to happen. steve > > However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I don't > > see why Canon can't. > > Sigma makes a lot of lenses that Canon won't, because Sigma isn't quite as > shy about turning out lenses that are a study in compromises. I think Canon doesn't want to make expensive EF-S lenses because their high end cameras have 1.3x and 1.6x sensors. Nikon has a 17-55/2.8 DX which is supposed to be very good. > high end cameras have 1.3x and 1.6x sensors. Typo: 1.3x and 1.0x. And 1.3x is going away. > So, let's imagine making this lens: You design a lens that not only has to > perform a millimeter wider (which at those focal lengths is not entirely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Don't get me wrong, an EF-S 17-70 f/2.8 would be the bomb. But from a > financial standpoint, it's just not going to happen. A possibility is that another way to successfully navigate through the "law of physics and finances" box is to go to a higher aperature (f/4), but compensate by throwing in the Image Stabilization (IS) hardware. IS wouldn't initially seem to make sense for a wide angle, until you consider that the cost of already-developed gyro's will be modest, and the engineering techniques for using them is already known & demonstrated. As such, it very well may be cheaper to use IS to offset the "glass" developmental & quality control costs for an f/2.8 aperature. -hh > > Don't get me wrong, an EF-S 17-70 f/2.8 would be the bomb. But from a > > financial standpoint, it's just not going to happen. > > A possibility is that another way to successfully navigate through the > "law of physics and finances" box is to go to a higher aperature (f/4), > but compensate by throwing in the Image Stabilization (IS) hardware. You mean, a lens that could be nicknamed EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS ;o) ? (Note these free 15 mm bonus at the tele end). For the moment, I find it rather safe that we, poor mortals, could take an understandable glance in Canon's marketing ways : an EF-S line of bodies and lenses for hobbyists, and a full-frame EF line for pros (or fortune-favorised hobbyists). I also do hope that will last a bit (at least longer than the *_film_* APS cameras, pleaaaase!) - because I wouldn't want my 10-22 to become a paperpress once my 300d will be in camera's heaven. Note to Canon's marketing dept : that could easily eager me, perhaps even enough to buy a Nikon. > > A possibility is that another way to successfully navigate through the > > "law of physics and finances" box is to go to a higher aperature (f/4), > > but compensate by throwing in the Image Stabilization (IS) hardware. > > You mean, a lens that could be nicknamed EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS ;o) ? > (Note these free 15 mm bonus at the tele end). That's precisely the lens that I was thinking of, but didn't bother to go to B&H to look up the exact specifics... FWIW, from a philisophical standpoint, the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS is an functional duplicate to the 35mm EF 28-135mm IS. As such, if this focal length range meets the OP's definition for "walk around" applications, then the product he wants effectively already exists, albeit with the IS technology in lieu of an f/2.8 aperature. Thus said, my personal interest in the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS is fairly low. I have the EF 28-135 IS, and used it as a' walk-around' lens for a couple of years and in general, I found that it was neither wide enough nor long enough, so for me, it has become a garage queen. Since my interests tend to be either very wide or very long, for a walkaround, I'd probably consider the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM...and simply not worry that its not an f/2.8 > For the moment, I find it rather safe that we, poor mortals, could take > an understandable glance in Canon's marketing ways... > I also do hope that will last a bit...because I wouldn't want my 10-22 > to become a paperpress once my 300d will be in camera's heaven. > Note to Canon's marketing dept : that could easily eager me, perhaps > even enough to buy a Nikon. This is a good point: the interchangable lens attribute of SLR's leads to sunk cost investments that tends to discourage consumers from "jumping the fence" to competitor's products, and there will be a quite tangible risk for Canon if/when they "retire" EF-S that those consumers will see themselves as no longer having a sunk cost investment that merits sticking with Canon - - they're free to shop amongst the entire market, since the barrier to entry is equal. Of course, if a manufacturer were savvy, they would offer a "Trade-In" program to try to encourage customer retention to their brand. -hh > This is a good point: the interchangable lens attribute of SLR's leads > to sunk cost investments that tends to discourage consumers from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > manufacturer were savvy, they would offer a "Trade-In" program to try > to encourage customer retention to their brand. I'm sure that the 1.6 crop factor will be around in the consumer space for a long time. But full-frame is what "prosumers" are demanding, and long term it'll be what Canon and Nikon offer in their prosumer models. Check back in 10 years to see if this all comes to pass! > > This is a good point: the interchangable lens attribute of SLR's leads > > to sunk cost investments that tends to discourage consumers from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > long term it'll be what Canon and Nikon offer in their prosumer > models. Check back in 10 years to see if this all comes to pass! A few loudmouths are demanding it. The rest of us are demanding our f/2 zoom lenses instead (we want *some* of the benefits of a smaller format, anyway!)  