Big hole in Canon's line-up...good walk-around for 1.6x crop

rwalls3 · Feb 17, 2005

For consumer aps-c cameras there is no canon brand alternative to the following:

Nikon has the 17-55/2.8
Olympus now has the 14-35 (28-70 eq) 2.0

Sigma has the 18-50/2.8 (doesn't focus properly with flash assist on canon slr's)

Canon has ????.
Closest is 16-35/2.8 but it is not nearly long enough and it is too expensive.
2nd closest: 17-40/4, but it is not bright enough.
3rd: 17-85 ef-s, but don't even get me started on that...

I am VERY disappointed that canon did not come out with a 15 or 18 to 45 or 55 constant 2.8 zoom in either EF or EF-s mount.

This fact alone has me thinking of switching systems...(but I probably won't as my wife would kill me and I love the canon cameras and the specialty lenses i.e. 70-200/2.8L and I have learned that I can do most of what I do with my 35/2.)

--
---------------
Ryan W.

Paul De Bra · Feb 17, 2005

Olympus has announced a 14-35 f2.0 with scheduled delivery half a year from now. When Canon announces a lens it's available within weeks, so Canon still has a lot of time to catch up.
Sure Sigma has the 18-50 f2.8 but it doesn't work right.

The Olympus will only work on small sensors. The Nikon only works on small sensors. The Sigma only works on small sensors. None of them have IS.
So where did you say Canon was behind?

And the 16-35 f2.8 does exist. Too expensive you say? Have you even looked at the price of the Nikon 17-55?

rwalls3 said:
For consumer aps-c cameras there is no canon brand alternative to
the following:

Nikon has the 17-55/2.8
Olympus now has the 14-35 (28-70 eq) 2.0
Sigma has the 18-50/2.8 (doesn't focus properly with flash assist
on canon slr's)

Canon has ????.
Closest is 16-35/2.8 but it is not nearly long enough and it is too
expensive.
2nd closest: 17-40/4, but it is not bright enough.
3rd: 17-85 ef-s, but don't even get me started on that...

I am VERY disappointed that canon did not come out with a 15 or 18
to 45 or 55 constant 2.8 zoom in either EF or EF-s mount.

This fact alone has me thinking of switching systems...(but I
probably won't as my wife would kill me and I love the canon
cameras and the specialty lenses i.e. 70-200/2.8L and I have
learned that I can do most of what I do with my 35/2.)

--
---------------
Ryan W.

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 10.500 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

MitchAlsup · Feb 17, 2005

rwalls3 said:
For consumer aps-c cameras there is no canon brand alternative to
the following:

Nikon has the 17-55/2.8
Olympus now has the 14-35 (28-70 eq) 2.0
Sigma has the 18-50/2.8 (doesn't focus properly with flash assist
on canon slr's)

Canon has the 17-85 IS

rwalls3 said:
Canon has ????.
Closest is 16-35/2.8 but it is not nearly long enough and it is too
expensive.
2nd closest: 17-40/4, but it is not bright enough.
3rd: 17-85 ef-s, but don't even get me started on that...

You said Canon does not have, yet here you say it does have. Therefore you are asking for something other than focal length, but posing the question as if focal length was the correct answer!?!
--
Mitch

rwalls3 · Feb 17, 2005

but I want both. Ideal focal length AND image quality (and speed). The 17-85 is not fast enough, and I have no interest in IS to make up for a slow lens.

If I posed the question as if focal length was the answer, I'm sorry I guess I didn't get my point across very well. If it was the answer I would go ahead and buy the kit lens.

But what I want is a high-quality (L-level) lens that covers the wide to mid-telephoto focal length at a 2.8 constant aperture. The 24-70 would be my ideal lens on a full frame (or even 1.3x crop), but there is no such lens for the 1.6x crop made by canon.

MitchAlsup said:
Canon 17-85
You said Canon does not have, yet here you say it does have.
Therefore you are asking for something other than focal length, but
posing the question as if focal length was the correct answer!?!
--
Mitch

--
---------------
Ryan W.

rwalls3 · Feb 17, 2005

Replying to a couple comments...

Paul De Bra said:
Olympus has announced a 14-35 f2.0 with scheduled delivery half a
year from now. When Canon announces a lens it's available within
weeks, so Canon still has a lot of time to catch up.

That is true, and I hope canon does. (catch up, that is.)

Paul De Bra said:
Sure Sigma has the 18-50 f2.8 but it doesn't work right.

That is my point, and I agree. I was only pointing it out as at least Sigma attempted to fill the need that I want filled for the 1.6x crop, whereas canon has not put forth their version (which would surely be much better).

Paul De Bra said:
The Olympus will only work on small sensors. The Nikon only works
on small sensors. The Sigma only works on small sensors.

I would be happy with an ef-s lens that only worked on small sensors as my camera has a small sensor (20d.)

Paul De Bra said:
None of them have IS.

I don't want IS.

Paul De Bra said:
So where did you say Canon was behind?
And the 16-35 f2.8 does exist. Too expensive you say? Have you even
looked at the price of the Nikon 17-55?

