Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

lens choice for 20d

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.

I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
(3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.

At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
conditions.

Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?

More about : lens choice 20d

Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:22:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com>,
point blank <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>
> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
> landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
> (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>
> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> conditions.
>
> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?

Avoid the 18-55mm lens unless you need something expendable. It's cheap
and it shows. I'd get the 17-85mm for general purpose use.

I'm using three compact lenses: 10-22, 24-85, and 70-300 DO IS. The
24-85 takes beautiful photos with vivid color but I have to switch to
the 10-22 so often that it's annoying. I may get a 17-85mm or something
similar in the future.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:22:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com>,
> point blank <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
>> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
>> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
>> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>>
>> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with
>> some landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews,
>> and reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that
>> the Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
>> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm;
>> or (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>>
>> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with
>> 17-85mm), as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I
>> noticed that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing
>> (something I want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is
>> wasted on a lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of
>> getting the 20D with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm
>> IS lens (I can do this for about the same price as the 20D with the
>> 17-85mm). The 18-55 would give me wide angle coverage when I need it
>> for landscapes, but the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens
>> (most of my shots are normally taken between what would be 50mm and
>> 135mm on a film camera, and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a
>> dslr would be an added bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime
>> for low light conditions.
>>
>> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
>> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>
> Avoid the 18-55mm lens unless you need something expendable. It's
> cheap and it shows. I'd get the 17-85mm for general purpose use.
>
> I'm using three compact lenses: 10-22, 24-85, and 70-300 DO IS. The
> 24-85 takes beautiful photos with vivid color but I have to switch to
> the 10-22 so often that it's annoying. I may get a 17-85mm or
> something similar in the future.

Do you see the "softness" often mentioned in connection with the 70-300
lens?


--
Frank ess
Related resources
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:22:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <yaidnSJRQOz090LcRVn-vw@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > In article <fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com>,
> > point blank <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> >> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> >> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> >> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
> >>
> >> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with
> >> some landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews,
> >> and reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that
> >> the Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> >> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm;
> >> or (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
> >>
> >> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with
> >> 17-85mm), as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I
> >> noticed that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing
> >> (something I want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is
> >> wasted on a lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of
> >> getting the 20D with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm
> >> IS lens (I can do this for about the same price as the 20D with the
> >> 17-85mm). The 18-55 would give me wide angle coverage when I need it
> >> for landscapes, but the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens
> >> (most of my shots are normally taken between what would be 50mm and
> >> 135mm on a film camera, and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a
> >> dslr would be an added bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime
> >> for low light conditions.
> >>
> >> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> >> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
> >
> > Avoid the 18-55mm lens unless you need something expendable. It's
> > cheap and it shows. I'd get the 17-85mm for general purpose use.
> >
> > I'm using three compact lenses: 10-22, 24-85, and 70-300 DO IS. The
> > 24-85 takes beautiful photos with vivid color but I have to switch to
> > the 10-22 so often that it's annoying. I may get a 17-85mm or
> > something similar in the future.
>
> Do you see the "softness" often mentioned in connection with the 70-300
> lens?

It has that quirk. It seems as though the lens does not have
traditional aperture behavior. Portions of the image that are slightly
outside of the DOF are sharp yet surrounded by haze. Imagine if you
took the same photo at apertures of f2 and f8 then blended them
together. If everything is totally in or out of the DOF, it takes
amazing photos.

I'm willing to put up with the DOF quirk. I couldn't do without its
compact size, fast focus, sharpness (inside DOF), and solid IS. It has
produced some of my favorite photos in conditions where I didn't believe
it was possible to use a telephoto lens.
January 8, 2005 6:58:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
>
> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>
> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
> landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
> (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>
> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> conditions.
>
> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>
>

In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I got
the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the purple
fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same order of
magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist with a harsh
bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see a glimmer of CA.
This is no more than you will find in other lenses and is easily removed in
Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any means. It comes in very handy @ 85mm,
especially when hand-holding. I personally am very happy with the 17-85. If
you dont get the 17-85, DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap
plastic. I would instead suggest the 17-40mm F/4L, but you will have much
less range. BTW, did you know that the 17-85mm uses the same ultra low
dispersion glass as found in L series lenes? Just make sure you listen to
the people who own the equipment and ignore the bashers. Also, be sure to
look at sample photos with this lens.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:58:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
>>
>> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
>> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
>> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
>> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>>
>> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with
>> some landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews,
>> and
>> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
>> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
>> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm;
>> or (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>>
>> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with
>> 17-85mm),
>> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
>> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
>> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
>> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
>> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
>> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
>> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
>> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
>> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
>> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
>> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
>> conditions.
>>
>> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
>> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>>
>>
>
> In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I
> got the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the
> purple fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same
> order of magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist
> with a harsh bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see
> a glimmer of CA. This is no more than you will find in other lenses
> and is easily removed in Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any
> means. It comes in very handy @ 85mm, especially when hand-holding. I
> personally am very happy with the 17-85. If you dont get the 17-85,
> DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap plastic.

Cheap in the inexpensive sense, and not particilarly wide in a 1.6
factor sense.

In case you want to see a little hands-on evaluation, and make up your
own mind:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...
http://www.fototime.com/inv/F12BC9AC562ED93

--
Frank ess
January 8, 2005 8:30:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
>
>>Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
>>years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
>>for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
>>importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>>
>>I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
>>landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
>>reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
>>Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
>>straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
>>(3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>>
>>At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
>>as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
>>that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
>>want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
>>lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
>>with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
>>this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
>>would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
>>the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
>>normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
>>and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
>>bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
>>conditions.
>>
>>Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
>>should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>>
>>
>
>
> In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I got
> the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the purple
> fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same order of
> magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist with a harsh
> bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see a glimmer of CA.
> This is no more than you will find in other lenses and is easily removed in
> Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any means. It comes in very handy @ 85mm,
> especially when hand-holding. I personally am very happy with the 17-85. If
> you dont get the 17-85, DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap
> plastic. I would instead suggest the 17-40mm F/4L, but you will have much
> less range. BTW, did you know that the 17-85mm uses the same ultra low
> dispersion glass as found in L series lenes? Just make sure you listen to
> the people who own the equipment and ignore the bashers. Also, be sure to
> look at sample photos with this lens.

From Canon website:

Canon's L-series lenses: Identifiable by a distinctive red ring around
their outer barrel, these lenses use special optical technologies -
Ultra-low Dispersion UD glass, Super Low Dispersion glass, Fluorite
elements, and Aspherical elements - to truly push the optical envelope.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...

I am reading the description of EF-S 17-85 IS lens on Canon website. I
don't see UD being mentioned.
January 8, 2005 8:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chris wrote:
> Musty wrote:
>
>> "point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
>>> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
>>> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
>>> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>>>
>>> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
>>> landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
>>> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
>>> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
>>> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
>>> (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>>>
>>> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
>>> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
>>> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
>>> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
>>> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
>>> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
>>> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
>>> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
>>> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
>>> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
>>> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
>>> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
>>> conditions.
>>>
>>> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
>>> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I got
>> the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the purple
>> fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same order of
>> magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist with a harsh
>> bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see a glimmer of CA.
>> This is no more than you will find in other lenses and is easily
>> removed in
>> Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any means. It comes in very handy @
>> 85mm,
>> especially when hand-holding. I personally am very happy with the
>> 17-85. If
>> you dont get the 17-85, DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap
>> plastic. I would instead suggest the 17-40mm F/4L, but you will have much
>> less range. BTW, did you know that the 17-85mm uses the same ultra low
>> dispersion glass as found in L series lenes? Just make sure you listen to
>> the people who own the equipment and ignore the bashers. Also, be sure to
>> look at sample photos with this lens.
>
>
> From Canon website:
>
> Canon's L-series lenses: Identifiable by a distinctive red ring around
> their outer barrel, these lenses use special optical technologies -
> Ultra-low Dispersion UD glass, Super Low Dispersion glass, Fluorite
> elements, and Aspherical elements - to truly push the optical envelope.
>
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...
>
>
> I am reading the description of EF-S 17-85 IS lens on Canon website. I
> don't see UD being mentioned.


