Canon 300D kit lens colours

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful* :)

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha
36 answers Last reply
More about canon 300d lens colours
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <1114247141.347431.314970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
    > f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
    > more vivid and *colourful* :)
    >
    > Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
    > lens and noticed something similar?
    >
    > - Siddhartha

    The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big improvement.
    Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <1114247141.347431.314970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
    >> f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are
    >> now more vivid and *colourful* :)
    >>
    >> Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
    >> lens and noticed something similar?
    >>
    >> - Siddhartha
    >
    > The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big
    > improvement.
    > Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).


    Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

    http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
    http://www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
    http://www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
    http://www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
    http://www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

    --
    Frank ess
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

    > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > > In article <1114247141.347431.314970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > > "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi,
    > >>
    > >> I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
    > >> f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are
    > >> now more vivid and *colourful* :)
    > >>
    > >> Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
    > >> lens and noticed something similar?
    > >>
    > >> - Siddhartha
    > >
    > > The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big
    > > improvement.
    > > Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).
    >
    >
    > Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:
    >
    > http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

    I've seen those before. The subjects are very high contrast and the
    photos are downsampled. It's hardly a good test of a lens that has
    problems with low contrast and low sharpness.

    The kit lens is very usable. You can crank up in-camera sharpening and
    contrast and set the aperture to F/8 to get good photos. It doesn't
    leave much adjustment headroom for difficult shooting conditions. Might
    as well get a point'n'shoot because they take great photos under perfect
    conditions too.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:27:12 -0700
    In message <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>
    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

    > Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:
    >
    > http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
    > http://www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

    Can't comment on expertly edited / reduced images.

    Jeff
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bob(but not that Bob) wrote:
    > The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that
    means
    > anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
    > Pyramid in ambiguity.
    >
    > I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW -
    in
    > case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and
    the
    > lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
    > contrast.
    >
    > Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much,
    you'd
    > swear it was available.

    Pop Photo very rarely rates anything poorly so anything that they say
    should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

    Yep, been seeing those ads from Tokina. Looks like its selling like hot
    cakes - backordered on B&H and Adorama.

    - Siddhartha
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
    > f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
    > more vivid and *colourful* :)
    >
    > Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
    > lens and noticed something similar?
    >
    > - Siddhartha


    The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
    anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
    Pyramid in ambiguity.

    I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
    case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
    lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
    contrast.

    Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
    swear it was available.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Bob(but not that Bob)" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com...
    > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
    > > f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
    > > more vivid and *colourful* :)
    > >
    > > Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
    > > lens and noticed something similar?
    > >
    > > - Siddhartha
    >
    >
    > The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
    > anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
    > Pyramid in ambiguity.
    >
    > I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
    > case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
    > lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
    > contrast.
    >
    > Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
    > swear it was available.

    where can u get refurbs?? Thanks.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Dirty Harry wrote:
    >
    > "Bob(but not that Bob)" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com...
    > > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > >
    > > > I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
    > > > f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
    > > > more vivid and *colourful* :)
    > > >
    > > > Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
    > > > lens and noticed something similar?
    > > >
    > > > - Siddhartha
    > >
    > >
    > > The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
    > > anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
    > > Pyramid in ambiguity.
    > >
    > > I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
    > > case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
    > > lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
    > > contrast.
    > >
    > > Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
    > > swear it was available.
    >
    > where can u get refurbs?? Thanks.

    National Camera ( http://www.natcam.com ) had some on eBay - they went
    pretty fast - don't know if they are getting more.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
    Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

    >Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

    Not bad at all, but surely you can understand why the 18-55
    is a disappointing lens. It's build quality and feel, just
    don't put it in the "fine piece of equipment" category.

    It does get the job done, and I've enjoyed using it at the
    18mm setting. But it just feels like a crummy lens.
    Does your focus ring move? Even with the mirror locked up,
    and the camera on a tripod, I'm sure that front element is
    vibrating. Yuck. I'm not saying I can measure the aberration
    from that effect, bit it can't be a good thing.

    Now, the lens I upgraded to probably isn't much better, and may not
    even be as good in certain respects (Tamron 28-200XR F3.8), but it
    certainly feels better to my hands. I'm sure I'll be investing in
    lenses, but I need to recover from buying this 20D, which is way more
    camera than I need, and ouch!, but I love it, no remorse at all!

    I'm going to a place in May that's worthy of photographs, and I wanted
    to have a good camera for the trip. The kit lens and the Tamron should
    get me through the summer. (They have to, or else I'd have to go back
    to film.)
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
    Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"

    Good Lord, really?

    Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
    in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."

    I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
    moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.