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I'm sure that the 1.6 crop factor will be around in the consumer space > for a long time. But full-frame is what "prosumers" are demanding, and > long term it'll be what Canon and Nikon offer in their prosumer models. No dispute, per se. My only twist would be to ask why the prosumers are "demanding" Full Frame. For example, it could be to get more pixels, or it could be to get a good wide angle lens. Understanding what they actually want helps identify where to apply your product development resources...CMOS vs Glass, etc. > Check back in 10 years to see if this all comes to pass! -hh >> I'm sure that the 1.6 crop factor will be around in the consumer space >> for a long time. But full-frame is what "prosumers" are demanding, and >> long term it'll be what Canon and Nikon offer in their prosumer models. > > No dispute, per se. My only twist would be to ask why the prosumers > are "demanding" Full Frame. It's not full frame, as much as it is higher resolution and lower noise. The physics are such that larger pixels will always give you less noise, assuming everything else is the same. But it's also related to the expense of making good wide-angle lenses, which is much easier and less costly with a larger sensor. The Nikon D3 will probably be full frame, the only question is whether it's a Nikon sensor, Sony sensor, or from someone else entirely. > However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I don't > see why Canon can't. Because Canon doesn't produce shitty stuff like Sigma does. BEEN DREAMING OF LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, ON YOUR TERMS? YOU CAN DO THIS! You will now become part of a Mail Order business. In this business the product is not solid or tangible, it's a service. You are in the business of developing Mailing Lists. You deal with information, and information is power. Many large corporations are happy to pay vast amounts for quality lists. However, the money made from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from people like you and me asking to be included on such a list. I used to work my butt off for someone else, but not any more. Getting on to the internet changed everything. I came across an article that said you could make thousands of dollars within weeks with a once only investment of $6.00! "Yeah, right, what a scam," is what I thought. I was skeptical to say the least. Still, I was curious. I figured I could stand to lose six bucks, so I kept reading. I'm pretty glad I did. All you had to do was send $1.00 to the 6 names at the addresses listed in the article. Then, you placed your name and address at the bottom of the list at position #6, and posted the article to at least 200 newsgroups. I felt pretty silly after I'd sent the letters, and it took a bit of time to post the message to all those newsgroups. To be honest, I pretty much forget about the whole deal there and then. "It's only six dollars. No big deal." Was I in for a surprise. GUESS WHAT! Within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! It was amazing! I figured it would end, but it didn't. The money just kept rolling in. I made about $18.00 in the first week. By the end of the second week I'd made a total of over $980. $10,328 in week three, and it just went on and on. This is now my fifth month and I'm sitting on about $273,000. Needless to say I quit my job a while back. (I used to work as a computer software manager) It was certainly worth the $6.00 and change for the stamps. I've spent more than that on the lottery, without a cent to show for it!! Print a copy of this article, so you can refer back to it, or cut and paste it to Notepad or Word. The process is very simple and is comprised of 3 easy steps. If you're wondering why I'm letting you in on this, I'll explain it to you shortly. Bear with me. This works. STEP 1: Get 6 separate sheets of paper and write the following on each; "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST." Get 6 US$1.00 bills (or the equivalent in your local currency) and place a dollar and a note in each of the 6 envelopes. Fold the bill into the paper in order to prevent it from being seen, and possibly stolen. You should now have 6 sealed envelopes, each containing a dollar and the note. Don't forget to add your name and address. Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses: #1 R. Arambasic, 9 Ashmore St, Brunswick, VIC, Australia 3056 #2 S. Vouge, P.O. Box 5173, New York, N.Y. 10163, USA #3 R. Dumancic, Mlinarska 22A, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia #4 D. Lozina, 128 Nicholson St, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia 3065 #5 B. Spaleta, 39 Stewart Gve, Campbellfield, VIC, Australia 3061 #6 J. Wurdemann, P.O. Box 912, North Branch, MN. 55056, USA STEP 2: Take name #1 off the list above, move the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR name as number 6 on the list. STEP 3: Post your amended article to at least 200 newsgroups. (There's heaps out there) All you need is 200, but the more you post, the more money you make! ********* HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS (It's easy) ********* 1. You don't need to re-type this entire letter to do your own posting. Cut and paste this letter to your Notepad. 2. Remember to eliminate the #1 position, move everyone up a spot (re-number everyone else's positions), and add yourself as #6. 3. Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If you want to do your postings in different sittings, you'll always have this file to go back to. *** NETSCAPE USERS *** Step 4. Within the Netscape program, go to the pull down window entitled 'Window' select 'NetscapeNews'. Then from the pull down menu 'Options', select 'Show all Newsgroups'. After a few moments a list of all the Newsgroups on your server will show up. Click on any newsgroup you desire. >From within this newsgroup, click on the 'TO NEWS' button, which should be in the top left corner of the newsgroups page. This will bring up a message box. Step 5. Fill in the Subject. This will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a particular group. Step 6. Highlight the entire contents of your .txt file, and cut and paste it the letter into the body of your posting. Step 7. Hit the 'Send' Button in the upper left corner. You're done with your first post! Congratulations... *** INTERNET EXPLORER USERS *** Step 4. Go to newsgroups and select 'Post an Article'. Step 5. Fill in the subject. Step 6. Same as #6 above Step 7. Hit the 'Post' button. Alternatively, you can use a program like Forte Agent, which you can find on the Web. THAT'S IT! All you have to do is jump to different newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of it. It takes about 30 seconds for each newsgroup! **REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST TO, THE MORE MONEY YOU'LL MAKE!! POST A MINIMUM OF 200** There you go! You'll begin receiving money from around the world within days! You may eventually even want to rent a P.O. Box due to the large amount of mail you'll receive. Should you wish to stay anonymous, you may use a pseudonym, as the postman will deliver it just the same. **MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.