Yes, I know the Nikon is about $1400-$1500 or there abouts. What I meant to say is that the 16-35/2.8 is too expensive for what it becomes on my 20d--a 26-56 equivalent full frame. If I had a full frame or 1.3x crop I would be buying the 16-35 for its very nice wide-angle capability which is worth $1200. But a 26-56/2.8 zoom is NOT worth $1200 to me and my 20d. Whereas a 25-83/2.8 zoom (what the nikon is equivalent to on a FF sensor) would be worth $1200 to me.

So yes, bottom line. I feel canon is behind when it comes to catering to the high consumer's or semi-pro's or even a pro's (with a 1.6x body) general purpose utility lens needs in the most used focal length range for a lot of people. i.e. decent wide-angle to mid-telephoto.

Canon IS and will be and probably will be for many many years very far ahead of 99% of the competition in 99% of the other areas of lenses, bodies, etc that I am interested in. So to even compain about this one area is kind of picky of me... But hey, that's what dpreview forums are all about, right?

Lee Jay · Feb 17, 2005

in one area? You can hand-hold at big DOF with an IS lens where you can't with a fast lens. They're different features, one doesn't replace the other. A fast lens gives you shallow DOF in low light and the ability to freeze subject motion. An IS lens gives you deep DOF in low light but lacks the ability to freeze subject motion.

I'd love a fast wide-zoom with IS. I'd love to see lens technology advance so that the big three (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200) could be replaced by two 4x zooms (15-60 and 50-200) both with f2.8 or faster and IS.

Lee Jay

rwalls3 · Feb 17, 2005

yes, but for me (who likes to shoot people...ummmm....errr...with a camera) the IS is not as useful, as subject blur would be a problem with lots of DOF.

But for general landscapes, architecture, etc the IS would be very handy. If they wanted to put IS in my mythical 15-55/2.8L ef-s or ef than I would be happy with that...just makes it a little more $$$.

ljfinger said:
in one area? You can hand-hold at big DOF with an IS lens where
you can't with a fast lens. They're different features, one
doesn't replace the other. A fast lens gives you shallow DOF in
low light and the ability to freeze subject motion. An IS lens
gives you deep DOF in low light but lacks the ability to freeze
subject motion.

I'd love a fast wide-zoom with IS. I'd love to see lens technology
advance so that the big three (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200) could be
replaced by two 4x zooms (15-60 and 50-200) both with f2.8 or
faster and IS.

Lee Jay

--
---------------
Ryan W.

Floating_Fotoman · Feb 17, 2005

For image stabilization, a tripod will work. However, IS is useless for preventing motion blur caused by a moving subject. I wouldn't mind IS on an F/4 lens, but to say it makes up for a slow lens isn't true for everyone.

Canon actually has two holes; the high end walk around AND the mid end walk around. At least compared to offerings from other companies such as Nikon.

ljfinger said:
in one area? You can hand-hold at big DOF with an IS lens where
you can't with a fast lens. They're different features, one
doesn't replace the other. A fast lens gives you shallow DOF in
low light and the ability to freeze subject motion. An IS lens
gives you deep DOF in low light but lacks the ability to freeze
subject motion.

I'd love a fast wide-zoom with IS. I'd love to see lens technology
advance so that the big three (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200) could be
replaced by two 4x zooms (15-60 and 50-200) both with f2.8 or
faster and IS.

Lee Jay

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gregz

Brian G. · Feb 17, 2005

...over a slow IS lens. The monopod will give you back everything that IS would, without the size and weight of an IS lens. The IS lens will never allow you to stop subject motion like the faster lens, or to control DOF like the faster lens. A fast lens + 'pod simply gives you more options.

Of course, fast lenses that also have IS I have no problems with.

Kind Regards,
Brian

ljfinger said:
in one area? You can hand-hold at big DOF with an IS lens where
you can't with a fast lens. They're different features, one
doesn't replace the other. A fast lens gives you shallow DOF in
low light and the ability to freeze subject motion. An IS lens
gives you deep DOF in low light but lacks the ability to freeze
subject motion.

--
~~Brian~~

Digital Image Gallery:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

Lee Jay · Feb 17, 2005

Brian G. said:
The monopod will give you back everything
that IS would, without the size and weight of an IS lens.

My monopod outweighs my camera!

The monopod does make a better night-stick, though.

Lee Jay

wilfredmrand · Feb 17, 2005

rwalls3 said:
For consumer aps-c cameras there is no canon brand alternative to
the following:

Nikon has the 17-55/2.8
Olympus now has the 14-35 (28-70 eq) 2.0
Sigma has the 18-50/2.8 (doesn't focus properly with flash assist
on canon slr's)

Canon has ????.
Closest is 16-35/2.8 but it is not nearly long enough and it is too
expensive.
2nd closest: 17-40/4, but it is not bright enough.
3rd: 17-85 ef-s, but don't even get me started on that...

I am VERY disappointed that canon did not come out with a 15 or 18
to 45 or 55 constant 2.8 zoom in either EF or EF-s mount.