Although Canon seems to state that having aspherical lens alone is
enough to qualify as L lens, it ain't so. There are some L lenses with
AL only (no UD or CaF2) and some lenses with AL only aren't L either.

The lens on the PowerShot Pro 1 is L class which has AL, UD and CaF2.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 9:26:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have the 20D, my wife has one with the 18-55 that I've used, and I have
the 28-135. I haven't used the 17-85IS, so I won't comment on that lens.
The 18-55 is a cheaply built lens with better quality than it's price would
suggest, for $100, it's a good one to pick up, if you don't go with the
17-85.
As far as the 28-135, it rarely leaves my camera, it is my primary working
lens. But it does have a slight tendency to get a little purple fringing,
too.
Here's the only image I've ever shot that it is in evidence, look at the
bottom of the license numbers:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

This shot is with the 18-55:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

Actually, I will make a comment on the 17-85. IS is never a waste of money,
sometime, you will find yourself in a situation where you'll need it. Like
in a museum where they don't allow flash photography or a tripod. I've
gotten sharp results from my 28-135IS at 50mm and 1/4 sec.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
>
> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>
> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
> landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
> (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>
> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> conditions.
>
> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>
>
January 8, 2005 11:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
AB77CB.20584907012005@corp-radius.supernews.com:

> I'm using three compact lenses: 10-22, 24-85, and 70-300 DO IS. The
> 24-85 takes beautiful photos with vivid color but I have to switch to
> the 10-22 so often that it's annoying. I may get a 17-85mm or something
> similar in the future.
>

How do you like the 10-22? That sounds like a really fun range. I'm sort of
thinking of the 20D too. My camera now has a wide adapter that I find
myself using most of the time. It gives an equiv focal length of 19mm.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 1:56:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

point blank wrote:
> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>
> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
> landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
> (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>
> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> conditions.
>
> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?

You are going to hear a lot of strong opinions about this. The truth of
the matter is, it is a persona choice and there is no one right answer.

It appears you have a good idea of what you want and what to get. I
don't think you are far off.

I got the kit lens and while it feels cheap and it is a little soft, it
is a great deal of lens for a small price and it is light weight which is a
plus in my book.

It seems you are not comfortable with buying the 28-135 IS lens, which
may be your best choice. The only issue I see is right now you are looking
at a number of overlapping lenses. If you can't bring yourself to buy the
lens you really want right now, consider the kit lens a temp lens and one
you may want to use on the beach or other places that might put the lens at
risk. Use that until you can afford the lens you really want.

If you can afford it, go with the 28-135 IS now (I can't really see much
of an advantage to IS on a 85mm lens, and you are going to want that extra
50mm someday anyway). Later consider getting the 10-22mm super wide. I
have it and it is great for many things. between those two lenses you would
cover a very wide range.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 3:56:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95D8603FC9B5Fbobatcarolnet@216.196.97.142>,
bob <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
> AB77CB.20584907012005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
>
> > I'm using three compact lenses: 10-22, 24-85, and 70-300 DO IS. The
> > 24-85 takes beautiful photos with vivid color but I have to switch to
> > the 10-22 so often that it's annoying. I may get a 17-85mm or something
> > similar in the future.
> >
>
> How do you like the 10-22? That sounds like a really fun range. I'm sort of
> thinking of the 20D too. My camera now has a wide adapter that I find
> myself using most of the time. It gives an equiv focal length of 19mm.
>
> Bob

The 10-22 is fun. I still need more practice with using the widest
angles. My gripes so far are that I haven't found a polarizer that
works at 10mm, there is some purple fringing, and it's too expensive.


http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...

Many of these photos were taken with it. I figured a mob of drunken
Santas would go well my inexperience controlling perspective distortion.
My monitor was a bit out of calibration when I edited the photos so the
ones that needed a late afternoon blue cast removed came out pink.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:22:10 +0000, point blank
<pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:

Joseph, and all others who have been kind enought to reply, I hope I
didn't give the impression that I was 'against' the 28-135mm lens.

Let me review my feelings so far:

The 17-85mm range (effectively 28-135mm on a dslr) seems ideal for
nearly all situations I'm likely to run into. Trouble is that, from
what I've read, few people appear 'happy' with it. Typically, owners
report that, while colour and contrast of images produced is good,
they think the lens suffers from serious purple fringing problem. In
addition, some mention flare problems and that, when wide open,
visible softness of the image towards its edges. It's also expensive
and if that is, in part, down to IS then I'm not sure it is worth the
extra money on a lens with the short 17-85mm focal range.

Most reviews of the 28-135mm IS, on the other hand, mention a flimsy
feeling construction - but great image quality. Also the 'happy'
factor is mentioned more often. There's another point here - I used to
really like the background blur in portrait shots taken with my old
film 135mm prime. Is it the case that, although an 85mm on a dslr has
the same field of view as a 135mm on a film camera, it does not have
the blur and 'compressed' look that you get with a true 135mm? If this
is the case it would be one more reason for me to choose the 28-135mm
over the 17-85mm.

Then there is the 18-55mm kit lens. I didn't know anything about this
and wondered if the, admittedly small, cost of this lens would be
wasted if I bought the 20D with it included. After reading the review
Frank mentioned here
(http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...), it seems
that this is actually quite a good lens (some even suggest better than
the 17-85mm that costs five times more).

So, from where I'm at now, I think my best option might be to get the
20D with 18-55mm included, the 28-135mm IS (I can get both lenses for
the less than the 17-85mm alone) and the 50mm prime for portraits and
low-light shooting.

This combination should mean I get good quality in the 50mm to 100mm
(in film camera terms) I like for people/portraits, and have the
18-55mm to experiment with landscapes. Later, if I started to get into
landscapes a bit more, I might consider a 24mm or 20mm f2.8 prime
lens, or the more expensive 17-40mm f4 L zoom.

Like most people, I am looking for maximum quality at minimum prices
:-). The combination of lenses mentioned above would cost clearly a
bit more than a single 17-85mm, but give more range and possibly
better quality pictures.

Do you agree?


>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:03:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ftvt05nf875rdl0m1qgidsm0f2s3nthnl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:22:10 +0000, point blank
> <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joseph, and all others who have been kind enought to reply, I hope I
> didn't give the impression that I was 'against' the 28-135mm lens.
>
> Let me review my feelings so far:
>
> The 17-85mm range (effectively 28-135mm on a dslr) seems ideal for
> nearly all situations I'm likely to run into. Trouble is that, from
> what I've read, few people appear 'happy' with it. Typically, owners
> report that, while colour and contrast of images produced is good,
> they think the lens suffers from serious purple fringing problem. In
> addition, some mention flare problems and that, when wide open,
> visible softness of the image towards its edges. It's also expensive
> and if that is, in part, down to IS then I'm not sure it is worth the
> extra money on a lens with the short 17-85mm focal range.
>
> Most reviews of the 28-135mm IS, on the other hand, mention a flimsy
> feeling construction - but great image quality. Also the 'happy'
> factor is mentioned more often. There's another point here - I used to
> really like the background blur in portrait shots taken with my old
> film 135mm prime. Is it the case that, although an 85mm on a dslr has
> the same field of view as a 135mm on a film camera, it does not have
> the blur and 'compressed' look that you get with a true 135mm? If this
> is the case it would be one more reason for me to choose the 28-135mm
> over the 17-85mm.
>
> Then there is the 18-55mm kit lens. I didn't know anything about this
> and wondered if the, admittedly small, cost of this lens would be
> wasted if I bought the 20D with it included. After reading the review
> Frank mentioned here
> (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...), it seems
> that this is actually quite a good lens (some even suggest better than
> the 17-85mm that costs five times more).
>
> So, from where I'm at now, I think my best option might be to get the
> 20D with 18-55mm included, the 28-135mm IS (I can get both lenses for
> the less than the 17-85mm alone) and the 50mm prime for portraits and
> low-light shooting.
>
> This combination should mean I get good quality in the 50mm to 100mm
> (in film camera terms) I like for people/portraits, and have the
> 18-55mm to experiment with landscapes. Later, if I started to get into
> landscapes a bit more, I might consider a 24mm or 20mm f2.8 prime
> lens, or the more expensive 17-40mm f4 L zoom.
>
> Like most people, I am looking for maximum quality at minimum prices
> :-). The combination of lenses mentioned above would cost clearly a
> bit more than a single 17-85mm, but give more range and possibly
> better quality pictures.
>
> Do you agree?
>
>

That is the combination that I ended up with and the only thing that I plan
to add for now is the EF-S 10-22 lens. I have ended up using the 28-135
most of the time and the only problem that I have is 'me'. I am still
learning how to use the camera and have gotten a little better in the 2
months that I have had the 20D. I have taken almost 2000 shots in that time
period and I think that I have progressed about 25%. By this time next
year, I hope to be closer to 'good' than 'mediocre'.

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:15:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
....
>
> Actually, I will make a comment on the 17-85. IS is never a waste of
> money, sometime, you will find yourself in a situation where you'll
> need it. Like in a museum where they don't allow flash photography
> or a tripod. I've gotten sharp results from my 28-135IS at 50mm and
> 1/4 sec.

Good point. I had not considered that. It is something I don't usually
run into as an issue based on most of the work I do. Of course if you
carried a nice 50 mm 1.4 it would also do, but, then it would not have the
zoom capability.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:15:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6OSDd.19957$iu5.6680@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Skip M wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Actually, I will make a comment on the 17-85. IS is never a waste of
>> money, sometime, you will find yourself in a situation where you'll
>> need it. Like in a museum where they don't allow flash photography
>> or a tripod. I've gotten sharp results from my 28-135IS at 50mm and
>> 1/4 sec.
>
> Good point. I had not considered that. It is something I don't usually
> run into as an issue based on most of the work I do. Of course if you
> carried a nice 50 mm 1.4 it would also do, but, then it would not have the
> zoom capability.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
True, and I do carry a 50mm f1.8. But even then, two or two and a half more
stops of aperture will only get you to the edges of handholdability. (To
coin a word).

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

point blank wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:22:10 +0000, point blank
> <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... There's another point here - I used to
> really like the background blur in portrait shots taken with my old
> film 135mm prime. Is it the case that, although an 85mm on a dslr has
> the same field of view as a 135mm on a film camera, it does not have
> the blur and 'compressed' look that you get with a true 135mm? If this
> is the case it would be one more reason for me to choose the 28-135mm
> over the 17-85mm.
> ...

The background blur is different in your digital because of two things.
First and most important the true image size is smaller than standard 35mm
(1.6 effect) Which means that the DOF of a lens at the same aperture and
EFFECTIVE focal length will be greater with your 20D. To counter that you
need to use a larger aperture.

That larger aperture is the second part of the problem. Most lenses
being sold with digitals have smaller apertures than those that film cameras
had.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 7:49:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/8/05 2:25 AM, in article
mcmurtri-108DDD.00254708012005@corp-radius.supernews.com, "Kevin McMurtrie"
<mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:


>>
>> Do you see the "softness" often mentioned in connection with the 70-300
>> lens?
>
> It has that quirk. It seems as though the lens does not have
> traditional aperture behavior. Portions of the image that are slightly
> outside of the DOF are sharp yet surrounded by haze. Imagine if you
> took the same photo at apertures of f2 and f8 then blended them
> together. If everything is totally in or out of the DOF, it takes
> amazing photos.
>
> I'm willing to put up with the DOF quirk. I couldn't do without its
> compact size, fast focus, sharpness (inside DOF), and solid IS. It has
> produced some of my favorite photos in conditions where I didn't believe
> it was possible to use a telephoto lens.

I'll chime in on this since I have the 70-300 DO as well. I agree with
everything above and will mention additionally that the lens shows it's DOF
quirks more easily when shooting into a strong background light. But, I
would not trade it for anything else right now - it produces high quality
photos, and how many 300mm lenses could you walk around with all day and not
feel that you were carrying much more than a normal lens.
Chuck
January 8, 2005 8:13:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
5EEE7A.12565208012005@corp-radius.supernews.com:

> The 10-22 is fun. I still need more practice with using the widest
> angles. My gripes so far are that I haven't found a polarizer that
> works at 10mm, there is some purple fringing, and it's too expensive.
>
>
> http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...
>
>

I've never seen so many Santas! What was the occasion?

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
January 8, 2005 9:42:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

point blank wrote:
> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>
> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with some
> landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews, and
> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm; or
> (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>
> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with 17-85mm),
> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> conditions.
>
> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?


Have you considered 18-55 and 70-200/4L combo?
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 10:46:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D8B98B07C73bobatcarolnet@216.196.97.142...
> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
> 5EEE7A.12565208012005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
>
>> The 10-22 is fun. I still need more practice with using the widest
>> angles. My gripes so far are that I haven't found a polarizer that
>> works at 10mm, there is some purple fringing, and it's too expensive.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...

Were all of those shots with the 10-22?

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:16:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> >
> >Here is what I would recommend for the OP (just my opinion...)
> >
> >Value-Pack (in line with 20D pricing)
> >50mm f/1.8 II (or f/1.4 for more $$)
> >17-85mm IS EF-S OR 17-40mm f/4L
> >70-200mm f/4L
> >
> >Not so value-Pack (If you can spend a bit more)
> >50mm f/1.4
> >16-35mm F/2.8L
> >70-200mm IS f/2.8L (or IS f/4L) + extender
> >
> >With 3 lenses like this it should satisfy most shooting conditions.
>From my
> >experience, the f/2.8 would be fine, but with 20D high ISO being so
clean,
> >it may not be worth it.
> >
> Musty, that 'value pack' is an interesting suggestion and one I will
> consider carefully. I'm afraid I'm edging more towards the 28-135mm
> that the 17-85mm so I would adjust slightly to get:
>
> 50mm f/1.8 II
> 17-40mm f/4L
> 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
> 70-200mm f/4L
>
> That sounds like an excellent selection for a fairly reasonable price
> (but a bit more than I could really afford right now). So it will
> probably be a case of starting with the 50mm 1.8 (which I could
> imagine I might use most often as I mostly take portrait type shots),
> the 28-135mm AND the 18-55mm (as a 'stopgap' lens). The cost would be
> only a little more than the 17-85 on its own. Then, as funds allow, I
> might go for the 17-40 L and the 70-200 L, in that order.

I would get the 17-40mm f4 L, 70-200mm f4 L as a base lens group and
then expand from there depending on where your photography takes you.
These two lens will do everything you want and are excellent optcal
performers. if you need a fast lens get the 50mm f1.8. It's a great
light weight walk around lens that's a nice portrait lens.

I have a sort of mixed up lens kit because i'm transitioning from film.
I Have the 17-40mm f4, 28-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f4, 28-135mm IS, 50mm
f1.8 version 1, 100mm f2.8 macro, and the 300mm f4 IS.

I'm in transition and will probably sell either the 28-135mm IS or the
28-70mm f2.8. I love the IS but the 28-70mm f2.8 has been a huge winner
and favorite for me for a very long time. I also have a 10D and a 20D
and after I get back from Costa Rica I will sell the 10D. I'm planning
on using the 10D with the 17-40mm and the 20D with the 70-200mm while
I'm there.