** So, why am I letting you in on this. Let me explain. Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies. I make $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter. Now, if each of the 5 individuals who sent me $1.00 make the minimum 200 postings, with my name at #5, and only 5 people respond to each of the original 5, that's another $25.00 for me. Now those 25 each make 200 posts with my name at #4, and with 5 replies each, I earn an additional $125.00! Those 125 turn around and post the minimum 200 with my name at #3 and receive 5 replies each, I make $626.00 more! Get the picture? Five responses is actually a below norm response rate. The average is about 15 to 25. For example, here's what you can expect to earn from 15 responses: at #6 $15.00 at #5 $225.00 at #4 $3,375.00 at #3 $50,625.00 at #2 $759,375.00 at #1 $11,390,625.00 When your name is no longer on the list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out your $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6 again (which is what I'm doing), and start posting again. The thing to remember is that thousands of people all over the world are joining the internet and reading these articles everyday, just as you are now!! Can you afford $6.00? I believe so. (I just didn't buy lunch that day) People have said, "what if the plan is played out and no one sends you the money? Doesn't matter. There are tons of new honest users and new honest people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everyday, willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new users daily. This will work for you. Be honest, be fair. Remember, what goes around comes around. >> However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I don't >> see why Canon can't. > >Because Canon doesn't produce shitty stuff like Sigma does. http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Canon_Canon_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_USN >>> However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I >>> don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Canon_Canon_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_USN Gee, that's definitive. One guy gave it 4 stars, one guy gave it one star, because it's slow focusing and has CA. Wow, two reviews, and on that you base a comment? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I >>>> don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >because it's slow focusing and has CA. Wow, two reviews, and on that you >base a comment? No, I base it on many reviews online and in magazines that have said it's basically mediocre. Anyone who gives it "4 stars" is an idiot. -Rich >>>>> However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I >>>>> don't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it's basically mediocre. Anyone who gives it "4 stars" is an idiot. > -Rich Anyone who gives in 1 star is just as much of an idiot. Sort of like the guy who cites a review page that consists of two reviews... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>>> However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I >>>>>> don't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Anyone who gives in 1 star is just as much of an idiot. Sort of like the > guy who cites a review page that consists of two reviews... I own the non-usm version, and it's not as bad as some would have you think. Sure, it feels cheap, but then again, it is cheap. One use I have found for it that it excels at, is macro, with a *cheap* Opteka macro converter screwed on the front. Ever seen the color of nail polish ants have on their feet? It doesn't get too badly rated here. Based on 54 Reviews. http://tinyurl.com/b6xaw > >> However, come on. If Sigma can produce a 18-50mm F2.8 lens, then I don't > >> see why Canon can't. > > > >Because Canon doesn't produce shitty stuff like Sigma does. > > http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Canon_Canon_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_USN > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame DSLR's! > Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. Unless it's a lens primarily intended for the full-frame models, it's unlikely to happen. What's the market for a lens that costs as much as, or more, that the camera body, for the two 1.6 crop factor D-SLRs that Canon makes. Let's face it, the world is moving to full frame, and we'll likely see full frame break the $2000 price point later this year. Nikon will likely introduce a full-frame model by the end of 2006 as well, as the Nikon faithful are demanding it. Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? > Unless it's a lens primarily intended for the full-frame models, it's > unlikely to happen. What's the market for a lens that costs as much as, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > likely introduce a full-frame model by the end of 2006 as well, as the > Nikon faithful are demanding it. > Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? The low end Canons will probably stay APS-C (1.6x) sized for a while. Canon uses three sensor sizes (1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x) in its DSLR's. Making a high end lens in the 1.6x format doesn't seem that clever. Nikon seems to be sticking to 1.6x and makes a 17-55/2.8 for it. I actually can't think of any serious full frame lenses that Nikon has introduced recently (post-2004), though maybe there are some. Depends on how you look at it. Canon are asking themselves ... Will we sell more 'L' lenses if we do this? Will we sell