Reading mode: Light Dark

Poll: Would you buy an EF-s 17-200/4-5.6 IS?

Go to last post
In my opinion, a camera and its lenses are tools, more or less like the tools we use when we need to do some bricolage at home, so the combination camera+lens must suit a specific purpose. A month ago I went on a trip in Romania, those trips where you run after a touristic guide that shows you many places and has no mercy of the poor photographer. In such a condition a single body and a single lens is a must. I had absolutely no time to swap lenses and traveling with two bodies and two lenses would have been too cumbersome. A 17-200 IS would allow to snap pictures, even in this awful situation, that otherwise will be impossible to obtain and still keep the advantage of a dslr versus a compact superzoom.

In a more "relaxed" situation obviously there is no match with primes or more "relaxed" zooms.

So, for me it's all a matter of "what scenario I must face" ... there are some scenarios in which a lens of this kind would be really useful.
 
Using the 18-55mm kit lens as a walkaround, and constantly switching to the 50mm f1.8 to do portraits or simply to get a "better" shot if the focal length is about right, I can't tell you how many shots I've missed in the process. I can only imagine the number of opportunities I'd miss would be amplified once I move up to my planned cover-all set:

10-22mm
17-85mm IS
70-300mm IS

At the very least, a 17-200 IS would replace both the 17-85 and the 70-300, and if I really wanted to travel light it'd be the only lenses I'd need.

To tell you the truth, I'm pontificating between moving to the Rebel XTi, D80, or the 30D/40D (heh, problem is that the next level camera is "only" a few hundred more), and the Nikkor 18-200mm VR, and no Canon equivalent anywhere is the single biggest reason that's making me reluctant to stick with Canon.
 
I also wouldn't mind sacrificing the telephoto end for better IQ. The biggest thing about having a wide-angle to moderate telephoto zoom is convenience in covering a large majority of the typical shooting range (with added bonus of IS). A 17-125, or even something like a 15-65 (to match the 24-105) would do just fine, and might even be preferable is it meant better IQ, smaller size, lower cost.
 
it this lens behaves same as 28-300mm on FF , then aperture behaves same as f6.3-f9 in terms of DOF and noise.

lets say like that:
5D + 28-300mm f6.3-9 behave same as
30d+17-200mm f4-5.6

pictures will be same in terms of DOF nad FOV.
(5d would have more details becose more mp)

and this lens you can mount on FF.
John down under said:
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 20D & Fuji F10
Click to expand...
 
I certainly will buy a lens 17(or 18)-200(or 135) with image stabilisation until next summer holidays.

I hope that it will be a Canon lens. Otherwise... (you know, who also produces a lens in this range).

Of course, I expect that the image quality should be at least on par with my Tamron 18-200 or slightly better.

Reasons:

On my film SLR (EOS 500N/Rebel G) I used Tamron 28-200. I am used to that range and I do not want anything with a smaller range because then I would just switch lenses all the time. Now I use the Tamron 18-200 because I had have AF issues with Sigma 18-125. What I miss now is not IQ (even if I see that the lens is not the sharpest one even compared with my old Tamron 28-200) but IS! So my next step should be a stabilised zoom in this range.
 
I don't mind carrying around multiple lenses, for the flexibility and IQ. However, I know several people who would be interested in the hypothetical 17-200IS consumer lens as an all-in-one solution as they transition from film-SRL to dSLR. If that lens comes out at Photokina I know one person specifically who will run right out and buy the 400D + 17-200IS combo.
ljfinger said:
Please put your answer in the subject line, and your reasoning in
the post.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
 
Below I said Yes for 17-200, but I would also prefer a better quality 17-135 IS (or even 17-125 IS) instead.

But I am afraid that it is even less likely that Canon would launch such a lens because it would not compete well with Nikon for people, who only compare numbers (135 vs. 200).
 
...and no to a 10 to 1 or greater zoom.

Give me a 100-400L/f4/IS at about $1000. Yeah, that's what I want.

:-)
 
Kristian, I agree with you that the DOF for the same subject framing and aperture will be greater with the 17-200 on a 1.6 crop factor camera than with a 28-320 (ie same equivalent FL lens) on a FF camera. However, that doesn't make the aperture equivalent to 1.6x more.