Art
January 9, 2005 1:57:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:k4SdnT7Le6B2_0LcRVn-rg@giganews.com...
> Musty wrote:
> > "point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> >> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> >> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> >> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
> >>
> >> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with
> >> some landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews,
> >> and
> >> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> >> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> >> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm;
> >> or (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
> >>
> >> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with
> >> 17-85mm),
> >> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> >> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> >> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> >> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> >> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> >> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
> >> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> >> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
> >> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
> >> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> >> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> >> conditions.
> >>
> >> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> >> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I
> > got the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the
> > purple fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same
> > order of magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist
> > with a harsh bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see
> > a glimmer of CA. This is no more than you will find in other lenses
> > and is easily removed in Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any
> > means. It comes in very handy @ 85mm, especially when hand-holding. I
> > personally am very happy with the 17-85. If you dont get the 17-85,
> > DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap plastic.
>
> Cheap in the inexpensive sense, and not particilarly wide in a 1.6
> factor sense.
>
> In case you want to see a little hands-on evaluation, and make up your
> own mind:
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...
> http://www.fototime.com/inv/F12BC9AC562ED93
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>

For the money, it is unbeatable value and performance - it is by no means a
useless lens. My wording was a bit too harsh. I was just referring to the
build of the lens (looks like it can break easily). I have read the review
site you posted and it does show that the lens is good around center but
gets very soft around the edges (even at 20mm stepped down). To make the
most of the 20D, it would be wise to have a better lens. When buying a body
that is much less about compromise (say compared to 300D or D70), it makes
sense to put glass which falls in the same category. When push comes to
shove, L-glass is really where its at. My 70-200mm f/4L is just wonderful
and it is quite cheap and highly recommended.

Here is what I would recommend for the OP (just my opinion...)

Value-Pack (in line with 20D pricing)
50mm f/1.8 II (or f/1.4 for more $$)
17-85mm IS EF-S OR 17-40mm f/4L
70-200mm f/4L

Not so value-Pack (If you can spend a bit more)
50mm f/1.4
16-35mm F/2.8L
70-200mm IS f/2.8L (or IS f/4L) + extender

With 3 lenses like this it should satisfy most shooting conditions. From my
experience, the f/2.8 would be fine, but with 20D high ISO being so clean,
it may not be worth it.
January 9, 2005 2:25:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ftvt05nf875rdl0m1qgidsm0f2s3nthnl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:22:10 +0000, point blank
> <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joseph, and all others who have been kind enought to reply, I hope I
> didn't give the impression that I was 'against' the 28-135mm lens.
>
> Let me review my feelings so far:
>
> The 17-85mm range (effectively 28-135mm on a dslr) seems ideal for
> nearly all situations I'm likely to run into. Trouble is that, from
> what I've read, few people appear 'happy' with it. Typically, owners
> report that, while colour and contrast of images produced is good,
> they think the lens suffers from serious purple fringing problem. In
> addition, some mention flare problems and that, when wide open,
> visible softness of the image towards its edges. It's also expensive
> and if that is, in part, down to IS then I'm not sure it is worth the
> extra money on a lens with the short 17-85mm focal range.


I own a 20D /w the 17-85 and I also own L-glass. I can tell you that from
_my_ experience I do not see the purple fringing issue. You have to be
careful around these NGs. There are many people here who are just "bashers"
and typically do not own the equipment or any decent equipment for that
matter. But you know what, dont even take my word for it. This is what I
suggest (and I really want you to do this because it will be better than any
message on a NG or a review):

Go to a good camera store. Tell them you are going to buy a 20D but you are
confused about which lens to buy. Bring in a CF card. Get them to hand you a
20D and try out some of these lenses. Preferably go to a store that is not
in a mall so you can walk outside with the salesman and take photographs.
Note down on paper which shot was taken with what lens and with what
settings. Take the CF home and review the photographs. How did the lens feel
in your hand?? How did it focus?

You have to also consider practicality. When you're out and about with
camera you have to ask yourself

- How much gear do I want to carry (camera+lens, camera+2 lenses etc)
- How often will you change lenses, for example having 18-55 + 28-135 means
regular lens changes unless your photography is isolated to tele or wide
shots only
- keep in mind that the 28mm will not give you any sort of wide angle
(becomes 45mm on the 20D)
- DSLRs are notorious for getting dust on the sensor especially doing lens
changes in the field - you will get more dust

I am not trying to convince you to get the 17-85, but definitely try it out.
Image quality is very good and the practicality is excellent

>
> Most reviews of the 28-135mm IS, on the other hand, mention a flimsy
> feeling construction - but great image quality. Also the 'happy'
> factor is mentioned more often. There's another point here - I used to
> really like the background blur in portrait shots taken with my old
> film 135mm prime. Is it the case that, although an 85mm on a dslr has
> the same field of view as a 135mm on a film camera, it does not have
> the blur and 'compressed' look that you get with a true 135mm? If this
> is the case it would be one more reason for me to choose the 28-135mm
> over the 17-85mm.
>
> Then there is the 18-55mm kit lens. I didn't know anything about this
> and wondered if the, admittedly small, cost of this lens would be
> wasted if I bought the 20D with it included. After reading the review
> Frank mentioned here
> (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...), it seems
> that this is actually quite a good lens (some even suggest better than
> the 17-85mm that costs five times more).
>
> So, from where I'm at now, I think my best option might be to get the
> 20D with 18-55mm included, the 28-135mm IS (I can get both lenses for
> the less than the 17-85mm alone) and the 50mm prime for portraits and
> low-light shooting.
>
> This combination should mean I get good quality in the 50mm to 100mm
> (in film camera terms) I like for people/portraits, and have the
> 18-55mm to experiment with landscapes. Later, if I started to get into
> landscapes a bit more, I might consider a 24mm or 20mm f2.8 prime
> lens, or the more expensive 17-40mm f4 L zoom.
>
> Like most people, I am looking for maximum quality at minimum prices
> :-). The combination of lenses mentioned above would cost clearly a
> bit more than a single 17-85mm, but give more range and possibly
> better quality pictures.
>
> Do you agree?
>
>
> >
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:57:02 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>news:k4SdnT7Le6B2_0LcRVn-rg@giganews.com...
>> Musty wrote:
>> > "point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
>> >> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
>> >> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
>> >> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
>> >>
>> >> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with
>> >> some landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews,
>> >> and
>> >> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
>> >> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
>> >> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm;
>> >> or (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
>> >>
>> >> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with
>> >> 17-85mm),
>> >> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
>> >> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
>> >> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
>> >> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
>> >> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
>> >> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The 18-55
>> >> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
>> >> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots are
>> >> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film camera,
>> >> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
>> >> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
>> >> conditions.
>> >>
>> >> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
>> >> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I
>> > got the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the
>> > purple fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same
>> > order of magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist
>> > with a harsh bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see
>> > a glimmer of CA. This is no more than you will find in other lenses
>> > and is easily removed in Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any
>> > means. It comes in very handy @ 85mm, especially when hand-holding. I
>> > personally am very happy with the 17-85. If you dont get the 17-85,
>> > DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap plastic.
>>
>> Cheap in the inexpensive sense, and not particilarly wide in a 1.6
>> factor sense.
>>
>> In case you want to see a little hands-on evaluation, and make up your
>> own mind:
>> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...
>> http://www.fototime.com/inv/F12BC9AC562ED93
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>>
>>
>
>For the money, it is unbeatable value and performance - it is by no means a
>useless lens. My wording was a bit too harsh. I was just referring to the
>build of the lens (looks like it can break easily). I have read the review
>site you posted and it does show that the lens is good around center but
>gets very soft around the edges (even at 20mm stepped down). To make the
>most of the 20D, it would be wise to have a better lens. When buying a body
>that is much less about compromise (say compared to 300D or D70), it makes
>sense to put glass which falls in the same category. When push comes to
>shove, L-glass is really where its at. My 70-200mm f/4L is just wonderful
>and it is quite cheap and highly recommended.
>
>Here is what I would recommend for the OP (just my opinion...)
>
>Value-Pack (in line with 20D pricing)
>50mm f/1.8 II (or f/1.4 for more $$)
>17-85mm IS EF-S OR 17-40mm f/4L
>70-200mm f/4L
>
>Not so value-Pack (If you can spend a bit more)
>50mm f/1.4
>16-35mm F/2.8L
>70-200mm IS f/2.8L (or IS f/4L) + extender
>
>With 3 lenses like this it should satisfy most shooting conditions. From my
>experience, the f/2.8 would be fine, but with 20D high ISO being so clean,
>it may not be worth it.
>
Musty, that 'value pack' is an interesting suggestion and one I will
consider carefully. I'm afraid I'm edging more towards the 28-135mm
that the 17-85mm so I would adjust slightly to get:

50mm f/1.8 II
17-40mm f/4L
28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
70-200mm f/4L

That sounds like an excellent selection for a fairly reasonable price
(but a bit more than I could really afford right now). So it will
probably be a case of starting with the 50mm 1.8 (which I could
imagine I might use most often as I mostly take portrait type shots),
the 28-135mm AND the 18-55mm (as a 'stopgap' lens). The cost would be
only a little more than the 17-85 on its own. Then, as funds allow, I
might go for the 17-40 L and the 70-200 L, in that order.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:58:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:42:25 GMT, chris <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>
>Have you considered 18-55 and 70-200/4L combo?

Chris, I hadn't really thought about the 70-200mm as I feel fairly
sure that most of my shooting will be in the film camera equivalent of
50mm to 135mm range (as I'm mostly interested in people/portrait
shots). That said, it would be nice to have some wide angle ability
for landscapes, which I want to get into a bit more.

While the 70mm-200mm would be nice for the future, I could imagine I
would only use it occasionally.

BTW, I've also noticed that Canon do a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for a
reasonable price, so I'm also going to check out some reviews on it.
January 9, 2005 3:08:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:raq0u0hepcdqfus27vrksrcdeuu2i0c793@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:57:02 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> >news:k4SdnT7Le6B2_0LcRVn-rg@giganews.com...
> >> Musty wrote:
> >> > "point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:fdiut09hujdc0ov90kpcnlh3rlor5verjg@4ax.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi, I've had an Olympus 5050 compact camera for the last couple of
> >> >> years and its been great. Now I'm thinking of buying a dslr, mainly
> >> >> for the low noise/better quality benefits of a bigger sensor and,
> >> >> importantly to me, less of the dreaded shutter release 'lag'.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm mainly interested in people/family/portrait photography, with
> >> >> some landscape/cityscape work. After checking out various reviews,
> >> >> and
> >> >> reading many of the posts here, I've more or less decided that the
> >> >> Canon 20D is what I want. However, choosing a lens seems far less
> >> >> straightforward. I can buy (1) 20D body only; (2) 20D with 18-55mm;
> >> >> or (3) 20D with 17-85mm IS.
> >> >>
> >> >> At first I thought I would go for the third option (20D with
> >> >> 17-85mm),
> >> >> as this range would probably cover 90% of my needs. Then I noticed
> >> >> that some reviews say it suffers from purple fringing (something I
> >> >> want to get away from), is too expensive and that IS is wasted on a
> >> >> lens with this focal range. So now I'm thinking of getting the 20D
> >> >> with the 18-55 AND later buying the canon 28-135mm IS lens (I can do
> >> >> this for about the same price as the 20D with the 17-85mm). The
18-55
> >> >> would give me wide angle coverage when I need it for landscapes, but
> >> >> the 28-135mm would probably become my main lens (most of my shots
are
> >> >> normally taken between what would be 50mm and 135mm on a film
camera,
> >> >> and the extra reach of the 135mm end on a dslr would be an added
> >> >> bonus). I might also get the 50mm canon prime for low light
> >> >> conditions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this seem a reasonable choice? Is the 18-55mm worth buying? Or
> >> >> should I just just get the 20D with the 17-85mm?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > In quite a co-incidence I went from an Oly C5050-Z to a 20D myselg. I
> >> > got the 20D /w 17-85mm EF-S kit. Do not expect anything close to the
> >> > purple fringing (CA) that you had on the Oly (not even in the same
> >> > order of magnitude). I have taken shots of trees which are backlist
> >> > with a harsh bright sky and I had to really blow up the image to see
> >> > a glimmer of CA. This is no more than you will find in other lenses
> >> > and is easily removed in Photoshop. The IS is not wasted by any
> >> > means. It comes in very handy @ 85mm, especially when hand-holding. I
> >> > personally am very happy with the 17-85. If you dont get the 17-85,
> >> > DO NOT get the 18-55, it is a piece of cheap plastic.
> >>
> >> Cheap in the inexpensive sense, and not particilarly wide in a 1.6
> >> factor sense.
> >>
> >> In case you want to see a little hands-on evaluation, and make up your
> >> own mind:
> >> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...
> >> http://www.fototime.com/inv/F12BC9AC562ED93
> >>
> >> --
> >> Frank ess
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For the money, it is unbeatable value and performance - it is by no means
a
> >useless lens. My wording was a bit too harsh. I was just referring to the
> >build of the lens (looks like it can break easily). I have read the
review
> >site you posted and it does show that the lens is good around center but
> >gets very soft around the edges (even at 20mm stepped down). To make the
> >most of the 20D, it would be wise to have a better lens. When buying a
body
> >that is much less about compromise (say compared to 300D or D70), it
makes
> >sense to put glass which falls in the same category. When push comes to
> >shove, L-glass is really where its at. My 70-200mm f/4L is just wonderful
> >and it is quite cheap and highly recommended.
> >
> >Here is what I would recommend for the OP (just my opinion...)
> >
> >Value-Pack (in line with 20D pricing)
> >50mm f/1.8 II (or f/1.4 for more $$)
> >17-85mm IS EF-S OR 17-40mm f/4L
> >70-200mm f/4L
> >
> >Not so value-Pack (If you can spend a bit more)
> >50mm f/1.4
> >16-35mm F/2.8L
> >70-200mm IS f/2.8L (or IS f/4L) + extender
> >
> >With 3 lenses like this it should satisfy most shooting conditions. From
my
> >experience, the f/2.8 would be fine, but with 20D high ISO being so
clean,
> >it may not be worth it.
> >
> Musty, that 'value pack' is an interesting suggestion and one I will
> consider carefully. I'm afraid I'm edging more towards the 28-135mm
> that the 17-85mm so I would adjust slightly to get:
>
> 50mm f/1.8 II
> 17-40mm f/4L
> 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
> 70-200mm f/4L
>
> That sounds like an excellent selection for a fairly reasonable price
> (but a bit more than I could really afford right now). So it will
> probably be a case of starting with the 50mm 1.8 (which I could
> imagine I might use most often as I mostly take portrait type shots),
> the 28-135mm AND the 18-55mm (as a 'stopgap' lens). The cost would be
> only a little more than the 17-85 on its own. Then, as funds allow, I
> might go for the 17-40 L and the 70-200 L, in that order.
>
>
That sounds like a good choice. I went with the 17-85 and 70-200 simply to
have a small cross-over (70-85mm) on the range. The 50mm f/1.8 is a very
bright lens which is very good for low-lit shots (eg band playing in a bar)
and also great for portraits (acts as a 80mm with a large opening). You
might as well get the 18-55 if you think it will take some time before you
get the 17-40/L.