This fact alone has me thinking of switching systems...(but I
probably won't as my wife would kill me and I love the canon
cameras and the specialty lenses i.e. 70-200/2.8L and I have
learned that I can do most of what I do with my 35/2.)

--
---------------
Ryan W.

--
Wilfred M Rand
http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand/

Brian G. · Feb 17, 2005

When you don't need it, the monopod can be removed. The additional weight and bulk of an IS lens you are stuck with.

~~Brian~~

ljfinger said:
Brian G. said:

The monopod will give you back everything
that IS would, without the size and weight of an IS lens.

Click to expand...

My monopod outweighs my camera!

The monopod does make a better night-stick, though.

Lee Jay

--
~~Brian~~

Digital Image Gallery:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

Lee Jay · Feb 17, 2005

Brian G. said:
When you don't need it, the monopod can be removed. The additional
weight and bulk of an IS lens you are stuck with.

I got you now.

IS isn't all that big. The 28-135IS and the 17-85IS lenses are quite small. The difference between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 2.8 is nothing compared to the size of that lens.

Lee Jay

Lee Jay · Feb 17, 2005

wilfredmrand said:
rwalls3 said:

For consumer aps-c cameras there is no canon brand alternative to
the following:

Nikon has the 17-55/2.8
Olympus now has the 14-35 (28-70 eq) 2.0
Sigma has the 18-50/2.8 (doesn't focus properly with flash assist
on canon slr's)

Canon has ????.
Closest is 16-35/2.8 but it is not nearly long enough and it is too
expensive.
2nd closest: 17-40/4, but it is not bright enough.
3rd: 17-85 ef-s, but don't even get me started on that...

I am VERY disappointed that canon did not come out with a 15 or 18
to 45 or 55 constant 2.8 zoom in either EF or EF-s mount.

This fact alone has me thinking of switching systems...(but I
probably won't as my wife would kill me and I love the canon
cameras and the specialty lenses i.e. 70-200/2.8L and I have
learned that I can do most of what I do with my 35/2.)

--
---------------
Ryan W.

Click to expand...

--
Wilfred M Rand
http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand/

Vancemac · Feb 17, 2005

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you. Light is everything, and the more the better.

But... for an all-purpose, walkaround lens, I don't really see the need for speed. I'm almost never faster than f/5-5.6... and usually much slower. Now, indoors, yes... speed is king. But for that, you get a super fast, inexpensive prime, no? As such, 17-85 is perfect for me.

Lee Jay · Feb 17, 2005

Vancemac said:
I'm definitely not disagreeing with you. Light is everything, and
the more the better.

But... for an all-purpose, walkaround lens, I don't really see the
need for speed. I'm almost never faster than f/5-5.6... and
usually much slower. Now, indoors, yes... speed is king. But for
that, you get a super fast, inexpensive prime, no? As such, 17-85
is perfect for me.

Some of us walkaround indoors when it's cold outside!

Lee Jay

rwalls3 · Feb 17, 2005

True, I do a lot of walking around where I want plenty of DOF, but there are many many times where I want f2.8 for many reasons...indoors, bokeh, etc. Also an f2.8 lens stopped down to f5.6 is going to be a whole lot sharper than an f4-5.6 lens at 5.6.

Actually, for me, f2.8 is a trade off as I like to have less than or equal to f2 a lot of the time. So my 35/2 sees a lot of use along with my 50/1.4. But I understand that for my zoom needs I would be more than content with f2.8.

Vancemac said:
I'm definitely not disagreeing with you. Light is everything, and
the more the better.

But... for an all-purpose, walkaround lens, I don't really see the
need for speed. I'm almost never faster than f/5-5.6... and
usually much slower. Now, indoors, yes... speed is king. But for
that, you get a super fast, inexpensive prime, no? As such, 17-85
is perfect for me.

--
---------------
Ryan W.

rwalls3 · Feb 17, 2005

Floating_Fotoman said:
Canon actually has two holes; the high end walk around AND the mid
end walk around. At least compared to offerings from other
companies such as Nikon.

This is my point as well...

maljo@inreach.com · Feb 17, 2005

Sometimes I walk around with a 35 f1.4,
sometimes wtih a 135 f2,
often with a 24-70 f2.8,
occasionally with a 70-300 DO IS.

Being restricted to one focal length can be an illuminating
photographic experience.

There are lots of excellent options.
I never have any problem finding a lens with which
to walk around.

If you're looking for something wide, long, fast, light weight and cheap: it
doesn't exist for any camera.

maljo

Floating_Fotoman · Feb 17, 2005

[email protected] said:
Sometimes I walk around with a 35 f1.4,
sometimes wtih a 135 f2,
often with a 24-70 f2.8,
occasionally with a 70-300 DO IS.

Being restricted to one focal length can be an illuminating
photographic experience.

There are lots of excellent options.
I never have any problem finding a lens with which
to walk around.

If you're looking for something wide, long, fast, light weight and
cheap: it
doesn't exist for any camera.

maljo

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gregz

Big hole in Canon's line-up...good walk-around for 1.6x crop

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts