Reading mode: Light Dark

I like 400d BUT

Go to last post
Francesca_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're talking about here. The 18-70mm is my only lens and I have no problems with it at all. I guess it's not perfect, but it's a pretty fine lens for the incredibly low price it goes for!
--
Michael Stubbs, Maboula, Kuwait
See profile for Web site.
 
The OP was asking (in CLEARLY broken english) that there appears no decent "consumer" 18-60 or 70 zoom that is better than the Kit with Canon's name on the side.

I.e. There is nothing to compare to the Sigma 17-70 or Nikon 18-70 AT THAT PRICE POINT.

He has a point BTW.
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
 
So, let me get this straight. You're dissapointed in Canon simply because they do not offer a 17/18-70 lens, and you're not willing to buy any of the alternatives that are readily available?

:rolleyes:

--
-Larry
http://www.pbase.com/lardog
 
Wow. I own a 20D and XT, but I secretly lust after a D200, and the D80 doesn't give up a lot from the D200. I feel that Nikon brings a better body to the table than Canon in respective markets.(I realized I may be flamed for uttering such on this forum). Yes noise levels of the Canon are better, that aside, I feel that Canon lags behind Nikon, slowly rationing small upgrades with each model release. What keeps me with Canon? Canon lenses! After all it is a system we buy into, and the comparison of available lenses are the deciding factor for me.
 
I agree with you. I experienced the same frustration. Despite the deep and impressive lens lineup that Canon offers there is clearly a gap here. The 1.6 crop factor doesn't help on the wide end of things either.
 
So the title of the thread should have been 'Canon's lenses are too expensive', instead of arguing about what Canon doesn't have.

The OP doesn't make his point clear. He firstly says there are no comparable lenses, but then when they are suggested, he says they are too expensive.

Canon has 3 comparable lenses in 3 different price categories:

18-55 Kit $100 (rubbish)
17-85 IS $500 (ok)
17-55 IS $1000 (excellent)

and that is the order of IQ (coincidently? I think not) You get what you pay for.

Canon charge these prices, because they have worked out that that's what the market is willing to pay. I agree the 17-55 IS is overpriced, but Canon know they can sell it at that price so they do.
 
Here is a quote from the OP ....

"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."

His English is CLEARLY his second language but it is still VERY clear he refers to consumer rather than $800+ lenses.

Everythign you mention is not on the point, the point is there is no Canon branded lens at that 18-50/70 range, at a decent price with decent to strong optics.

And, he is right.

You do not always get what you pay for, Canon would charge another 60% for an equivilent Sigma 17-70. My 50-200 Pentax lens is amazing for $200.
Aussie bloke said:
So the title of the thread should have been 'Canon's lenses are too
expensive', instead of arguing about what Canon doesn't have.

The OP doesn't make his point clear. He firstly says there are no
comparable lenses, but then when they are suggested, he says they
are too expensive.

Canon has 3 comparable lenses in 3 different price categories:

18-55 Kit $100 (rubbish)
17-85 IS $500 (ok)
17-55 IS $1000 (excellent)

and that is the order of IQ (coincidently? I think not) You get
what you pay for.

Canon charge these prices, because they have worked out that that's
what the market is willing to pay. I agree the 17-55 IS is
overpriced, but Canon know they can sell it at that price so they
do.
Click to expand...
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
 
Well when you make a post, your first sentence makes the most impact. He opened by saying:

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

and I think that's what people responded to. It wasn't clear to me either at first that he was only talking about price. Ok, I misunderstood...

Anyway, let's get back to the point.... so the point you are making is that there are no comparable lenses for the SAME PRICE, right?

So I go back to the 3 lenses already available from Canon:

18-55 $100
17-85 $500
17-55 $1000

Are you saying you want the cost of these lenses to be reduced?

Or are you saying you want ANOTHER lens added to this list? (Like a cheaper 17-85 for $300 or something?)
 
What I am saying that the only comparable lens there is the 17-85 which is often panned on this forum and forgone for the Sigma 17-70. The Sigma is also $100 cheaper.

