Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Sometimes light is less than stellar outdoors as well. When it is, 5.6 sux.
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.
Click to expand...
--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gregz
 
All good lenses for their purpose, though none of them are quite as flexible on the 1.6x as they could be. I liked my 24-70 on my 10D quite a bit, but it is an excellent focal length range on the 1D Mk II. There is no equivalent wide-ranging lens for the 1.6 camera.

An 18-55 or even 20-55 lens with a 2.8 aperture, in EF-S would be an excellent addition to the lineup.

The big question for Canon - would it sell enough to earn money?

I agree about one thing - its sometimes advantagous to carry a prime around and make it work for your picture. The 35/1.4 or the 24/1.4 are both spectacular lenses for that purpose, as is the 135/2 if you can be far-enough away from your subject.
[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
Click to expand...
--
Tom
 
You can also lean against a wall, a ledge, a knee, your elbow, a railing, a small child's head (hehehe probably not since she/he won't stand still), a table, a chair back, etc. etc. There are lots of monopod substitutes in the world ;)

Amy
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.

Brian
Click to expand...
 
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...
 
hej rwalls3,

That would get me to consider a DigiRebel even. So far the EF-S mount hasnt provided too much of an incentive to get the D30, D60, & 10D crowd too interested. Everybody is coming out with ultra-wides (tokina 12-24, sigma 10-20, etc... and u dont even need an EF-S mount) but the fast walk-around f/2.8 is what seals the deal for EF-S.
captainbabislamm
captainbabislamm 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...
Click to expand...
 
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...
 
I'm sending my 2nd 20d and third Sigma back.

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 - Great lens, just doesn't focus
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 - BIG, better focus, not very wide angle on 1.6 crop.

20d, even 2nd body has issue with Canon 18-55 cheapo on FF issue!

F2.8 is awesome people! You'd be amazed at how well a 20d focuses in low light (at least when the Sigma wanted to focus)

I'd love to give the 20d another chance with the right lens.
 
I was kinda disappointing not to hear for a new lens ... that suits the 1.6 crop factor ... i will wait coz i know one day canon will come up with something good in that range ... the 17-40L is the best for me in my case now with a couple primes .. i don't see the 17-40L short for my needs .. and with high iso ..F4 would be ok .
 
Ryan,

you have criticised a lot lenses, but not qualified what you mean by a walk around.

A 16-35/17-35 2.8 not bad as a walk around , did Europe with a 16-35 for 4 months. Need to be very careful with perspective and what is on the edge of the shot

A 24-70 2.8 is an excellent walk around lens, I used a 24-85 before selling it to help pay for a 70-200 IS. I consider the 24-70 as an excellent walk around lens, the next one I will be buying when I can afford it. Great photos, not many issues with perspective and you can foot zoom if required. Except in churches, museums etc. Thena wide prime is probably better.

Anything wider than than 16 (25mm 35eqv) is goingto require a considerable amount of correction work in post processing in my opinion.
--
my 2 exposed flashcubes worth.

Ian the pbase supporter.
http://pbase.com/ianm_au
An amateur with dreams of being a good to excellent photographer.
 
I didn't criticise the lenses. They are fine lenses for what they do...but they do not do what my ideal lens would do. i.e. wide to mid-telephoto at constant 2.8 aperture for 1.6x crop body.
I expound a little more in this post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12299138

And yes, for Europe or other city-sightseeing I would be happy with the 16-35. But again, doesn't fit the bill exactly for me.

And yes, the 24-70L is the closest to what I want at this point, but it's hard to justify $1000 for a lens that doesn't give me wide angle also.
irm said:
Ryan,
you have criticised a lot lenses, but not qualified what you mean
by a walk around.
A 16-35/17-35 2.8 not bad as a walk around , did Europe with a
16-35 for 4 months. Need to be very careful with perspective and
what is on the edge of the shot
A 24-70 2.8 is an excellent walk around lens, I used a 24-85 before
selling it to help pay for a 70-200 IS. I consider the 24-70 as an
excellent walk around lens, the next one I will be buying when I
can afford it. Great photos, not many issues with perspective and
you can foot zoom if required. Except in churches, museums etc.
Thena wide prime is probably better.

