Reading mode: Light Dark

I like 400d BUT

Go to last post
Hellashot said:
Just 15mm short of what you wanted. Canon is all about FF because
they know that is where they are going.
Click to expand...
Canon isn't there (at FF) now? Or are you suggesting Canon will abandon EF-S? If so, that's highly debatable.
Hellashot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Not far cheaper...about the same: (FF dSLR body for $3000) or (Canon 400D + EF-S 10-22 + EF-S 17-55IS + a good xx-200L or xx=300 lens for about $3000)....or (400D + equally good lens lineup of your choice for $3000).
Hellashot said:
Get the body/sensor where it should be and everyone will
shut up about no lenses to compensate for the small sensor defect.
Click to expand...
I doubt there's anything that will get everyone to shut up...and the small sensor is NOT a "defect"
 
Try adding a UV filter. I have a Hoya on the front of my 18-70 Nikkor and it works wonders.

One can't expect a perfect lens for this price. However, it is pretty good to say the least.

If you want something superior, you're going to pay more like 1000 pounds, not 150.
--
Michael Stubbs, Maboula, Kuwait
See profile for Web site.
 
Aussie bloke said:
Aussie bloke said:
... L lens with ther price over thousand $ are too pricey
Click to expand...
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)
Click to expand...
17-55 can be good - but yes it is expensive and it is little short so it's not so versatile like 17-70. And that what I want to say - there is a lack of nice substitution of kit lens. You can buy 400d with 17-55 kit lens (not solution for me) or with 17-85 which is expensive regarding his optical quality ...
 
LarryT said:
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?
Click to expand...
only alternative is Sigma 17-70 and I'm afraid to buy it because of FF/BF and unstable quality problems I read about in some users forums. If this is only romour and there are no such problems I would be heve no problem to buy this lens too.

But this doesn't answers my wonder why Canon doesn't produces such similar lens after many years of producing bodyes with 1.6 crop ? It's a pitty that they are not able to offer kit with decent kit lens (17-85IS is not such lens because of price and some optical problems - I considered this lens, but as I read reviews where Sigma 17-70 looks better and 17-85 has PF problems, I negate this decision. I need no IS for 17-85 lens, but I want lens without such problems ...
 
mfletch said:
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.
Click to expand...
but I never said Canon has bad lenses ... I only need some decent replacement for kit lens and I see nothing what will give me nice optical quality in eq. range of at least 28-110mm.

yes, I can buy for example 17-40, some 28-xxx, maybe 70-300IS - but it will be expensive and I would be forced to change lenses very often during a day ...
 
I would be absolutely happy with something like 18-125 or 18-140.
Or I would be happy with 17-85IS MkII too - if it has significant improvements.
Thadoe said:
I also want to see (and buy) Canon 17-200 EFS IS lens (equivalent
to Nikon 18-200 DX VR). I would buy the moment it come out.

--
Thadoe Hein
http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)
Click to expand...
--
Canon G2
 
honza_pl said:
mfletch said:
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.
Click to expand...
but I never said Canon has bad lenses ... I only need some decent
replacement for kit lens and I see nothing what will give me nice
optical quality in eq. range of at least 28-110mm.
yes, I can buy for example 17-40, some 28-xxx, maybe 70-300IS - but
it will be expensive and I would be forced to change lenses very
often during a day ...
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of DSLR ownership.

Quality = Money
Range = Money
Quality + Range = Big money

If you want very high quality lenses on a budget, go for primes.
If you want lots of range on a budget, go for a consumer level zoom
If you want range and very high quality, then it will cost you.

That is the simple equalition of DSLR lenses.

--
http://www.apt131.com

'This is easy for us Chinese...just look at the pictures, ignore
his comments in English...'
 
17-85 IS with better optics and lower price. Similar to what they did with the 75-300 IS and 70-300 IS.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
Interesting Thread .
The 24-105 ISM L lens here in Aus is $1650. If you have the money
is this the best walk around lens available to put on a 300d.
I have both the kit lens and a Sigma but I am looking

for something much better. I have been steered away from upgrading the body by a local salesman who says there is far more improvement to be gained by better glass and then later he said
you can always upgrade the body.
 
Tijean said:
Quality = Money
Range = Money
Quality + Range = Big money

If you want very high quality lenses on a budget, go for primes.
If you want lots of range on a budget, go for a consumer level zoom
If you want range and very high quality, then it will cost you.