    If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
    this poor a mechanism.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    james wrote:
    > In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
    > Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
    >
    > >The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"
    >
    > Good Lord, really?
    >
    > Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
    > in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."
    >
    > I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
    > moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.
    >
    > If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
    > this poor a mechanism.

    The front element of the lens has play in MF mode and MF is jerky.
    Low-light AF isn't the lens' strong point. That said, I've still kept
    the lens. The 18-55mm gives you approximately 28-90mm range and at 190
    gms there is no other lens that is light enough for treks. The Sigma
    24-135mm I now own weighs 530 gms, the Sigma 18-125mm weighs 385 gms
    and the Canon 17-85mm (if I could afford it) weighs 475 gms.

    So the lens certainly has it uses.

    - Siddhartha
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    james wrote:
    >
    > In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
    > Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
    >
    > >The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"
    >
    > Good Lord, really?
    >

    Just optically, although they did comment on the "well-made" plastic
    barrel and lens mount. Maybe anything that doesn't fall apart in their
    hands qualifies.


    > Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
    > in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."
    >
    > I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
    > moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.
    >
    > If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
    > this poor a mechanism.


    This mechanical "quality" is nothing new. Some years ago I picked up an
    EOS 750 with a busted plastic zoom lens for $25.

    Since the the lens was already in 2 pieces, I could see its innards -
    basically empty, with a tiny motor moving a plastic rack attached to a
    sliding optical cell as I recall.

    A piece of junk compared to all my manual focus Nikon stuff.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <1114500106.577635.172370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

    >So the lens certainly has it uses.

    Sure! I have one and I didn't exactly throw it in the dumpster!
    The truth is, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, if not
    THE sharpest. But I'm also enjoying my Tamron 28-200XR, and I haven't
    even been tempted to put the 18-55 back on the camera since getting the
    Tamron.

    I mean, I'm seeing individual plant cells, reading labels on things that
    I didn't see with my eye, and needing to check the colors on things I
    photographed, because I look at the picture and think "that can't be
    right", and then I look at the real thing closer, and it turns out to be
    right, but I couldn't tell from my distance. It's scary.

    I suspect my next lens will be a WA zoom Tamron. And I think I'd really
    like to have the 50mm f/1.4. I don't know if I want anything in the
    long telescopic range, but I won't be buying any L's.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
    news:Fsfbe.82730$A31.12700@fed1read03...
    > In article <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
    > Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:
    >
    > Not bad at all, but surely you can understand why the 18-55
    > is a disappointing lens. It's build quality and feel, just
    > don't put it in the "fine piece of equipment" category.
    >
    It is ridiculously cheap, so why shouldn't it look and feel cheap?
    It yields far better reults than you might reasonably expect.
    It gets a whole raft of people into DSLR photography who otherwise might
    have been priced out - and they will "graduate" to more lenses.

    I used to teach photography. I had some brilliant pupils with cheap (or no)
    cameras, I had equipment freaks who bought (and bragged about) the best of
    everything - producing technically acute but artistically mundane images.
    And, very rarely, a good photographer with good kit.

    Put a good photographer behind a poor camera and he will deliver a brilliant
    image.
    Put a poor photographer behind a brilliant camera and it's just pot luck
    ;o)
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > Sure! I have one and I didn't exactly throw it in the dumpster!
    > The truth is, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, if not
    > THE sharpest. But I'm also enjoying my Tamron 28-200XR, and I haven't
    > even been tempted to put the 18-55 back on the camera since getting the
    > Tamron.

    You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
    message news:ZWsbe.13569$716.7237@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    > > Sure! I have one and I didn't exactly throw it in the dumpster!
    > > The truth is, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, if not
    > > THE sharpest. But I'm also enjoying my Tamron 28-200XR, and I haven't
    > > even been tempted to put the 18-55 back on the camera since getting the
    > > Tamron.
    >
    > You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
    >

    I have the Tamron 24-135 and don't miss the 18mm end. I also have an EF-S
    10-22 just in case but rarely use it.

    Greg
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > > You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
    > >
    >
    > I have the Tamron 24-135 and don't miss the 18mm end. I also have an EF-S
    > 10-22 just in case but rarely use it.

    Hmm.. when I first started shooting again about 3 or 4 years ago I was
    constantly wishing I had a longer lens.. now I am always wishing for wider.
    I'm asking myself, how wide would be wide enough. 28mm isn't. 15 might be.

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <ZWsbe.13569$716.7237@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
    Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

    >You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?

    Not yet. One of the early decisions I had to make was to accept that
    wide-angle is 1.6 times more expensive and difficult now. Having
    accepted that, I simply adjust my perception to the parameters of the
    new tool.