more bodies if we do this? Marketing and sales departments decide, not the technical people, who are the actual people who actually know what they are doing. How about I buy the only lens that actually suits my needs? Let's face it, I would love to buy Canon, but they do not have anything I want to buy. Trust me, I am not just one person winging. > Making a high end lens in the 1.6x format doesn't seem that clever. > Canon are asking themselves ... Will we sell more 'L' lenses if we > do this? Will we sell more bodies if we do this? Marketing and > sales departments decide, not the technical people, who are the > actual people who actually know what they are doing. Yeah, sooner or later the lenses on Canon point-and-shoots will be designated "L" and that will certainly increase sales numbers. However, we're talking about a high speed zoom which is necessarily quite expensive. I don't think Canon makes any professional DSLR's (EOS-1D series) right now with 1.6x sensors. The EOS-1D series is all 1.0x or 1.3x (is that correct?). The amateur series are either 1.0x (5d) or 1.6x (20d/350d). It won't surprise me if the 20d replacement is 1.3x. I suspect that most current 20d owners would buy a 5d if they could afford it. That leaves the 350d and its successors. Not so many of those cameras get fitted with high end lenses. >> Canon are asking themselves ... Will we sell more 'L' lenses if we >> do this? Will we sell more bodies if we do this? Marketing and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, we're talking about a high speed zoom which is necessarily > quite expensive. Actually, I think one of Canon's compacts (S1?) had a lens designated "L." For that designation, it only needs one element made of exotic materials, like flourite or a super ultra low dispersion glass. > I don't think Canon makes any professional DSLR's (EOS-1D series) > right now with 1.6x sensors. The EOS-1D series is all 1.0x or 1.3x [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > afford it. That leaves the 350d and its successors. Not so many of > those cameras get fitted with high end lenses. It would surprise the heck out of me, and many others, if the 20D successor was a 1.3x crop. For one thing, that would negate the use of EF-S lenses, limiting them to one camera line, which would make no sense, either for marketing or R&D. And there have been broad hints dropped that the 1.3x sensor is on life support. Expect the 20D replacement to be between 10 and 12 mp and a 1.6x crop. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > It would surprise the heck out of me, and many others, if the 20D > successor was a 1.3x crop. For one thing, that would negate the use > of EF-S lenses, Are you sure that EF-S lenses work on the 20D as it is? > limiting them to one camera line, I thought they were already limited to the low end models > which would make > no sense, either for marketing or R&D. And there have been broad > hints dropped that the 1.3x sensor is on life support. OK, makes sense. > Expect the 20D replacement to be between 10 and 12 mp and a 1.6x crop. Yeah, either that or 1.0x. >> It would surprise the heck out of me, and many others, if the 20D >> successor was a 1.3x crop. For one thing, that would negate the use >> of EF-S lenses, > > Are you sure that EF-S lenses work on the 20D as it is? Positive. We have an 18-55 EF-S that came in the 20D kit. >> limiting them to one camera line, > > I thought they were already limited to the low end models 350D/RebelXT and 20D. >> which would make >> no sense, either for marketing or R&D. And there have been broad [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yeah, either that or 1.0x. Not going to be full frame, too expensive to produce, so it would either be too close to the 5D's price, or they'd have to cut quality of the body even further, so that you'd have a full frame 350D. And you'd be back to producing a separate lens line for one line of cameras. Didn't work with APS film, won't work with APS sized sensors. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Actually, I think one of Canon's compacts (S1?) had a lens designated "L." > For that designation, it only needs one element made of exotic materials, > like flourite or a super ultra low dispersion glass. It's one fluorite *or* either three or four UD elements, if I recall. steve >> Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I actually can't think of any serious full frame lenses that Nikon >has introduced recently (post-2004), though maybe there are some. The first one I found, is the AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED. According to Nikon, this lens is released in 2005. Of course, it doesn't make any sense to make tele lenses in DX format. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > The first one I found, is the AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED. > According to Nikon, this lens is released in 2005. Cool, thanks. > Of course, it doesn't make any sense to make tele lenses in DX format. True, let's modify the condition to just include wideangles. But Nikon isn't making that many new lenses, so recent non-DX wideangles doesn't really tell us much. >True, let's modify the condition to just include wideangles. But >Nikon isn't making that many new lenses, so recent non-DX wideangles >doesn't really tell us much. The big question is whether the 17-35 is upto full frame. Somebody with a full frame Canon (and the right adapter) should do a shoot out. The Kodak DCS Pro 14n is other way of testing. