20D with 17-85mm kit lens

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

Derek Fountain wrote:
> The modest cost increase over the 18-55mm kit would be OK with me,
provided
> the lens is decent enough that I wouldn't want to go and replace it
in the
> first 3 months. Does anyone have one who can comment?

I would buy the 18-55mm and save the money for a faster lens like the
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di or the Canon 17-40mm L f/4.

What most reviews say is right, IMHO. I have the 18-55mm on my 300D and
its a decent buy for the money (~$100). Yes, manual focus isn't all
that great with a flimsy front rotating lense element and its slow to
focus in low-light. All that said, its a good deal.

HTH,

Siddhartha

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

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:41e3aa8a$0$3526$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Does the group (or any individual members of it ) have any opinions of
> the
> Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens supplied as the more expensive option of the 20D
> kit? I've been reading reviews of the "normal" 18-55mm kit lens and they
> tend to agree that it's adequate if not great. Given that my preferred
> shooting has tended towards wide angle - mountains, architecture,
> coastlines, etc - I think this package would probably suit me better. It
> would be, at least initially, my only lens, so I need something that's
> pretty flexible.
>
> The modest cost increase over the 18-55mm kit would be OK with me,
> provided
> the lens is decent enough that I wouldn't want to go and replace it in the
> first 3 months. Does anyone have one who can comment?
>
>

I bought the 300D with the 18-55 kit lens and where I like the lens I found
it a bit too short for a walk around lens. I ordered the 28-135 IS lens,
should arrive today, and I'm hoping it will replace my kit lens for all
purpose use.

As to the quality of the lens, IMHO it's fine but I don't have much to
compare it to yet.

--

Rob

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

Canon has (basically) three tiers of lenses, introductory lenses, mid
range lenses, and high dollar lenses. Introductory lenses are
functional, but inexpensively built, slow autofocus, slow optics,
plastic parts, that get the job done and not much more. Mid range
lenses perform significantly better at a higher cost structure, they
are built better, operate faster, have faster optics. High dollar
lenses perform superbly are built superbly, and operate superbly.

The 17-85 is a fine lens, sharp, contrasty, but a touch more chromatic
aberation than the 18-55 and image stabilization to boot. It is,
however, a mid range lens in both cost and performance. The 17-85 is a
lot more versitile, a bit sharper and more contrasty thant the 18-55
(which is no slouch). It does commit you to the mid range cost
structure.

The real question to ask yourself is what do I want my lens collection
to look like a couple of years down the line. Do you want a function
camera at low to moderate cost structure, do you want a high
performance system at moderate costs structure, or do you want a top
notch system of cameras and lenses. In effect, you are buying into a
system of lenses with replaceable bodies, and you should condition
yourself to expect to change the camera-body several times before you
change which catagory of lenses you are going to collect.

The only thing I have against Canon's mid range lens line up is the
inability to collect a set of non-overlapping focal lengths from wide
angle through medium telephoto. In the high dollar range this is easily
done (10-22, 24-70, and any of the 70-200s).

Alternately, you can start at the wide end of the focal length range
(10-22) and use this lens to determine where you need the next lens to
begin its coverage. For me, this was the 24-70, leaving only 23mm
missing--which is ignorable. A 10-22 significantly overlapps the 18-55,
the 17-85, the 17-40, leaving you looking for the 28-85 and a minor
hole in the FL lineup.

And if you are looking at mid range lenses, don't discount the Sigma
and Tamron and Tokina lines. See Fred Miranda's site on user comments
on a large variety of these lenses.

Mitch

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

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:41e3aa8a$0$3526$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Does the group (or any individual members of it ) have any opinions of
> the
> Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens supplied as the more expensive option of the 20D
> kit? I've been reading reviews of the "normal" 18-55mm kit lens and they
> tend to agree that it's adequate if not great. Given that my preferred
> shooting has tended towards wide angle - mountains, architecture,
> coastlines, etc - I think this package would probably suit me better. It
> would be, at least initially, my only lens, so I need something that's
> pretty flexible.
>
> The modest cost increase over the 18-55mm kit would be OK with me,
> provided
> the lens is decent enough that I wouldn't want to go and replace it in the
> first 3 months. Does anyone have one who can comment?

You are already having doubts so you must know you'll need more. Go with the
17-85 unless you can handle carrying two lenses, in which case I'd say get
the 18-55 lens and the 28-135 IS USM.

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

I think the 28-135mm IS lens is a great walk around lens that takes
great pictures. it's not wide but it makes a nice light weight walk
around lens that with IS is a snap to get great pictures. I have the
17-40mm f4 L and I find the 28-135mm on my camera much or often. Of
course each persons picture taking requirements are different.