    I'm thinking about a WA, but I'm holding out for a nice wide prime
    instead of the zooms I've seen. Although I may snatch the Tamron WA
    Zoom, if and when it becomes available.

    Meanwhile I have become reluctant to change lenses at all, since reading
    some scary stuff about dust and the CCD.

    In a couple of weeks, I'm going to a location to shoot some stitched
    panorams. I think the 28mm will be fine for this, but one of the two
    lenses I have will have to do. I think the Tamron will be fine.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > >You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
    >
    > Not yet.
    <snip explanation>

    Thanks. I'm also thinking about a super wide prime for my 35mm SLR and
    wondering if waiting for a dSLR model with full size sensor is worth it. I
    cerntainly can't afford any variant of the EOS 1d but I already feel like
    28mm isn't wide enough. Would like a 15mm without fisheye if such a thing
    exists. But these begin to get expensive and would only be 24mm worth of
    wideness on the dSLR I have in mind..

    Trying to find the middle Way, but it's not clear to me yet. Something has
    to give soon because in just 2 months I've burned 1/2 the price of a new
    350/XT in film and lab fees. :(

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
    message news:pXwbe.31522$_t3.9093@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    > > >You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
    > >
    > > Not yet.
    > <snip explanation>
    >
    > Thanks. I'm also thinking about a super wide prime for my 35mm SLR and
    > wondering if waiting for a dSLR model with full size sensor is worth it.
    I
    > cerntainly can't afford any variant of the EOS 1d but I already feel like
    > 28mm isn't wide enough. Would like a 15mm without fisheye if such a thing
    > exists. But these begin to get expensive and would only be 24mm worth of
    > wideness on the dSLR I have in mind..
    >
    > Trying to find the middle Way,

    How about the 17-40L for a middle way?

    Greg
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

    > Thanks. I'm also thinking about a super wide prime for my 35mm SLR and
    > wondering if waiting for a dSLR model with full size sensor is worth it.

    You'll be waiting some number of years for that.

    > I cerntainly can't afford any variant of the EOS 1d but I already feel like
    > 28mm isn't wide enough. Would like a 15mm without fisheye if such a thing
    > exists.

    Sure, you can get even wider.

    > But these begin to get expensive and would only be 24mm worth of
    > wideness on the dSLR I have in mind..

    Isn't there a 17-something in the Canon lineup? I find that to be about
    as wide as I want, but I'm not really into the super-wide-angle thing; if
    you are, you can get a 10-22 (or something like that) from Canon.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

    > Meanwhile I have become reluctant to change lenses at all, since reading
    > some scary stuff about dust and the CCD.

    What you read around here is far scarier than the reality of it. :)

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:53:20 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
    wrote:

    >Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks. I'm also thinking about a super wide prime for my 35mm SLR and
    >> wondering if waiting for a dSLR model with full size sensor is worth it.
    >
    >You'll be waiting some number of years for that.
    >
    >> I cerntainly can't afford any variant of the EOS 1d but I already feel like
    >> 28mm isn't wide enough. Would like a 15mm without fisheye if such a thing
    >> exists.
    >
    >Sure, you can get even wider.
    >
    >> But these begin to get expensive and would only be 24mm worth of
    >> wideness on the dSLR I have in mind..
    >
    >Isn't there a 17-something in the Canon lineup? I find that to be about
    >as wide as I want, but I'm not really into the super-wide-angle thing; if
    >you are, you can get a 10-22 (or something like that) from Canon.

    The 10-20 is an EF-S and only for the 1.6 sensor cameras. I would not
    buy a lenses which did not have the ability to be used with a future
    full size sensor. In that are there are EF 15mm fisheye, a 14mm F2.8L
    and then in the zooms there's the 17-40mm F4.0L and a 16-35 F2.8L.


    ********************************************************

    "...bray a fool in a morter with wheat,
    yet shall not his folly be beaten out of him;.."

    "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
    William Blake
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote

    > > Trying to find the middle Way,
    >
    > How about the 17-40L for a middle way?

    I think that would give me, in 35mm equivelent terms, about 28mm on the wide
    side if I bought the 350/XT. I have a Rebel 2000 with the 28mm-80mm kit
    lens and the 28mm end isn't quite wide enough for my current interests which
    are mostly Florida landscapes. I guess I'd need a 10mm on the Xt to equal
    the 17mm R.2000. I haven't looked yet, but that can't be a cheap lens.

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote

    > The 10-20 is an EF-S and only for the 1.6 sensor cameras. I would not
    > buy a lenses which did not have the ability to be used with a future
    > full size sensor.

    Interesting point.