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > The big question is whether the 17-35 is upto full frame. Somebody with > a full frame Canon (and the right adapter) should do a shoot out. > The Kodak DCS Pro 14n is other way of testing. The 17-35 has always been claimed to be a full frame lens. Do you mean the 17-55? A Canon adapter or Pro 14n is not needed for a test. If someone wants to send me one of these lenses, I can go buy some film and test it on my F3 ;-). FWIW, Bjorn Rorslett tested the 12-24 DX G on an F5 and found that it covers the full 35mm frame at 18mm and above, but vignettes below that. >> The big question is whether the 17-35 is upto full frame. Somebody with >> a full frame Canon (and the right adapter) should do a shoot out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If someone wants to send me one of these lenses, I can go buy some >film and test it on my F3 ;-). The problem is that full frame 35mm DSLRs are supposed to provide medium format quality. And F3 is not going to deliver that. Another problem is that (according to Bjorn Rorslett) CA becomes much more visible in high resolution sensors than on film. It is possible that he simply enlarges digital files more than film, but digital simply tends to be enlarged more than film. If the 17-35 is good enough, say, at least as good as the 12-24, then I think it would unlikely for Nikon to come with new full frame lenses in that range before any full frame camera is introduced. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > The problem is that full frame 35mm DSLRs are supposed to provide medium > format quality. And F3 is not going to deliver that. Well, DSLR's beat film at the same ISO, but there are still some very low speed films around, especially monochrome. E.g. I think Technical Pan is out of production but can still be obtained from various sources. I don't know what the color equivalent would be. There is probably even still some frozen K25 around though. > If the 17-35 is good enough, say, at least as good as the 12-24, then I > think it would unlikely for Nikon to come with new full frame lenses in > that range before any full frame camera is introduced. That leaves them missing (among other things) a bunch of high speed primes, fisheyes, etc. compared to Canon EOS and compared to Nikon's own now-mostly-discontinued MF lens line. >Well, DSLR's beat film at the same ISO, but there are still some very >low speed films around, especially monochrome. E.g. I think Technical >Pan is out of production but can still be obtained from various >sources. I don't know what the color equivalent would be. There is >probably even still some frozen K25 around though. I'm not sure that film responds the same way as a sensor. Testing with a high-res sensor is the best approach. >That leaves them missing (among other things) a bunch of high speed >primes, fisheyes, etc. compared to Canon EOS and compared to Nikon's >own now-mostly-discontinued MF lens line. Nikon still has a 16/2.8 AF fisheye. Fast/wide includes 14/2.8 AF, 28/1.4 AF, 35/2.0 AF. And, according to Nikon UK's press release, the 35/1.4 also remains available. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > I'm not sure that film responds the same way as a sensor. Testing with a > high-res sensor is the best approach. Fwiw, Thom Hogan did try the 17-55 that we were discussing on a film body (http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm): Works on 35mm. Yep, you can use it as an 26-55mm zoom on your full frame or 35mm bodies, though almost any filter will still vignette at 28mm. > Nikon still has a 16/2.8 AF fisheye. Fast/wide includes 14/2.8 AF, > 28/1.4 AF, 35/2.0 AF. > > And, according to Nikon UK's press release, the 35/1.4 also remains > available. Yeah, the 24/2 and 28/2 are gone. There will probably be no answer to the Canon 24/1.4 or the (I guess long gone) Olympus 21/2. I have an 28/2 (AI converted, cost $150 in beat-up condition but works fine) which was one of my most-used lenses. But the 17-35/2.8 is supposed to be terrific, so I guess it makes up for a lot. > > The problem is that full frame 35mm DSLRs are supposed to provide medium > > format quality. And F3 is not going to deliver that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sources. I don't know what the color equivalent would be. There is > probably even still some frozen K25 around though. I figure Ektar 25. The bastards discontinued it stealthily enough that I didn't know in time to stock up. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > Well, DSLR's beat film at the same ISO, but there are still some very > > low speed films around, especially monochrome. E.g. I think Technical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I figure Ektar 25. The bastards discontinued it stealthily enough > that I didn't know in time to stock up. First up was the rename of the Ektar line to to "Royal Gold", and you're right - from there, the ISO 25 variant quietly faded away. (taking peek in fridge) Looks like I have 16 rolls of it still left. -hh >> > The problem is that full frame 35mm DSLRs are supposed to provide >> > medium [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I figure Ektar 25. The bastards discontinued it stealthily enough > that I didn't know in time to stock up. Ektar 25, my personal favorite. They discontinued it by stages. First they changed it to Royal Gold 25, then, when no one bought it because they didn't know about it, they d'c'ed it... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > FWIW, Bjorn Rorslett tested the 12-24 DX G on an F5 and found that it > covers the full 35mm frame at 18mm and above, but vignettes below that. .. and produces exactly the same image at 18mm on film as it does at 12mm on a 1.5 crop digital. SignatureBruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+- Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------- > > Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? > > The low end Canons will probably stay APS-C (1.6x) sized for a while. They've publicly said that APS-C is here to stay, and it makes sense to do so in the lower-end cameras. Even if full-frame becomes relatively inexpensive, APS-C is cheaper, allowing them to make a less expensive entry-level dSLR, and create a "distinguishing feature" to make people think that they need to buy a more expensive camera, even if they don't really need full-frame for their applications. > Canon uses three sensor sizes (1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x) in its DSLR's. > Making a high end lens in the 1.6x format doesn't seem that clever. I believe that they've also said that 1.3x won't be done anymore - it'll be full-frame or EF-S (1.6x). steve >> Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I actually can't think of any serious full frame lenses that Nikon > has introduced recently (post-2004), though maybe there are some. Well, the 200-400 f4 VR may qualify as a full frame lens, I think. And doesn't the 18-200 work on other-than-digital-format? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Well, the 200-400 f4 VR may qualify as a full frame lens, I think. And > doesn't the 18-200 work on other-than-digital-format? The 18-200 is a DX. 200-400 VR is pre-2005, I think. Philip Homburg pointed out the 300/2.8 VR and also mentioned this isn't such an issue for telephotos. So we're looking for full frame Nikon wideangles (including zooms) introduced in 2005 or later, basically after Nikon quit making film cameras (except the F6). >> Well, the 200-400 f4 VR may qualify as a full frame lens, I think. And >> doesn't the 18-200 work on other-than-digital-format? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (including zooms) introduced in 2005 or later, basically after Nikon > quit making film cameras (except the F6). 200-400 just came out this past year, so, it is pre 2006, certainly "post 2004." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > 200-400 just came out this past year, so, it is pre 2006, certainly "post > 2004." OK, but not a wideangle. >> 200-400 just came out this past year, so, it is pre 2006, certainly "post >> 2004." > > OK, but not a wideangle. No, it's not a wideangle. Didn't know that was the qualifier. But it does show that Nikon is either dedicated to coverage on film or a full 35mm sized sensor. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >No, it's not a wideangle. Didn't know that was the qualifier. But it does >show that Nikon is either dedicated to coverage on film or a full 35mm sized >sensor. No, you get full frame coverage more or less for free with longer lenses. However, Nikon's MTF graph of the 200-400 is a bit odd at the wide (200) end. If you compare it to the 180/2.8, the 200-400 does seem to be optimized for DX. (At 400, the specs are great, even for full frame). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>No, it's not a wideangle. Didn't know that was the qualifier. But it >>does [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > end. If you compare it to the 180/2.8, the 200-400 does seem to be > optimized for DX. (At 400, the specs are great, even for full frame). Ah, ok, then Paul has a point, no matter when the lens was released. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? No. The EF-s lenses are fine for what they are, and some of them are very good, up to the level of L glass (i.e. the 10-22 EF-s. But as full-frame moves from pro down to prosumer, there isn't a reason for Canon to build very high end EF-s lenses for the tiny market of amateurs that would spend that much money on a lens. > > Are you saying that Canon 'stitched-up' their consumers with EF-S? > > No. The EF-s lenses are fine for what they are, and some of them are > very good, up to the level of L glass (i.e. the 10-22 EF-s. "One" doesn't constitute "some". :-) The 18-55 clearly isn't up to "L" standards, and while the 17-85 is a nice lens, it's still not there. The 60mm macro is a very fine lens, but I still haven't heard anyone claim that it's up to the level of any of the "L" series primes. I could see some logic in keeping a high-end APS-C camera for professionals that need extra-long lenses, but realistically, because they are professionals (with money to spend), Canon would probably make more money by selling them a full-frame body and making them buy longer (more expensive) lenses. The fact that a 200mm f/2.8 does the same job on a 20D as a 300mm f/2.8 on a full-frame body - at 1/6th the price - doesn't do much for Canon's pocketbooks. ;-) steve > Let's face it, the world is moving to full frame Your world perhapps, not anyone elses as far as I can see from where I'm sitting ;-) > > Let's face it, the world is moving to full frame > > Your world perhapps, not anyone elses as far as I can see from where I'm > sitting ;-) Then you must use Nikon! Canon has stopped making 1.3x, moving to full-frame for their top-end cameras, and since the advent of the 5D, it appears that they're moving it down the line as well. Only their lower models will remain 1.6x. steve >> Let's face it, the world is moving to full frame > > Your world perhapps, not anyone elses as far as I can see from where I'm > sitting ;-) Nikon is anxious to do a full frame professional model, but they are waiting for a decent full-frame sensor to be available. At this point in time, only Canon has low-noise, high-resolution, full-frame sensors and they don't appear to be interested in selling sensors to other manufacturers. > Nikon is anxious to do a full frame professional model, but they are > waiting for a decent full-frame sensor to be available. At this point > in time, only Canon has low-noise, high-resolution, full-frame sensors > and they don't appear to be interested in selling sensors to other > manufacturers. *cough* Dalsa *cough* Hasselblad *cough* etc. >> Nikon is anxious to do a full frame professional model, but they are >> waiting for a decent full-frame sensor to be available. At this point [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > *cough* Dalsa *cough* Hasselblad *cough* etc. The MF back chips are quite poor compared to Canon in the noise/dynamic range areas. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>> Nikon is anxious to do a full frame professional model, but they are >>> waiting for a decent full-frame sensor to be available. At this point [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan This is true. A larger sensor doesn't always mean better noise characteristics. Fill-Factory/Kodak proved this a long time ago. >>>> Nikon is anxious to do a full frame professional model, but they are >>>> waiting for a decent full-frame sensor to be available. At this point [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This is true. A larger sensor doesn't always mean better noise > characteristics. Fill-Factory/Kodak proved this a long time ago. It does if it's the same technology. The problem with the MF backs, is that those guys just don't have the R&D and the multiple generations of mfg experience Canon and Sony do. Every new chip Sony comes out with has this and that tweaked by 2 or 3 dB, and you do that 10 times, and you are getting really clean signals. And you figure out how to make microlenses that really work. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame > DSLR's! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My hand is staying in my pocket, although I have just been informed that > Sigma is producing a 18-50 EX f/2.8. Sounds tempting. I have the Sigma 18-50, it's a good lens on my 10D. Sigma also just introduced a 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, but it's not an EX so I'd wait for reviews. Their non-EX lenses don't have a great reputation. Mark > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame > DSLR's! > Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. You're being a tad greedy here: that's a 4x zoom range, equivalent to a 28-112. The 24-105/4.0 is heavy and expensive and has troubles at 24mm. I'd guess that your 17-70/2.8 is probably possible, but at a very similar weight and price. Canon probably figures that folks shelling out US$3000 for a camera (5D) can afford another $1200 or $1500 for a lens, but that folks spending $800 or $1200 for the body will probably balk at that price. We _should_ be seeing more "more interesting" lenses for APS-C, since (as others have pointed out) it's easier to make more heroic (faster, wider zoom ranges, with better lp/mm performance) lenses for smaller formats. > The only option at the moment is a slow lens. Or alternatively a 16-35 > F2.8L or a 24-70 2.8L. > > My hand is staying in my pocket, although I have just been informed that > Sigma is producing a 18-50 EX f/2.8. Sounds tempting. http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/lens/digital/18_50_28.htm That's a nice looking lens: compact, light, f/2.8, focuses close (1:5), uses 67mm filters as opposed to the 77mm of the 24-106.. But a tad pricey. Read the reviews carefully. FWIW, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is very nice on a 1.6x camera; cheap, sharp, light, fast. AF is a tad funky, though, and it ain't "L" build quality. It also works well on FF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Hello David True, I am being greedy. However a 18-50 would be an acceptable range, although not perfect. I currently have a 17-85, which I have no real problems with as a walk-a-round lens, however the main downfall is the aperture limitations. So, I am in a dilemma, do I spend money on a 24-70 2.8L, which doesn't really give me what I really want at the wide scale on a 20D? Or a 16-35 F2.8/17-40 F4, which gives me the wide end, but not the longer end? Neither really give me what I want from a walk-a-round lens, despite the financial outlay. The weight of the lens doesn't bother me. The other option is a full frame body, but I would prefer to spend money on lenses than the body. The reason for this is because as digital photography is still in it's infancy really (just like PC's were), body's are soon out of date due to quick technology advancements.. However, a decent lens doesn't really go out of date and you get many years of use from it. I have looked at the 5D, but not really what I am after. Loss of focal length, 3fps, etc. 1D Mk-II would be fantastic, but way out of budget. > > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame > > DSLR's! [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Just for your info, I would like a longer range for flexibility/convenience, but also because there are many places where you don't want to pull out a white lens. > Hello David > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > David J. Littleboy > > Tokyo, Japan "Steve" <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full > frame DSLR's! Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. > The only option at the moment is a slow lens. Or alternatively > a 16-35 F2.8L or a 24-70 2.8L. > My hand is staying in my pocket... I have a 20D and use the 16-35 f/2.8L as a walk-around lens. Before getting it, I thought it would be too wide but that has rarely been a problem. I sometimes take a 50mm f/1.4 prime along in my pocket but I've only actually used it on a couple of occasions. The 16-35 2.8L is a great lenses. I highly recommend it. If you give it a try, I think you may find it so good that you won't even miss the longer range. Yeah, I also have the 50mm F1.4, which I love. A fantastic lens. The 16-35 2.8L has crossed my mind. However, at those focal lengths, so does the 17-40L F4. So, you don't miss the longer range at all? > I have a 20D and use the 16-35 f/2.8L as a walk-around lens. Before > getting it, I thought it would be too wide but that has rarely been a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think you may find it so good that you won't even miss the longer > range. > The 16-35 2.8L has crossed my mind. However, at those focal lengths, so > does the 17-40L F4. So, you don't miss the longer range at all? Unless you constantly carry every type of lens from fisheye to super tele, there will always be some types of shots you won't get. But you can do fine with just a wideangle, even a non-zoom. My favorite walkaround lens for 35mm full frame was a 24/2.8, whose angle of coverage was very similar to a normal visual field of view when you're not using a camera (not counting peripheral vision). The 1.6x DSLR equivalent would be around 15mm. For a more general purpose 35mm was also a popular length, corresponding to 22mm at 1.6x. "Steve" <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Yeah, I also have the 50mm F1.4, which I love. A fantastic > lens. > > The 16-35 2.8L has crossed my mind. However, at those focal > lengths, so does the 17-40L F4. So, you don't miss the longer > range at all? If you think that the 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens (and I agree) I think you'd no doubt like the 16-35 f/2.8 even more. With the 50mm as a 'backup' I do not miss the 35 to 49 and 51 to 70mm ranges at all. IMHO, it is far more valuable to have the extra 1mm on the wide end and the larger f/2.8 apature. BTW, for my wide lens, I have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 1.4x Converter. The 70-200 is another fantastic lens. I wish my photography