So the OP has a point, if Canon made a stronger lens in that range and slightly cheaper than the 17-85IS they'd sella bucket load.
Aussie bloke said:
Well when you make a post, your first sentence makes the most
impact. He opened by saying:

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

and I think that's what people responded to. It wasn't clear to me
either at first that he was only talking about price. Ok, I
misunderstood...

Anyway, let's get back to the point.... so the point you are making
is that there are no comparable lenses for the SAME PRICE, right?

So I go back to the 3 lenses already available from Canon:

18-55 $100
17-85 $500
17-55 $1000

Are you saying you want the cost of these lenses to be reduced?

Or are you saying you want ANOTHER lens added to this list? (Like a
cheaper 17-85 for $300 or something?)
Click to expand...
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
 
Hythloday said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would rather have more expensive in lens IS, in camera IS does not work well for longer lenses.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf#search=%22xti%20white%20papers%22

Read page 12... some lenses would need to move the sensor around over a 1/4 inch to work.

For a point and shoot im all for IS in the camera (then again you cant change lenses) but for DSLR's I would rather it be more accurate and in the lens.

--
-Greg

Some wit:
If at first you dont succeed, skydiving is NOT for you.

Geek:
Hythloday said:
SELECT TOP 10 FROM users where clue > 0;
Click to expand...
0 Rows returned.
 
Alfisti said:
My 50-200 Pentax lens is amazing for $200.
Click to expand...
The Canon 50-200 is just as amazing, sharp from corner to corner on full-frame. :)

Some Pentax lenses are also inexplicably expensive. The Pentax 12-24 f/4 lens is essentially the same as the Tokina version, but costs quite a bit more. :)

But, coming back to the OT, I believe the issue with the Canon 17-85 is quality control more than anything else.

But in general, Canon does not offer anything comparable in the 17-70 range or 18-200 VR range. They seem very focused on tele lenses (4 versions of 70-200, 2 versions of 70-300). Hopefully that will change with time, just as how Pentax is slowly releasing more sensible zoom lenses.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
Oh agree totally, hence my point you don't always get what you pay for.
thw said:
Some Pentax lenses are also inexplicably expensive. The Pentax
12-24 f/4 lens is essentially the same as the Tokina version, but
costs quite a bit more. :)
-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
 
Well ok I see what your saying, but I doubt it will happen. I just looked at the prices of the lenses Canon released recently:

17-85 IS $500
17-55 IS $1000
24-105 IS $1150
10-22 $700
70-200 IS $1200
50 1.2 $1600

Nothing under $500 in the last 2 years! (or did I miss some) Canon don't seem to be interested in the low end of the market anymore. Plus all new lenses seem to have IS which adds to the price.

I guess they're making enough money from the top end and they don't care about $300 lenses anymore. I don't know...
 
Just 15mm short of what you wanted. Canon is all about FF because they know that is where they are going. nikon is all about small sensors and that seems to be all the new lenses they are putting out. To me it makes more sense to get the camera to FF then to redesign their ENTIRE lens lineup to match a small sensor size.

For someone with good lenses from film, it'd be far cheaper to buy a good even $3000 FF dSLR than to sell lenses and buy new "digital" ones. Get the body/sensor where it should be and everyone will shut up about no lenses to compensate for the small sensor defect.
 
I agreed with OP about the gap there.

However, contrary to many believe, Canon 18-55 kit lens is not a bad lens (except plastic mount, non-USM and a bit slower at tele compare to 18-70 DX lens from Nikon) and optically quite comparable to 18-70DX nikkor if not better.

Yes, I used to be Nikon user with D70 and D200 but now I am using Canon 5D and 400D. I really like L and IS lenses and they are equal or better than Nikon offerings.

However, what Canon lacking is in the fairly good quality USM standard zoom range that is between 17 and 70 (like Sig 17-70?). Yes, they have 17-85IS lens but optical quality is disappointing (even compare to kit 18-55 IMO - see photozone.de figures on vignetting and CA and comparable focal length and aparture).

For an amature, going to 17-55IS may not be an option as it is quite heavy and very expensive (even more expensive than 400D body).

Canon should offer something equivalent to Sig 17-70 (without IS) with USM and Canon reliability (no, I don't trust Sigma too much) as an alternative, a real step-up (optically) from a kit lens for the sake of consumers.

--
Thadoe Hein
http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top