    > In that are there are EF 15mm fisheye, a 14mm F2.8L
    > and then in the zooms there's the 17-40mm F4.0L and a 16-35 F2.8L.

    I'd buy a 3rd party lens if I could find a site with a comprehensive list of
    brands.

    B&H lists vivitar, sigma and tamron in the mix, but I'm not sure if they're
    any good.

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:20:19 GMT, "Mark Lauter"
    <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

    >"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote
    >
    >> The 10-20 is an EF-S and only for the 1.6 sensor cameras. I would not
    >> buy a lenses which did not have the ability to be used with a future
    >> full size sensor.
    >
    >Interesting point.
    >
    >> In that are there are EF 15mm fisheye, a 14mm F2.8L
    >> and then in the zooms there's the 17-40mm F4.0L and a 16-35 F2.8L.
    >
    >I'd buy a 3rd party lens if I could find a site with a comprehensive list of
    >brands.

    I wouldn't buy a 3rd party lenses but here's where you can find
    information on those which work with Canon.

    http://www.patrickmurphystudio.com/canoneos/index.htm


    ********************************************************

    "The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
    singular, and unsatisfactory."

    Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
    to
    Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
    November 14, 1866
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 26 Apr 2005 00:21:46 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >james wrote:
    >> In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
    >> Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"
    >>
    >> Good Lord, really?
    >>
    >> Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
    >> in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."
    >>
    >> I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
    >> moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.
    >>
    >> If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
    >> this poor a mechanism.
    >
    >The front element of the lens has play in MF mode and MF is jerky.
    >Low-light AF isn't the lens' strong point. That said, I've still kept
    >the lens. The 18-55mm gives you approximately 28-90mm range and at 190
    >gms there is no other lens that is light enough for treks. The Sigma
    >24-135mm I now own weighs 530 gms, the Sigma 18-125mm weighs 385 gms
    >and the Canon 17-85mm (if I could afford it) weighs 475 gms.
    >
    >So the lens certainly has it uses.
    >
    >- Siddhartha

    Always amazes me how so many people are so quick to look down
    on something that does not cost a lot of money & or is partly made out
    of plastic. For the record, I have this lens & it's a great general
    purpose walking around lens that reforms very well in spite of it's
    sub $100.00 US price. Does Canon make better lenses? Certainly they
    do but not everybody can afford them or they need to save for just 1
    or 2 of Canon's better 1's & certainly more expensive lenses.

    Every lens has both it's strong points & weak points
    regardless of cost. A good photographer learns to make the most of
    what he or she has. My 17-85mm IS lens is a joy to take pictures with
    but it too has a few weaknesses that 1 needs to keep in mind when
    taking pictures. My kit lens still has it's uses & is not going to be
    sold nor left around collecting dust.

    Then again I am just an amateur photographer & probably always
    will be. Just to show you how bad I am, here is a collection of lousy
    "existing light" digital pictures taken with various P&S digital
    cameras.

    www.pbase.com/dhb_2005

    Incidentally, many people said the 18-55mm kit lens was junk
    long before it was 1st released for sale with the Digital Rebel/300D &
    even before any reviews were out. Last I checked, that clearly
    illustrates "prejudice" (pre-judge)!

    Just my 2 cents worth - inflation.

    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
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mark Lauter wrote:
    > I think that would give me, in 35mm equivelent terms, about 28mm on
    the wide
    > side if I bought the 350/XT. I have a Rebel 2000 with the 28mm-80mm
    kit
    > lens and the 28mm end isn't quite wide enough for my current
    interests which
    > are mostly Florida landscapes. I guess I'd need a 10mm on the Xt to
    equal
    > the 17mm R.2000. I haven't looked yet, but that can't be a cheap
    lens.

    Have you considered using de-fishing software to correct the
    aberrations caused by fisheyes? There is the Peleng 8mm that costs
    $200. Its a M42 mount lens but sells with an EOS/Nikon mount adapter.
    See this:
    http://www.jarnell.com/reviews/peleng/index.htm

    Very interesting!!

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

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:49:41 GMT
    In message <pXwbe.31522$_t3.9093@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
    "Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

    > ...
    > ... Would like a 15mm without fisheye if such a thing exists.
    > ...

    The only Canon SLR / dSLR rectilinear lens is the EF 14mm f/2.8L USM

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12066&is=USA

    If you think these lens prices are high,
    check out the movie and video industries.
    We are discussing chump change...