capabilities were up to the quality of my equipment. I have a sample of some photos taken with these lenses on my website. I shot everything on this page since Christmas. The photo labeled "Cold & Lonely" is the only one taken with the 50mm. Everything else is either the 16-35 or the 200. See: http://www.JustUs.ca/photos/ How do you find it for depth of field when shooting people? Do you need to get too close to them? This is one of the reasons for wanting a longer focal length, big aperture zoom. One of the reasons I really love the 50mm 1.4 is that I can shoot with a shallow depth of field and single people out in a group, but I don't have to get too close (intrude their personal space). Further more, they feel very un-intimidated because they see a small lens on the camera and don't realise that you are actually focusing on them. It is also great in fairly low light without the need for flash, combined with easy white balance adjustment it is great. Of course the limiting factor is also that 'foot zoom' is not always possible with a prime, hence why I would like a zoom. Yes, I agree, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 1.4x Converter if a lovely combination with the 20D. I would imagine to Canon's surprise that their sales have dramatically increased within the last few years with people buying this combination on their 1.6 cropped bodies. 300 F4 IS is also a nice addition to this combination, if you also shoot telephoto as well. > If you think that the 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens (and I agree) I > think you'd no doubt like the 16-35 f/2.8 even more. With the 50mm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > taken with the 50mm. Everything else is either the 16-35 or the 200. > See: http://www.JustUs.ca/photos/ >Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame >DSLR's! >Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. i can see why canon is doing that that is to make sure that you move to high cost bracket i am in the camp of pentax dslr even with the lowly DL, we can use majority of the prime lens dating back to the 70s right now i am using a (full frame capable) 50mm1.4 which is my walk-around lens daniel > >Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame > > >DSLR's! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > daniel You can use any lens made after 1987 on any Canon digital SLR, including all of their fixed focal length lenses. Which, of course, means the 50mm f1.8 will work just as well on his 350D as the your 50mm f1.4 will work on your camera. Does Pentax make a 17-70 f2.8? No? I didn't think so... Do they make a 17-85 f4-5.6 IS? Didn't think that, either... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Does Pentax make a 17-70 f2.8? No? I didn't think so... Do they make a >17-85 f4-5.6 IS? Didn't think that, either... skip we are not talking about canon compared with pentax i did not bash canon either which have great camera and lens but it appears that certain type of lens have limitation because of various crop factors i believe don't get me wrong daniel >> Does Pentax make a 17-70 f2.8? No? I didn't think so... Do they make a >>17-85 f4-5.6 IS? Didn't think that, either... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > daniel The lenses perform the same, whether Pentax or Canon, on crop cameras. If the lenses are designed for the crop, they are optimized for that. If they are older film based designs, then they are not. The implication of what you said was that older Pentax lenses worked better on the Pentax digital SLRs than the older Canons do on Canon's DSLRs. This is not so. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame >DSLR's! Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. >The only option at the moment is a slow lens. Or alternatively a 16-35 >F2.8L or a 24-70 2.8L. Talking about lowly Pentax the market share of which is nowhere near that of Canon/Nikon, we are used to cheapie prime. A brand new 50mm f/2 is around $60. a 50mm 1.2 is really pricey but a 50mm 1.4 is just around $200 brand new. I can tell you there are really prime not just in name. Daniel > >Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame > > >DSLR's! Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Daniel A brand new Canon 50mm f1.8 is about $80, the 1.4 is about $225. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com skip, the thread started off with the lack of prime lens for non-full frame dslr would the prime lens you mentioned fit those? daniel > skip, > the thread started off with the lack of prime lens for non-full frame > dslr > would the prime lens you mentioned fit those? > daniel As stated earlier, yes. Any Canon EF mount lens will mount on any Canon EOS camera, and fully function, whether that camera is film, 35mm sensor digital or a 1.6x crop digital. Going backwards with the EF-S mount is probably what you are thinking about. The more recently designed EF-S mount is designed to fit the crop sensor cameras, but only mounts on the RebelD, RebelXT and 20D. The mirrors on the full frame 5D and 1 series will, reportedly, hit the rear of the lens, but the lens can be modified to fit the 10D (also a 1.6x crop) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame DSLR's! > Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. Well, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM are all "decent" (some better than decent) walk-around lenses for 1.3x or 1.6x sensors. Sounds like what you really want is a superb lens, but why should Canon market a top-of-the-line lens for their bottom-of-the-line camera bodies? --/<eith Keith skip mentioned earlier : A brand new Canon 50mm f1.8 is about $80, the 1.4 is about $225. Those fast prime lens are not exactly pricey compared with the zoom you mentioned. And price-wise, those $200-300 range fast prime should match the budget of low-end canon dslr ($7-900 range). Daniel ps my walk around lens is a 50mm 1.4 for the lowly pentax > > Come on Canon, we want a decent walk-a-round lens for non-full frame DSLR's! > > Ideally a 17-70 2.8L. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > --/<eith |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.