Here's a picture of a moth I took with the lens at 135mm. The Moth
landed on the flower I bent over and shot it hand held.

http://client.webshots.com/photo/2 [...] 1154fhZtLm

I have the 28-70mm f2.8 L left over from my film days and this lens is
on the camera way more often. I like the focal range 46-212mm
equivalent on the 20D. I also like the ligh- weight.

Art

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

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:L9WdnYraRedIi3ncRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>> The only thing I have against Canon's mid range lens line up is the
>> inability to collect a set of non-overlapping focal lengths from wide
>> angle through medium telephoto. In the high dollar range this is easily
>> done (10-22, 24-70, and any of the 70-200s).
>
> But what if you NEED a 23mm lens? That's just a glaring hole in the Canon
> high dollar range.
>
>
Then you buy either a 17-40mm f4L or a 16-35mm f2.8L.
But for myself, I prefer an overlap. Saves a little on the lens swapping.

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

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:34:38 +0800, Derek Fountain
<nospam@example.com> wrote:

>Does the group (or any individual members of it ) have any opinions of the
>Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens supplied as the more expensive option of the 20D
>kit?

Yes I have the EF-S 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM lens but not the
Canon 20D, just the Digital Rebel/300D.

> I've been reading reviews of the "normal" 18-55mm kit lens and they
>tend to agree that it's adequate if not great. Given that my preferred
>shooting has tended towards wide angle - mountains, architecture,
>coastlines, etc - I think this package would probably suit me better. It
>would be, at least initially, my only lens, so I need something that's
>pretty flexible.

Yes I ordered my Digital Rebel/300D with the EF-S 18-55mm kit
lens & have no regrets, it's an exceptional lens considering it's low
price of just under $100 US. This lens, like "all" lenses is not
perfect but no lens is at "any" price. There is 1 thing you may wish
to keep in mind if you buy this lens, when you are photographing your
above stated wide angle subjects; the filter will rotate as this lens
focuses.

If you plan on using a circular polarizer filter which many do
when shooting your above stated wide angle tendencies & auto focus,
you may have to readjust the filter some for maximum effectiveness.
However if most of your shots are done tripod mounted than this is
unlikely not to be a problem because you would likely also be manually
focusing the lens.


>The modest cost increase over the 18-55mm kit would be OK with me, provided
>the lens is decent enough that I wouldn't want to go and replace it in the
>first 3 months. Does anyone have one who can comment?

The bad news, it can be very difficult to resist adding lenses
to your DSLR collection because that's part of what make it so
versatile. The EF-S 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM lens is the last lens I
have added to my collection & I have no regrets, it performs as good
as I had hoped but be warned IS can be an addictive feature on any
lens.

Most people don't care to have a flash going off even if
bounced off a ceiling or a wall, so I have been improving my existing
light photography techniques considerably lately & in doing so I limit
myself to just 1 of 3 lenses for use without flash. The EF 50mm f1.8,
the EF_S 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM or the EF 100mm lens.

Outdoors my 28-135mm IS meets about 50% of my needs. The
remaining 50% is divided up between my EF-S 18-55mm, EF 55-200mm, EF
100mm f2.0 & lastly the EF-S 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM lens.

Don't own any "L" glass yet because I am still an amateur
despite 25+ years in SLR photography & 3+ years in digital
photography. Also I buy what I can reasonably justify, rarely what I
simply "want".

Since you have a more capable camera, you may find the need
for an additional lens or 2 sooner but for less than $100 the EF-S
18-55mm kit lens is a good lens to use while you learn your new DSLR &
than you should have a much better idea of which future lens or
lenses meets "your" needs best!

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

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

"I am intrigued by this idea of needing non-overlapping lenses. Could
you
explain the advantages of ensuring that your lenses don't overlap?"

If you can arrange that you collection of lenses has no overlap, then
theoretically, you can cover more of the FL range with fewer lenses.
The theory is false, but believable.

"If someone buys a 20D with 18-55 (cheap wide zoom) and adds a 28-135
IS for
more reach, could you explain the problems that would be encountered by

having the zoom range of these 2 overlapping?"

Theoretically, if there were a 55-235 instead of the 28-135, then two
lenses could cover 18-235 instead of two lenses covering 18-135.

The problem with the theory is that there will be times when a
situation present itself with the need for focal lengths that span two
(or more) lenses. Say you have a lens setup that has 10-22 and 24-70
and you are in a situation where the focal range 16-35 is optimal. In
the 10-22 and 24-70 setup, you will be continuously switching lenses to
cover the range, whereas if you had a 16-35 in the bag, you could cover
this situation with a single lens. Therefore, the theory is false
because of situations beyond your control. Given lots of time,
switching lense is perfectly acceptable, given haste, it is not.