DOF is affected by aperture, FL (actual, not equivalent) and focus distance (usually distance from subject). Either the FL or the focus distance needs to change to keep the subject framing constant between FF and cropped sensor cameras, and that's where the change in DOF comes from. Aperture is completely independent of the cropping consideration. Additionally, the aperture and its effect on exposure doesn't change in any way to create a notionally different aperture on one camera or the other. For that reason, a lens doesn't have a different equivalent aperture value on cameras with different sensor sizes.
kristian1 said:
lets say like that:
5D + 28-300mm f6.3-9 behave same as
30d+17-200mm f4-5.6

pictures will be same in terms of DOF nad FOV.
(5d would have more details becose more mp)

and this lens you can mount on FF.
John down under said:
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 20D & Fuji F10
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 20D & Fuji F10
 
It's a little silly to talk ff equivalent. This lens is intented for crop camera.
 
kristian1 said:
it this lens behaves same as 28-300mm on FF , then aperture behaves
same as f6.3-f9 in terms of DOF and noise.
Click to expand...
First time I hear the lens generate noise. Can you clarify this more?
kristian1 said:
lets say like that:
5D + 28-300mm f6.3-9 behave same as
30d+17-200mm f4-5.6

pictures will be same in terms of DOF nad FOV.
(5d would have more details becose more mp)

and this lens you can mount on FF.
John down under said:
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 20D & Fuji F10
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Please don't get into this again. We've gone through many painful threads on this.

Aperture does not equal f-stop. They are different.

When you mount a lens on a camera, or another camera, or leave it in your sock drawer, the focal length does not change.

Neither does the aperture.

Since f-stop = FL/aperture, neither does the f-stop.

However, saying something like "a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera behaves like an 80mm lens on a full-frame camera" is common. The lens' actual focal length didn't change and neither did its aperture.

However, if you are going to say it behaves like a different focal length on a different format, you have to change the f-stop as well, simply because of the equation above. f-stop = FL/aperture. Aperture doesn't change. If you change focal length, you necessarily change f-stop by the same amount.

So 50/2.8 on 1.6 crop behaves like (not "becomes" or any other such thing) an 80/4.5 on full-frame, in terms of angle-of-view, depth-of-field, and number of photons captured by the sensor (which means SnR with constant sensor technology too).

Angle-of-view and aperture (not f-stop) are the real driving parameters as any astro-photographer knows. 50/2.8=18mm and 80/4.5=18mm. On their respective formats, they have the same angle of view and, as you can see, they have the same aperture (18mm).

These are the facts and I'm not going to argue with you about them. I will try to help you understand them if that's what you'd like.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ohyva said:
kristian1 said:
it this lens behaves same as 28-300mm on FF , then aperture behaves
same as f6.3-f9 in terms of DOF and noise.
Click to expand...
First time I hear the lens generate noise. Can you clarify this more?
Click to expand...
ok i didnt write as i should , but what i meen is that you can close aperture on FF and use higher ISO and getting same noise as with croped senzor.

for example:

30d at 100mm f2.8 iso 400
5d at 160mm f4 iso 800

(same FOV almost same dof , about same noise)

i am sorry i wasnt clear

all best
kristian
ohyva said:
ohyva said:
lets say like that:
5D + 28-300mm f6.3-9 behave same as
30d+17-200mm f4-5.6

pictures will be same in terms of DOF nad FOV.
(5d would have more details becose more mp)

and this lens you can mount on FF.
John down under said:
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 20D & Fuji F10
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
carlk said:
It's a little silly to talk ff equivalent. This lens is intented
for crop camera.
Click to expand...
yes but DOF control is very limited.

Best use for croped cameras is when you need more reach (birding wildlife..)

for other things the FF is the way to go..

all best
kristian
 
No.. This would be another expensive offering. Maybe its just me and maybe I am too cheap (let's say frugal as it sounds better), but I can't get excited about these recent Canon announcements of lenses at $1250 to $1600. Heck, make them $5000.. or better yet $10,000. L or no L, EF or EF-S.. this price point is beyond my interest as a amateur. If I were a pro, I could write off the cost as a business expense and it might be different. Over the years (40) I have had Nikon, Minolta and Canon gear. I have never bought a third party lens, but I am darn close to it. As the market drives down the prices on the bodies, it seems the lenses are being priced to make up the difference. It may make sense to Canon but I don't want to play that game. And frankly, a lot of this stuff I just don't need. Regards.

--
ralph m
fcas(77)
http://www.pbase.com/rmcmillan
 
As others have said, the crop factor also affects DOF for the same f-stop. To see this, use your 1.6x crop DSLR and a digicam to frame the same scene from the same distance with the same f-stop. You will notice more DOF on the digicam. This is due to the shorter focal length of the digicam. The same is true with the 1.6x crop DSLR and a FF DSLR.

See quote from the following link:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ ... ... digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

"As an example calculation, if one wanted to reproduce the same perspective and depth of field on a full frame sensor as that attained using a 10 mm lens at f/11 on a camera with a 1.6X crop factor, one would need to use a 16 mm lens and an aperture of roughly f/18. Alternatively, if one used a 50 mm f/1.4 lens on a full frame sensor, this would produce a depth of field so shallow it would require an aperture of 0.9 on a camera with a 1.6X crop factor-- not possible with consumer lenses!"

And if you don't believe that site, well, how about this one:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_dslr.html

Hope this helps
 
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