I like 400d BUT

[honza_pl]

DSLR quality makes not only body but a good lens too.
And this is a big weakness of Canon.

I cann't understand why after several years of existence DSLRs is Canon not able to offer some good, universal zoom 17-70/ 2.8 with good optics for adequate price. Now I have to chose between kit lens (I want more), Tamron (nice, but short), Simga 17-70 (too often problems with quality and FF/BF) or 17-85IS (nice range but higher price and optical problems).

So now I would be forced to buy Nikon D80 with 18-70.

Sorry, but is Canon so stupid that they don't see this situation ??

 

[nahmed]

Whick better quality Nikon zoom lens covers the same range with constant f2.8?

17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor costs in average $1,300.
Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G costs in average $1,200.

In contrast, Canon offers EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, which on average costs $1,100, has L quality IQ, and in addition comes with IS.

 

[ScottyNV]

.. you are the exception, rather than the rule...

what you are asking just might not be what Canon is finding their customers are asking for (majority rules here)..

you paint with a broad brush, friend, and you miss a whole lot for that fact..

also , if you are so unhappy with Canon's offerings, why do you simply vote with your wallet and buy the competing product and be happy? Why criticize here at all - you won't get a whole lot of sympathy..

I use Canon, a good friend uses Nikon, and others use Pentax.. and we all get along because it is the final result that matters, not the process..

Scotty
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

My XT IS Full Frame -- APS-C/FF of course!

 

[activin]

To be fair...

Nikkor 17-35mm is a full-frame lens... and should be compared to Canon's EF 16-35mm L lens ($1400 @ B&H) instead of Canon EF-S 17-55mm.

Nikkor 17-55mm is a Nikkor professional lens (i.e. L-quality too!), with build quality to withstand professional use (weather sealing, metal construction, etc.), whereas Canon's plastic EF-S 17-55 is not built as nicely as Nikkors, but offer IS for similar price.

I think as an amateur, I would probably take the Canon's IS capability over the Nikkor 17-55mm's superior build quality. But I think for their intended audience, the professional who needs a lens to withstand daily abuses, the decisions becomes a bit more difficult. I guess, neither lens is enough to attract people from either camp to defect to the other camp!

Whick better quality Nikon zoom lens covers the same range with
constant f2.8?

17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor costs in average $1,300.
Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G costs in average $1,200.

In contrast, Canon offers EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, which on average
costs $1,100, has L quality IQ, and in addition comes with IS.

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

 

[honza_pl]

Sorry but you absolutely don't understand what I mean. My problem is that I like Canon and want to buy 400d, but I see no good lens similar to Nikon's kit lens 18-70.

 

[greentoe]

[snip]
I cann't understand why after several years of existence DSLRs is
Canon not able to offer some good, universal zoom 17-70/ 2.8 with
good optics for adequate price.

Suggest the mentioned two classes at your local college... it will help greatly with the 'understand' part...

-gt

 

[honza_pl]

maybe i meslead you with 2.8 number (but Sigma 17-70 is 2.8-4.5), but I wrote about problem with basic lens that would be better and a little longer replacement of 400d's kit lens and would be comparabe (or a bit better than Nikons kit lens 18-70).

L lens with ther price over thousand $ are too pricey and moreover - there is no lens with such universal zoom !

My question (or groan ) was why canon does'n solve this problem.

 

[activin]

I think I share similar sentiments with you when I first purchased my Nikon D50 camera. At the time, it was either a D50 with 18-70 lens or a Rebel XT with 18-55mm kit lens, both combo are ~$800 at the time. I purchased the D50 combo, because it has better glass... and it's a great combo!

I suggest that you go ahead and buy the D80 + 18-70 lens. You'll be happy! Although I own both D50 and Rebel XT (purchased at a later date for my fellowship group), I use my D50 much more often than my Rebel XT, partly because the D50 has better ergonomics and 18-70 is so much better and joyful to use than the Canon 18-55 kit lens.

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

 

[Tony SD]

Sigma can do it, so why not Canon?

But perhaps the lads at Sigma haven't done Physics 101...
--
TonySD

 

[jrscls]

Then buy a Nikon then. The 17-55 f2.8 is outstanding and if you need a cheaper alternative, the Tamron 17-50 is also very good and would likely beat most kit lenses.

 

[hugbunny]

But they do all these lenses, there must be something that you like? shift lenses, IS lenses HUGE lenses the biggest production lens in the world:

• now that's got to be something to be proud of isn't it?

Most are out of price range and I think they possibly don't want to comprise on quality and leave that to the 3rd party lenses which I do'nt mind buying because that's my budget.

 

[Aussie bloke]

... L lens with ther price over thousand $ are too pricey

So now you are saying something completely different.

So it seems Canon DO have such lenses, but you're just not willing to pay for them. Why don't you restate your question as 'Why are Canon lenses so expensive?'. I think that's what you really mean.

The 17-55 IS is a great lens. I don't see the problem (apart from the $1000 of course)

Cheers.