Anything wider than than 16 (25mm 35eqv) is goingto require a
considerable amount of correction work in post processing in my
opinion.
--
my 2 exposed flashcubes worth.

Ian the pbase supporter.
http://pbase.com/ianm_au
An amateur with dreams of being a good to excellent photographer.
Click to expand...
--
---------------
Ryan W.
 
17-85L f/4 IS would do for me. I have the 17-40L, which is the closest approximation. Getting f/2.8 would be nice, but it would involve a weight, size, and cost penalty that I don't think I would go for. What I really want is the quality of the 17-40 (the current 17-85 doesn't quite cut it for me), with the extension of focal length range and with IS to partially compensate for not having f/2.8. (And, of course, f/4 is better than the f/5.6 that the 17-85 has at the long end.) I would accept EF-S if it would bring the weight/size down and quality was really at the L level.

Bob
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...
 
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.
Click to expand...
In the dark? Unless you need more reach, you couldn't get a better walk-around than this. It's like it was made for urban shooting.

Mark
 
A straw man is a point in a argument someone sets up that can be easily defeated to reinforce his own position.

Mark
 
Primes
  • 20mm f/2.8
  • 24 mm f/1.4 or f/2.8
  • 28mm f/1.8 or f/2.8
  • 35mm f/1.4 or f/2.0
  • 50mm f/1.0 or 1.4 or 1.8
  • 85mm 1/2 or 1.8
Zooms (not including EF-S)
  • 16-35mm f/2.8 or 17-40mm f/4
  • 24-70mm f/2.8
  • 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or non-IS or f/4
  • 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L
I don't see the need for more and more lenses when they've covered all the focal lengths one normally needs. For super-telephoto, they have the 300, 400, 500, 600 and even a 1200! I would like to see a 150mm macro from Canon for less than $650!

Anil
 
Ok, I’m on the low end with the budget and I know that I can’t have the 15-500 f2.8 lens I want (at around $450).
What I would like seems to be within reach, but does not exist.

I love the range on my Sigma 18-125 f3.5-f5.6. Why can’t I have that range in a bit higher spec/quality lens?

How about a version from Canon that is sharper than the Sigma, minus the vignetting, at a constant f4? Is that really too much to ask for? Would there not be a market for that lens?
I paid $245 for the Sigma. I’d pay $500 for the one I described.

Steven Maniscalco
http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye
 
Great definition, Mark. Now apply it to the following quote:

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

Nowhere in the thread did anybody say they wanted such an outrageously impossible lens. We're willing to accept a more expensive, heavier, and not so long lens.

Cheers
Mark Hanson said:
A straw man is a point in a argument someone sets up that can be
easily defeated to reinforce his own position.

Mark
Click to expand...
--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gregz
 
...it would make a great match for my 70-200 f/4.
 
2boys said:
Ok, I’m on the low end with the budget and I know that I can’t have
the 15-500 f2.8 lens I want (at around $450).
What I would like seems to be within reach, but does not exist.
I love the range on my Sigma 18-125 f3.5-f5.6. Why can’t I have
that range in a bit higher spec/quality lens?
How about a version from Canon that is sharper than the Sigma,
minus the vignetting, at a constant f4? Is that really too much to
ask for? Would there not be a market for that lens?
I paid $245 for the Sigma. I’d pay $500 for the one I described.

Steven Maniscalco
http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye
Click to expand...
I'd buy one, too. And maybe an extra $100-200 for IS.

Bob
 
Floating_Fotoman said:
Great definition, Mark. Now apply it to the following quote:

"If you're looking for something wide, long, fast, light weight and
cheap: it
doesn't exist for any camera."
Click to expand...
Can't; that's not a straw man argument. It's practically a factual statement.

Mark
 
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