Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

canon lenses follow up

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 19, 2005 9:49:40 PM

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

Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.

I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.

Andre
--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com

More about : canon lenses follow

Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:49:41 PM

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

andre wrote:
>
> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
> for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
> Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
> looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>
> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>

Generally, anything over about a 3x zoom range involves some pretty
substantial compromise. Now some will say that all zooms represent a
compromise between performance and convenience, compared to fixed focal
length lenses, and they'd be right. To an extent. But the longer the
zoom range, the more the compromise. The L ultrazoom maybe an L, but
it's still an ultrazoom, and I think you'll find it's the weakest of the
L's in performance. That said, I ran into a guy with one at an air
show, and he thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He
felt that the less than perfect performance was more than made up for by
the convenience of only using one lens for everything. Note too that
this is NOT a small or light lens by any stretch :) 

Canon makes a number of zooms in the wide to short tele range, several
are very good. Any of the better ones, combined with the 70-200/4,
would give you complete coverage of the basic range, with good quality.

Lisa
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:49:41 PM

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

Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the board.
An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves a bigger
gap (40-70).

"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>
> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>
> Andre
> --
> ----------------------------------
> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Related resources
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:49:42 PM

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

"Lisa Horton" <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:423C8468.274BE7AC@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> andre wrote:
>>
>> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
>> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
>> for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
>> Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
>> looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>>
>> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
>> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
>> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>>
>
> Generally, anything over about a 3x zoom range involves some pretty
> substantial compromise. Now some will say that all zooms represent a
> compromise between performance and convenience, compared to fixed focal
> length lenses, and they'd be right. To an extent. But the longer the
> zoom range, the more the compromise. The L ultrazoom maybe an L, but
> it's still an ultrazoom, and I think you'll find it's the weakest of the
> L's in performance. That said, I ran into a guy with one at an air
> show, and he thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He
> felt that the less than perfect performance was more than made up for by
> the convenience of only using one lens for everything. Note too that
> this is NOT a small or light lens by any stretch :) 
>
> Canon makes a number of zooms in the wide to short tele range, several
> are very good. Any of the better ones, combined with the 70-200/4,
> would give you complete coverage of the basic range, with good quality.
>
> Lisa

My wife's cousin shoots with the 35-350L a lot, and loves is. But, again,
to him the primary advantage is not changing lenses. He even shoots
weddings with the thing...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:00:12 PM

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

On 3/19/05 12:49 PM, in article
8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "andre"
<andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
> for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
> Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
> looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>
> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>
> Andre
I am not aware of any current Canon lens with the specs that you outline
above. However, IMO I would not expect to get acceptable quality out of
*any* lens that zooms all the way from a true wide-angle to near super
telephoto. That is asking for too much from any lens.
Chuck
March 20, 2005 4:50:11 AM

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

Is the Sigma really that much better than the Kit Lens (except that it
is faster, but is it sharper too?)
What's wrong with the 18-125mm? Is it getting soft at the far end?
Anyways, thanks for the advice. I will check out some reviews on that one.

Andre
> Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
> the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the board.
> An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves a bigger
> gap (40-70).
>
> "andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
>>worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
>>that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
>>is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
>>two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>>
>>I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
>>are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
>>what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>>
>>Andre
>>--
>>----------------------------------
>>http://www.aguntherphotography.com
>
>
>


--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
March 20, 2005 4:56:20 AM

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

Although the 17 to 40 might leave a gap, it is a great lens for the money.
I have 4 L series lenses and the 17 to 40 is by far my favourite using the
yardstick of its overall quality across its range. The next in line is the
70 to 200 F4 L. Once again it does all it is supposed to do exceptionally
well and its autofocus with a 20D is just mind boggling.

regards

Don from Down Under
"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:423ca2ee$0$19536$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
> the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the
> board. An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves
> a bigger gap (40-70).
>
> "andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
>> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
>> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
>> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
>> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>>
>> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
>> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
>> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>>
>> Andre
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
>
>
March 20, 2005 10:07:38 AM

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

The lens is a Photojournalists tool. It may lack some image quality at some
stages of it's zoom range but the fact is undisputable that compared to
anything else in it's class, this lens out performs them. If you are
shooting for magazine articles and Newspapers, this lens has to come close
to being ideal.

The 20D is not a forgiving camera when you hook up a low grade lens. If
there are any flaws, a 20D will show them up. This lens is comparable to the
Leica lens on Panasonic's FZ20 for image quality. You will get many really
good photos from this lens but if you are aiming at the absolutely best
quality images you can get and intend to enlarge them past about 12" x 8"
(about A4) then some will not be good enough.

On the subject of Sigma lenses... Have a look at the quality of this shot:
http://www.tecphoto.com.au/pelican.htm and you might decide that what people
have been saying about Sigma lenses is wrong. The difference between Sigma
and Canon lenses is not immediately aparent in photos.

The Sigma's focus slower, don't always grab the right focus point and
generally are noiser focus motors and more 'gritty' in the zoom rings. This
adds up to poor quality but as you can see from that photo, the glass is as
good as Canon's is and most of the time the photos are as good as you will
get with a Canon 'L' lens. For some people this is enough.

Douglas
-----------------------
"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>
> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>
> Andre
> --
> ----------------------------------
> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 1:06:05 PM

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

"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:423CD6D5.5020500@sbcglobal.net...
> Is the Sigma really that much better than the Kit Lens (except that it is
> faster, but is it sharper too?)

Yes, but quite a bit.

> What's wrong with the 18-125mm? Is it getting soft at the far end?
> Anyways, thanks for the advice. I will check out some reviews on that one.

Haven't used one, but it is getting good write-ups.

>
> Andre
>> Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
>> the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the
>> board. An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves
>> a bigger gap (40-70).
>>
>> "andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
>>>worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
>>>that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
>>>is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
>>>two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>>>
>>>I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
>>>are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
>>>what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>>>
>>>Andre
>>>--
>>>----------------------------------
>>>http://www.aguntherphotography.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
March 20, 2005 1:30:01 PM

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

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:50:11 GMT, andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Is the Sigma really that much better than the Kit Lens (except that it
>is faster, but is it sharper too?)

Here's a good place to start when you want to know which lens is best:
http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?...'Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22



--
Alex
atheist #2007
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:39:29 PM

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

On my 20D, my everyday on the camera lens is the 24-70 2.8 L, outstanding
performance. Other lenses I have that cover about everything I have needed
to shoot are the 100 2.8 Macro, and the 70-200 2.8 L.

You can't go wrong with those lenses!




"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>
> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>
> Andre
> --
> ----------------------------------
> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:08:01 PM

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

"Bmrdude" <JLOVE@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Brj%d.4118$rL3.1203@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> On my 20D, my everyday on the camera lens is the 24-70 2.8 L, outstanding
> performance. Other lenses I have that cover about everything I have
> needed to shoot are the 100 2.8 Macro, and the 70-200 2.8 L.
>
> You can't go wrong with those lenses!
>
>
>
>
> "andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8v__d.20285$Pz7.12847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
>> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
>> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
>> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
>> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
>>
>> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
>> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
>> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
>>
>> Andre
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
>
>

You shouldn't be able to go wrong with lenses that cost over $1000, now,
should you?

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