I also agree with the order in which you would get the lenses. Have fun!
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:10:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:25:02 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>I own a 20D /w the 17-85 and I also own L-glass. I can tell you that from
>_my_ experience I do not see the purple fringing issue. You have to be
>careful around these NGs. There are many people here who are just "bashers"
>and typically do not own the equipment or any decent equipment for that
>matter. But you know what, dont even take my word for it. This is what I
>suggest (and I really want you to do this because it will be better than any
>message on a NG or a review):
>
>Go to a good camera store. Tell them you are going to buy a 20D but you are
>confused about which lens to buy. Bring in a CF card. Get them to hand you a
>20D and try out some of these lenses. Preferably go to a store that is not
>in a mall so you can walk outside with the salesman and take photographs.
>Note down on paper which shot was taken with what lens and with what
>settings. Take the CF home and review the photographs. How did the lens feel
>in your hand?? How did it focus?
>
>You have to also consider practicality. When you're out and about with
>camera you have to ask yourself
>
>- How much gear do I want to carry (camera+lens, camera+2 lenses etc)
>- How often will you change lenses, for example having 18-55 + 28-135 means
>regular lens changes unless your photography is isolated to tele or wide
>shots only
> - keep in mind that the 28mm will not give you any sort of wide angle
>(becomes 45mm on the 20D)
>- DSLRs are notorious for getting dust on the sensor especially doing lens
>changes in the field - you will get more dust
>
>I am not trying to convince you to get the 17-85, but definitely try it out.
>Image quality is very good and the practicality is excellent
>
>>
Musty, I would certainly want to avoid changing lenses more than
really necessary, and I must admit that the 44mm film camera
equivalent max wide angle does worry me a bit about the 28-135mm. I
would be much happier if it went to about 35mm equivalent.

Another thing that worries me a bit is the f5.6 max apature
(presumably at the long end?). Normally that would restrict me in our
dark winter conditions, but I'm hoping that the combination of the
20D's tolerance of highish 'film' speed settings and the lens IS
feature might help to some extent.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:25:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>
>>
>That sounds like a good choice. I went with the 17-85 and 70-200 simply to
>have a small cross-over (70-85mm) on the range. The 50mm f/1.8 is a very
>bright lens which is very good for low-lit shots (eg band playing in a bar)
>and also great for portraits (acts as a 80mm with a large opening). You
>might as well get the 18-55 if you think it will take some time before you
>get the 17-40/L.
>
>I also agree with the order in which you would get the lenses. Have fun!
>

Musty, tnx for your advice - it has really helped me think carefully
about what I am finding a very confusing choice (given financial
constraints and the high price of lenses).

Of course I will still have my little Olympus 5050 for a walking
around camera :-)
I've got some great shots with it over the last couple of years and
love it to bits! A friend has a Digital Rebel camera, and sometimes I
reckon the little Olympus isn't that far behind in terms of quality.
January 9, 2005 3:26:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D vs0u0l7snn91eu6pjalap8hbomtutbgtt@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:25:02 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I own a 20D /w the 17-85 and I also own L-glass. I can tell you that from
> >_my_ experience I do not see the purple fringing issue. You have to be
> >careful around these NGs. There are many people here who are just
"bashers"
> >and typically do not own the equipment or any decent equipment for that
> >matter. But you know what, dont even take my word for it. This is what I
> >suggest (and I really want you to do this because it will be better than
any
> >message on a NG or a review):
> >
> >Go to a good camera store. Tell them you are going to buy a 20D but you
are
> >confused about which lens to buy. Bring in a CF card. Get them to hand
you a
> >20D and try out some of these lenses. Preferably go to a store that is
not
> >in a mall so you can walk outside with the salesman and take photographs.
> >Note down on paper which shot was taken with what lens and with what
> >settings. Take the CF home and review the photographs. How did the lens
feel
> >in your hand?? How did it focus?
> >
> >You have to also consider practicality. When you're out and about with
> >camera you have to ask yourself
> >
> >- How much gear do I want to carry (camera+lens, camera+2 lenses etc)
> >- How often will you change lenses, for example having 18-55 + 28-135
means
> >regular lens changes unless your photography is isolated to tele or wide
> >shots only
> > - keep in mind that the 28mm will not give you any sort of wide angle
> >(becomes 45mm on the 20D)
> >- DSLRs are notorious for getting dust on the sensor especially doing
lens
> >changes in the field - you will get more dust
> >
> >I am not trying to convince you to get the 17-85, but definitely try it
out.
> >Image quality is very good and the practicality is excellent
> >
> >>
> Musty, I would certainly want to avoid changing lenses more than
> really necessary, and I must admit that the 44mm film camera
> equivalent max wide angle does worry me a bit about the 28-135mm. I
> would be much happier if it went to about 35mm equivalent.

If you like to get more into your shot eg scenes, architectures, groups of
people, the 44mm equiv will have you swapping to your 18-55 in no time. Then
you may take a portrait of one of those people and you find yourself
swapping back to the 28-135. I will admit however that this is life with an
SLR (lens swapping). What you really need is a Canon 1DS MkII (full frame
sensor) with the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L, but few of us (who are just
hobbyists) are willing to shell out $10K for such a combo. Would be nice
though!


>
> Another thing that worries me a bit is the f5.6 max apature
> (presumably at the long end?). Normally that would restrict me in our
> dark winter conditions, but I'm hoping that the combination of the
> 20D's tolerance of highish 'film' speed settings and the lens IS
> feature might help to some extent.

I wouldnt be too worried about the f/5.6 (at the long end). DSLR are much
less noisy compared to film SLRs (for a given "ISO"). Even better is the
fact that the 20D has a very low noise behavior (even up to ISO 1600). Based
on this, you will see a lot more f/4 lenses in the future (atleast that is
what I expect). An IS lens helps here also since lower shutter speeds can be
used (within limitation).

>
>
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:46:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95D8B98B07C73bobatcarolnet@216.196.97.142>,
bob <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
> 5EEE7A.12565208012005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
>
> > The 10-22 is fun. I still need more practice with using the widest
> > angles. My gripes so far are that I haven't found a polarizer that
> > works at 10mm, there is some purple fringing, and it's too expensive.
> >
> >
> > http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...
> >
> >
>
> I've never seen so many Santas! What was the occasion?
>
> Bob

"Santarchy"
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:03:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <9de48$41e07efe$45234db7$5270@allthenewsgroups.com>,
"Don Dunlap" <dondunlaprove@direcway.com> wrote:

> "bob" <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95D8B98B07C73bobatcarolnet@216.196.97.142...
> > Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
> > 5EEE7A.12565208012005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
> >
> >> The 10-22 is fun. I still need more practice with using the widest
> >> angles. My gripes so far are that I haven't found a polarizer that
> >> works at 10mm, there is some purple fringing, and it's too expensive.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...
>
> Were all of those shots with the 10-22?
>
> Don Dunlap

I was using three lenses that day, but mostly the 10-22mm.

3766 (high ornament) is from a Canon 70-300mm DO IS. 3791, 3795, 3798
(Parol Lantern Festival) are from a Canon 24-85mm. There are lots more
photos in the raw directory that I haven't sorted or didn't like.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:23:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <v7s0u0lk3sn0vpcgt2204j3v5rmk7e5f9l@4ax.com>,
point blank <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:42:25 GMT, chris <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Have you considered 18-55 and 70-200/4L combo?
>
> Chris, I hadn't really thought about the 70-200mm as I feel fairly
> sure that most of my shooting will be in the film camera equivalent of
> 50mm to 135mm range (as I'm mostly interested in people/portrait
> shots). That said, it would be nice to have some wide angle ability
> for landscapes, which I want to get into a bit more.
>
> While the 70mm-200mm would be nice for the future, I could imagine I
> would only use it occasionally.
>
> BTW, I've also noticed that Canon do a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for a
> reasonable price, so I'm also going to check out some reviews on it.

The 24-85mm is an excellent lens. Colors are vivid from highlights to
shadows. Its limited zoom range leads to some lens swapping but there's
nothing else to complain about.
January 9, 2005 7:33:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:26:50 GMT
In message <eT_Dd.12701$ho.5610@fe2.texas.rr.com>
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

> ...
> DSLR are much less noisy compared to film SLRs (for a given "ISO").
> Even better is the fact that the 20D has a very low noise behavior
> (even up to ISO 1600).
> ...