 

[mekman]

... or 17-85IS (nice range but higher price and optical problems).

So now I would be forced to buy Nikon D80 with 18-70.

Please try the camera/lense combination before making "rash" judgements. I went through the same thought process of you (reading about how aweful the 17-85 IS was...). My first choice at the time was the Nikon D70s with 18-70 and second choice was the Canon XT with the 18-55 Kit lense. I tried the XT at the store...they had both the 18-55 17-85IS and I really liked the IS lens for the range....turns out there is a Canon XT 17-85 IS kit that wound up costing me $1099 (no tax on this particular day...effective cost to me $1046.67). What sold me on the XT was the size/weight combo and the range of the lens. The XT is a keeper for me..partially since I've been spoiled by the IS part of the lense (which wasn't part of the purchase criteria for me...I wanted the range).

I do have to say that the Nikon D80 vs the Canon XTi is a tough choice though. If I had to start from scratch...The Nikon would still be in first place again. That is if I haven't been spoiled by the IS.
1) Better viewfinder (so I've heard)
2) Aligment grid on viewfinder

3) Better build (bigger and heavier...oddly is better). Hand grip feels really good on D70s. (The size/weight of the XT is perfect for my application..but I do prefer a bigger/heavier camera).

4) SD Cards... (less chance of bent CF pins...still can't figure out how people are doing that).

5) LCD info screen on top (vs. none on XTi...I normally turn of the LCD when taking pictures). In the strong sun I can't read the info in the viewfinder on the XT. Using my hand to provide shade helps...but the information is easily viewable on the LCD info screen.

I'm perfectly happy with the 17-85 IS lens...

 

[Rock Lee]

nt = no text

--
Pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/robotzer0

Comments are welcomed.

 

[SNGX1327]

also, you are acting like 18-55 (canon kit) is SO FAR OFF from a 17-70mm lens. is the difference between 55 and 70mm really going to make or break this purchase? if you are really concerned about that extra 15mm why not get a ultra-zoom, like a sigma 18-200.

 

[Francesca_]

Now I have to chose between kit
lens (I want more), Tamron (nice, but short), Simga 17-70 (too
often problems with quality and FF/BF) or 17-85IS (nice range but
higher price and optical problems).

So now I would be forced to buy Nikon D80 with 18-70.

Sorry, but is Canon so stupid that they don't see this situation ??

Before talking about the optical problems of the Canon 17-85 IS, lets talk about the huge amount of vignetting and the high level of distortion of the Nikon 18-70.

Surf on photozone.de

I have the Sigma 17-70 and my copy does not exhibit FF - BF. It is tack sharp.

 

[SNGX1327]

oh, also, why don't you check out the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6? it's a great little lens, has USM and a nice zoom range, and costs only $200. my friend bought it as the "kit lens" for his 10D (before the kit lens we know and love/loathe had been released). i've used it before, it takes some really great pictures and is a fun lens to use. if you are really worreid about the wide angle, keep the kit lens around in case you need that 18mm wide end for a landscape or something.

for $400 there is the 28-135IS, my current walkaround lens. this is a very good lens that lacks the optical problems of the 17-85IS (which are blown out of proportion, by the way) and costs $100 less. again, it's not as wide which is a problem on paper, but when you use the lens you won't notice it.

there are several options other than the kit lens, and cheap ones, too.

 

[Hythloday]

Sigma is one of the independent lensmakers which produces relatively cheap standard zoom lenses:

17-70mm/2.8-4.5
18-50mm/3.5-5.6
18-50mm/2.EX
18-125mm/3.5-5.6
18-200mm/3.5-6.3

Canon offers little choice:

17-85mm/4.0-5.6 IS
17-55mm/2.8
18-55mm/3.5-5.6

The two Canon lens starting at 17mm at overpriced compared to the Sigma lenses for normal weekend photo amateurs.

The combination Canon 400D + Canon 17-85mm is a lot more expensive than the Pentax K100D + Sigma 17-70mm. These two combinations both have IS. Canon has in-lens IS, Pentax has in-camera IS.

DSLR quality makes not only body but a good lens too.
And this is a big weakness of Canon.
I cann't understand why after several years of existence DSLRs is
Canon not able to offer some good, universal zoom 17-70/ 2.8 with
good optics for adequate price. Now I have to chose between kit
lens (I want more), Tamron (nice, but short), Simga 17-70 (too
often problems with quality and FF/BF) or 17-85IS (nice range but
higher price and optical problems).

So now I would be forced to buy Nikon D80 with 18-70.

Sorry, but is Canon so stupid that they don't see this situation ??

 

[Hugowolf]

The Nikon 18-70 is by no means anywhere near a perfect lens. Corner crop:



Brian A.

 

[jrynash]

I cann't understand why after several years of existence DSLRs is
Canon not able to offer some good, universal zoom 17-70/ 2.8 with
good optics for adequate price.

So now I would be forced to buy Nikon D80 with 18-70.

You mean this one: 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor ?

That's not a f/2.8 lens either.