That is the simple equalition of DSLR lenses.
Click to expand...
sure but it's not whole truth - my opinion is that when all users are forced to use DSLR (simply because prosumer cameras disapear from market) and relatively cheap bodies like 350d/400d are available, it would be nice and logical to give same correspondent kit lens that would be without problem usable for common people for everyday usage, without some significant degradation of image quality.

I only need decent replacement of my G2's 34-102 lens and a little more on wide or both ends - 28-110. Nothing more but nothing less.
 
There is no better lens for you than 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

You cannot get quality without paying a price. Canon is better than Nikon as far as lenses are concerned.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
24-105L IS is the best walk around lens for 5D and I agree. I have that combo too.

However, for 300/350/400d, 24 is not wide enough to be perfect walk around (24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm).

I would rather use 17-55EFS IS for 400D as walk around then 24-105L IS.

However, the whole point of this thread is about not very expensive, light walk around lens with the range 17-70 and which can replace kit lens with better optical quality (some thing like Sigma 17-70 but Canon branded)

Both 17-55EFS IS and 24-105L IS are not qualified for our needs. They are heavy and expensive and a bit too much for some folks.
Steve Dudley said:
Interesting Thread .
The 24-105 ISM L lens here in Aus is $1650. If you have the money
is this the best walk around lens available to put on a 300d.
I have both the kit lens and a Sigma but I am looking
for something much better. I have been steered away from upgrading
the body by a local salesman who says there is far more improvement
to be gained by better glass and then later he said
you can always upgrade the body.
Click to expand...
--
Thadoe Hein
http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)
 
and I really want Canon to produce something like Sigma 17-70, in fact, Sigma is not a bad lens and certainly better than Nikon 18-70 or 18-135 with brighter aparture (f 2.8) at the wide end.

I was in the same dilemma like you when I buy 400D and decided to go with Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead of 17-70 Sigma. and I am happy with my choice.

I choose Tamron because Tamron colours are closer to Canon lenses. Sigma colours are warmer and a bit too contrasty for my taste.

I think quality control issue with third party lens is sometimes overblown way too much.

--
Thadoe Hein
http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)
 
Hi,

Just off topic.

Do Canon give out pictures of all their Canon lenses picture like the one you just link to?

I been looking for the pic in Canon sites but..... can't find it anywhere!

--

Nikon CP 4500 w/ 2X TC, Canon EOS 300D + kit lens, Canon 100mm-300mm USM lens, Cano 100mm F2.8 macro USM, Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM.
 
Lenses for small sensor prosumer cameras, like the G2, are simply much cheaper to design and produce because they can be much smaller and require less material to manufacture. Most prosumers also add more sharpening and constrast by default, so the lens may be getting credit for qualities that were enhanced by the camera.

You add those together and you get what appears to be a great lens for next to nothing.

To translated into the DSLR world you need much more bulk, materials, and expense. I'm not saying that camera companies base what they are selling lenses for on their cost (ha!), but I would be amazed if anyone could produce a top quality 2.8 constrant aperture midrange (wide angle to telephone) for, say, the cost of the kit lens.
honza_pl said:
honza_pl said:
Quality = Money
Range = Money
Quality + Range = Big money

If you want very high quality lenses on a budget, go for primes.
If you want lots of range on a budget, go for a consumer level zoom
If you want range and very high quality, then it will cost you.

That is the simple equalition of DSLR lenses.
Click to expand...
sure but it's not whole truth - my opinion is that when all users
are forced to use DSLR (simply because prosumer cameras disapear
from market) and relatively cheap bodies like 350d/400d are
available, it would be nice and logical to give same correspondent
kit lens that would be without problem usable for common people for
everyday usage, without some significant degradation of image
quality.

I only need decent replacement of my G2's 34-102 lens and a little
more on wide or both ends - 28-110. Nothing more but nothing less.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.apt131.com

'This is easy for us Chinese...just look at the pictures, ignore
his comments in English...'
 
I agree 100%. If you are going to be cheap , then you arte going to get what you pay for. I have experience with both, Canon and Nikon, The colors, saturaation and overall picture quality has always been better due to Canons processor. I am not fond of the kit lens, but even lower end lenses such as the 28-105 USM is an awesome lens for the price and can produce better quality than the 18-70 Nikon.
--
Galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/abb1
 
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