I keep reading this, and have remained silent for a
couple months. Am I the only one who finds the
digital noise in the D20 above ISO 100 (or at 100
in low light) ranging from annoying to a blotchy mess?

Jeff
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 7:33:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:59c1u01f829g89uo0nppmk72ceqmu375ol@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:26:50 GMT
> In message <eT_Dd.12701$ho.5610@fe2.texas.rr.com>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> DSLR are much less noisy compared to film SLRs (for a given "ISO").
>> Even better is the fact that the 20D has a very low noise behavior
>> (even up to ISO 1600).
>> ...
>
> I keep reading this, and have remained silent for a
> couple months. Am I the only one who finds the
> digital noise in the D20 above ISO 100 (or at 100
> in low light) ranging from annoying to a blotchy mess?
>
> Jeff

While you may not be the only one, you certainly are in the minority! I
find the noise more than merely acceptable up to ISO800, and virtually non
existent at 100 and 200. And I found the grain of Kodachrome 200
unacceptable, so you know I find the noise at those ISO less than that.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:36:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I got the 20D with the 18-55 kit lens as a get me started, the price
increment makes it almost free so I don't think you can go too far wrong.

However, this is from the perspective of me being a confirmed prime lens
man, so getting a more expensive zoom is unlikely as I see a zoom as a walk
around lens.

Compared to the only other EF lens I have (100mm Macro) the 18-55 is cheap
in construction, however it takes quite nice pics. I don't think for hand
held exposures you would notice fringing. I do see some if I look at tree
branches against the sky with it. This CA is absent from the 100mm.

I would suggest using the 18-55 (or any zoom) with the lens hood. (I always
use a lens hood on primes also).

The only think that bugs me is the limited max apertures, but that is in
part why I prefer primes.


Cheers


Lester

"point blank" <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ftvt05nf875rdl0m1qgidsm0f2s3nthnl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:22:10 +0000, point blank
> <pointblank@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joseph, and all others who have been kind enought to reply, I hope I
> didn't give the impression that I was 'against' the 28-135mm lens.
>
> Let me review my feelings so far:
>
> The 17-85mm range (effectively 28-135mm on a dslr) seems ideal for
> nearly all situations I'm likely to run into. Trouble is that, from
> what I've read, few people appear 'happy' with it. Typically, owners
> report that, while colour and contrast of images produced is good,
> they think the lens suffers from serious purple fringing problem. In
> addition, some mention flare problems and that, when wide open,
> visible softness of the image towards its edges. It's also expensive
> and if that is, in part, down to IS then I'm not sure it is worth the
> extra money on a lens with the short 17-85mm focal range.
>
> Most reviews of the 28-135mm IS, on the other hand, mention a flimsy
> feeling construction - but great image quality. Also the 'happy'
> factor is mentioned more often. There's another point here - I used to
> really like the background blur in portrait shots taken with my old
> film 135mm prime. Is it the case that, although an 85mm on a dslr has
> the same field of view as a 135mm on a film camera, it does not have
> the blur and 'compressed' look that you get with a true 135mm? If this
> is the case it would be one more reason for me to choose the 28-135mm
> over the 17-85mm.
>
> Then there is the 18-55mm kit lens. I didn't know anything about this
> and wondered if the, admittedly small, cost of this lens would be
> wasted if I bought the 20D with it included. After reading the review
> Frank mentioned here
> (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55b.htm...), it seems
> that this is actually quite a good lens (some even suggest better than
> the 17-85mm that costs five times more).
>
> So, from where I'm at now, I think my best option might be to get the
> 20D with 18-55mm included, the 28-135mm IS (I can get both lenses for
> the less than the 17-85mm alone) and the 50mm prime for portraits and
> low-light shooting.
>
> This combination should mean I get good quality in the 50mm to 100mm
> (in film camera terms) I like for people/portraits, and have the
> 18-55mm to experiment with landscapes. Later, if I started to get into
> landscapes a bit more, I might consider a 24mm or 20mm f2.8 prime
> lens, or the more expensive 17-40mm f4 L zoom.
>
> Like most people, I am looking for maximum quality at minimum prices
> :-). The combination of lenses mentioned above would cost clearly a
> bit more than a single 17-85mm, but give more range and possibly
> better quality pictures.
>
> Do you agree?
>
>
>>
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:37:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > DSLR are much less noisy compared to film SLRs (for a given "ISO").
> > Even better is the fact that the 20D has a very low noise behavior
> > (even up to ISO 1600).
> > ...
>
> I keep reading this, and have remained silent for a
> couple months. Am I the only one who finds the
> digital noise in the D20 above ISO 100 (or at 100
> in low light) ranging from annoying to a blotchy mess?

At ISO 1600 you'll probably want to hit your images with some sort of noise
reduction before printing, but if you turn off sharpening and expose
correctly you should get noise-free 8x10 prints that would be unthinkable
with 35mm at the same ISO for ISO 400 and higher, even ISO 1600.

If you want to sharpen heavily, you'll want to do some sort of noise
reduction first, and/or use photoshop's USM function with the threshold
setting increased to the point noise isn't aggravated too badly.

FWIW, Breezebrowser's noise reduction during RAW conversion seems to work
quite well.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
January 11, 2005 2:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800
In message <I1yEd.50482$8e5.20593@fed1read07>
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> I would guess that the parameter assumes that flash is a priority, so it
> won't fire without it. But you might be right about the lockups being
> related. How fast was the flash recycling?

Fairly quick. The only time it took a 4-5 second charge was when I
fiddled with manual at full power.

> My wife had a similar problem at a wedding, shooting with
> a Quantum flash. It seemed to be very slow about recycling,
> even with a full battery.

It was recycling much quicker than I expected. What I didn't expect
was an overall useless flash. I expected *at least* an improvement
over the Sony F717 flash usage, not a step backwards.

> I'm not sure what you mean about tech compensating for "the 'neuro'
> part of neuro-muscular confusion."

I have high expectations of computer technology doing the "brain work"
so I can relax and worry about f-stop and shutter speed, and then just
have fun taking photographs.

(I have a neuro-muscular condition, hence the "neuro" reference...
living proof that 1/2 a brain is better than none. (ahem...subjective
observation on my part.) ;-)

> ISO200 and 400 are very clean, to give a non
> comparative answer. You've never shot any film?

Nop, other than point-and-shoot prints with inexpensive kodaks over
the years. I never set an "f-stop" until recently with digital
photography.

> Take the 28-135IS and the 580EX, maybe with the 50mm f1.4 as backup,

The 580EX is useless...no point taking it if the computer in the
camera can't figure out how much light is needed.

(I suppose I could take a class, get a light meter, etc...)

> and enjoy yourself.

Hmmm... good idea. I'll leave the cameras home and
have a good time for an hour or two before I get bored.

;-)

> You don't need the "motordrive" at a car show. ;-)

Heh... I was testing... ;^)

Jeff
January 15, 2005 4:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I bought a 10D shortly before the 20D was announced. I had no
lenses, so I bought a 17-40L for the camera and I have been
very pleased. If you look at the MTF chart for the lens, it
looks like it was specificaly designed for 1.6x crop cameras
because the graph drops preciptoulsy once the image falls
outdide of the 1.6-cropped view.

Andrew
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

17-40L is a great lens for the 10D and it is very very sharp. However, at
f4, once you lose a little light or go indoors, I find I really need
something else............ like the 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 or the 35mm f2

unless I am yucking it up with a flash, the 17-40L is really an outdoor
lens.