    Jeff (This "fun & relaxing hobby" can be stressful at times...)
  30. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:54:15 -0000
    In message <116te47nk8qbg3c@corp.supernews.com>
    Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

    > What you read around here is far scarier than the reality of it. :)

    Unless your reality places you near the beach, in the rain, above/next
    to a race track with the cars generating a 200+mph down force,
    downtown in a windy city, etc... not all photo opportunities are SLR
    friendly.

    SENSORS - THE DIRTY GOOEY TRUTH

    Does it happen? Yes.

    Does it happen frequently? No.

    Does it happen frequently? Occasionally, yes.

    Murphy's Law will dictate when. Be prepared.

    Jeff
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
    >"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote

    >> > Trying to find the middle Way,
    >>
    >> How about the 17-40L for a middle way?
    >
    >I think that would give me, in 35mm equivelent terms, about 28mm on the wide
    >side if I bought the 350/XT. I have a Rebel 2000 with the 28mm-80mm kit
    >lens and the 28mm end isn't quite wide enough for my current interests which
    >are mostly Florida landscapes. I guess I'd need a 10mm on the Xt to equal
    >the 17mm R.2000. I haven't looked yet, but that can't be a cheap lens.

    The 10-22mm EF-S lens is about $750

    --
    Ray Fischer
    rfischer@sonic.net
  32. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
    >
    >>"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote
    >
    >
    >>>>Trying to find the middle Way,
    >>>
    >>>How about the 17-40L for a middle way?
    >>
    >>I think that would give me, in 35mm equivelent terms, about 28mm on the wide
    >>side if I bought the 350/XT. I have a Rebel 2000 with the 28mm-80mm kit
    >>lens and the 28mm end isn't quite wide enough for my current interests which
    >>are mostly Florida landscapes. I guess I'd need a 10mm on the Xt to equal
    >>the 17mm R.2000. I haven't looked yet, but that can't be a cheap lens.
    >
    >
    > The 10-22mm EF-S lens is about $750

    Nobody mentioned the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM
    <http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html>
    http://www.pbase.com/dhatchner/sigma_1224_vs_canon_1740_l

    The second link gives a no-go but it's based on softness in a comparison
    with a 17-x canon. The 12-x is obviously going to have some compromises
    plus it's good on film or a full frame sensor where the wide angle would
    be really nuts. $700
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <D8zbe.26163$5f.10554@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
    Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

    >B&H lists vivitar, sigma and tamron in the mix, but I'm not sure if they're
    >any good.

    It depends on your criteria for "good." Mine is along the lines of
    "good value, gets the job done, doesn't cause me to miss any meals or
    car payments." So I have a Tamron zoom lens. It's the best glass I've
    ever owned. I don't know if it does my camera justice, but I don't
    care.

    I took some test shots and was looking at them critically. I was able
    to see some things in my test shot that I couldn't see with my eye. I
    was able to enlarge fine print on things that I would have had to take
    off the shelf to read. I saw something at the edge that looked
    yellowish, and thought "a-hah! chroma aberration!" Nope, it was
    accurate, but I had to get up close to see it.

    So I'm satisfied with a $275 lens. To do any better, I'd have to get,
    say, a $1500 lens. IS lenses are really neat. But just because I
    bought a $1300 camera body, does NOT mean I'm in the market for such
    lenses.

    I probably will get one or two EF primes. But I'd have no qualms about
    getting another Tamron or maybe trying Sigma in the meantime.

    See, there's also the tangible factor of something being good enough to
    get the job done, and within my budget of discretionary spending.
    There's also the threshold where I could have an angry woman on my
    hands. (Although, you should realize that part of the reason I went for
    a 20D instead of a Rebel or a Nikon, was at the encouragement of that
    potentially angry woman, so it's not a huge risk.)
  34. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > Have you considered using de-fishing software to correct the
    > aberrations caused by fisheyes? There is the Peleng 8mm that costs
    > $200. Its a M42 mount lens but sells with an EOS/Nikon mount adapter.
    > See this:
    > http://www.jarnell.com/reviews/peleng/index.htm
    >
    > Very interesting!!

    I hadn't thought about that as I'm mostly shooting film and would like a
    lens that will be super-duper-ultra-crazy wide for my film SLR and
    super-wide for the new dSLR that I have my eye on. And.. hmmmm.. that is a
    very interesting suggestion. Thanks.

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote
    <snip>
    > See, there's also the tangible factor of something being good enough to
    > get the job done, and within my budget of discretionary spending.

    We think alike. Thanks for the post. :)

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > If you think these lens prices are high,
    > check out the movie and video industries.
    > We are discussing chump change...

    I'll have to explain that to the IRS when I don't have money to pay them.
    "Hey guys, just be thankful I'm not into film making." <g>

    --
    Mark Lauter

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Canon Cameras