"Andrew" <andrew@nats.edu> wrote in message
news:csb711$o9p$2@news-int.gatech.edu...
> I bought a 10D shortly before the 20D was announced. I had no
> lenses, so I bought a 17-40L for the camera and I have been
> very pleased. If you look at the MTF chart for the lens, it
> looks like it was specificaly designed for 1.6x crop cameras
> because the graph drops preciptoulsy once the image falls
> outdide of the 1.6-cropped view.
>
> Andrew
January 15, 2005 5:52:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andrew <andrew@nats.edu> wrote:
> I bought a 10D shortly before the 20D was announced. I had no
> lenses, so I bought a 17-40L for the camera and I have been
> very pleased. If you look at the MTF chart for the lens, it
> looks like it was specificaly designed for 1.6x crop cameras
> because the graph drops preciptoulsy once the image falls
> outdide of the 1.6-cropped view.

Also, one of the reasons that I decided to splurge for L glass is
that I noticed that out of the 10D, 1Ds and 1D Mk-II, the 10D is
the least forgiving of a lens's resolution limitations because it
has the highest sensel density. I believe that with the 10D-17-40L
combo, the lens is still the resolution bottleneck.

The 2 extra megapixels of the 20D in the same sensor size makes
the 20D even more critical of its lens than the 10D is.

Andrew
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:52:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andrew" <andrew@nats.edu> wrote in message
news:csbani$qav$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
> Andrew <andrew@nats.edu> wrote:
>> I bought a 10D shortly before the 20D was announced. I had no
>> lenses, so I bought a 17-40L for the camera and I have been
>> very pleased. If you look at the MTF chart for the lens, it
>> looks like it was specificaly designed for 1.6x crop cameras
>> because the graph drops preciptoulsy once the image falls
>> outdide of the 1.6-cropped view.
>
> Also, one of the reasons that I decided to splurge for L glass is
> that I noticed that out of the 10D, 1Ds and 1D Mk-II, the 10D is
> the least forgiving of a lens's resolution limitations because it
> has the highest sensel density. I believe that with the 10D-17-40L
> combo, the lens is still the resolution bottleneck.
>
> The 2 extra megapixels of the 20D in the same sensor size makes
> the 20D even more critical of its lens than the 10D is.
>
> Andrew

You are very right about that last! I have a 17-35 f2.8-4 EX HSM Sigma that
produced acceptable results with Ilford XP-2 that is pretty much useless on
my 20D, I can't get a reasonably sharp 8x10 with it, while my wife's Tamron
90mm f2.8 macro produces startlingly sharp 11x14s. Haven't tried it at
16x20, but I strongly suspect it's good, there, too.
It's also sensitive about filters, I've tossed my relatively inexpensive
Hoya UV filters because they significantly degrade image quality on my 20D
when there weren't visible problems with film or with my D30.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 8:09:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <csbani$qav$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
Andrew <andrew@nats.edu> wrote:

>Andrew <andrew@nats.edu> wrote:
>> I bought a 10D shortly before the 20D was announced. I had no
>> lenses, so I bought a 17-40L for the camera and I have been
>> very pleased. If you look at the MTF chart for the lens, it
>> looks like it was specificaly designed for 1.6x crop cameras
>> because the graph drops preciptoulsy once the image falls
>> outdide of the 1.6-cropped view.
>
>Also, one of the reasons that I decided to splurge for L glass is
>that I noticed that out of the 10D, 1Ds and 1D Mk-II, the 10D is
>the least forgiving of a lens's resolution limitations because it
>has the highest sensel density. I believe that with the 10D-17-40L
>combo, the lens is still the resolution bottleneck.

I would say that this is generally true for wide-angle lenses.
Wide-angle lenses just don't seem to be anywhere near as sharp as normal
and telephoto lenses can be; at least not ones made for larger sensors
or 35mm film. Subjective experience even worstens the effect, as so
many details are crammed into the frame, and each object has no chance
of being resolved like they would be with longer lenses.

>The 2 extra megapixels of the 20D in the same sensor size makes
>the 20D even more critical of its lens than the 10D is.

Compared with the potential, or what other lenses can do, yes, but an
image in its entirety, viewed at the same size as from a 10D, will
always look as sharp or better.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 8:50:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <p7cGd.6367$ru.2584@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>I can't get a reasonably sharp 8x10 with it, while my wife's Tamron
>90mm f2.8 macro produces startlingly sharp 11x14s.

I have one of those, the new Di series, and I wouldn't be surprised if
it is the sharpest lens available for the EOS mount. With a Tamron SP
2x TC attached, it is still sharper than any other lens I have,
including three "L" lenses. You would need at least 100MP in a 36*24mm
frame to fully capture what this lens can resolve, in my estimation.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:38:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:3gjiu0litskqe10pvdi3ah2jbsd1kdkmbj@4ax.com...
> In message <p7cGd.6367$ru.2584@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I can't get a reasonably sharp 8x10 with it, while my wife's Tamron
>>90mm f2.8 macro produces startlingly sharp 11x14s.
>
> I have one of those, the new Di series, and I wouldn't be surprised if
> it is the sharpest lens available for the EOS mount. With a Tamron SP
> 2x TC attached, it is still sharper than any other lens I have,
> including three "L" lenses. You would need at least 100MP in a 36*24mm
> frame to fully capture what this lens can resolve, in my estimation.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I wouldn't be surprised if it were the sharpest tack in the drawer. Hers is
the older non "Di" version, and I just took some images of a 1/18 scale
Ferrari 365 GTB/4 with it. You can clearly see the crinkle finish on the
cam boxes on the engine.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
January 16, 2005 12:10:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jimmy Smith <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote:
> 17-40L is a great lens for the 10D and it is very very sharp. However, at
> f4, once you lose a little light or go indoors, I find I really need
> something else............ like the 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 or the 35mm f2

> unless I am yucking it up with a flash, the 17-40L is really an outdoor
> lens.

During the holidays, I used the 10D @1600 ISO and found my speedlite only
needed to fire weakly to supplement the ambient light. I wish I had tried
using ISO 1600 sooner. Downsampling to a 4x6 print completely eliminates
the noise. I suspect that with a steady hand, I could go flashless.

Here's a sample 10D image @1600 f/4 17mm:

http://w3.kill-9.com/2005294.jpg

Andrew



> "Andrew" <andrew@nats.edu> wrote in message
> news:csb711$o9p$2@news-int.gatech.edu...
>> I bought a 10D shortly before the 20D was announced. I had no
>> lenses, so I bought a 17-40L for the camera and I have been
>> very pleased. If you look at the MTF chart for the lens, it
>> looks like it was specificaly designed for 1.6x crop cameras
>> because the graph drops precipitously once the image falls
>> outdide of the 1.6-cropped view.
>>
>> Andrew
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:46:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> You are very right about that last! I have a 17-35 f2.8-4 EX HSM Sigma
> that produced acceptable results with Ilford XP-2 that is pretty much
> useless on my 20D, I can't get a reasonably sharp 8x10 with it, while my
> wife's Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro produces startlingly sharp 11x14s. Haven't
> tried it at 16x20, but I strongly suspect it's good, there, too.
> It's also sensitive about filters, I've tossed my relatively inexpensive
> Hoya UV filters because they significantly degrade image quality on my 20D
> when there weren't visible problems with film or with my D30.
>

So what UV filters are you using, or are you happy to expose the front lens
element?
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:46:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41ea460c$0$4905$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> You are very right about that last! I have a 17-35 f2.8-4 EX HSM Sigma
>> that produced acceptable results with Ilford XP-2 that is pretty much
>> useless on my 20D, I can't get a reasonably sharp 8x10 with it, while my
>> wife's Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro produces startlingly sharp 11x14s. Haven't
>> tried it at 16x20, but I strongly suspect it's good, there, too.
>> It's also sensitive about filters, I've tossed my relatively inexpensive
>> Hoya UV filters because they significantly degrade image quality on my
>> 20D when there weren't visible problems with film or with my D30.
>>
>
> So what UV filters are you using, or are you happy to expose the front
> lens element?
>
>
>
At the moment, merely "exposing" the front element. Not in the mood to
spend $$ on more expensive filters and find the same problem, merely to a
lesser degree.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!