Nikon 18-70 or Canon 17-85 IS

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

Like many others I am baout to enter the world of DSLR.
It seems there are many opinions on XT vs D70s vs 20D etc. etc.

At the end of the day I believe that any of the above will take far better
pics than I will be capable of.

So, I want to base my decision on which lens to get. I have a couple of
extra $'s so will listen to what others have said and not buy the cheap lens
kit option and instead choose an alround lens that suits my needs and then
find a body to match. I have used a Canon EOS SLR with 28-105 lens for years
and except for the need for some extra zoom from time to time found the lens
adequate.

I have narrowed it down to the Canon 17-85 IS which is a $600 lens and the
Nikon 18-70 which is half the price. Is the Canon twice as good as the Nikon
lens? Will I notice the difference? Is this a fair comparison? From what I
see Nikon dont have any other lens that does 17-85.

Hope I dont open a can of worms here!

Joel
South Africa

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

"Joel Dorfan" <bdorfan@MAPSicon.co.za> wrote in message
newsah567$ck9$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Like many others I am baout to enter the world of DSLR.
> It seems there are many opinions on XT vs D70s vs 20D etc. etc.
>
> At the end of the day I believe that any of the above will take far better
> pics than I will be capable of.
>
> So, I want to base my decision on which lens to get. I have a couple of
> extra $'s so will listen to what others have said and not buy the cheap
> lens
> kit option and instead choose an alround lens that suits my needs and then
> find a body to match. I have used a Canon EOS SLR with 28-105 lens for
> years
> and except for the need for some extra zoom from time to time found the
> lens
> adequate.
>
> I have narrowed it down to the Canon 17-85 IS which is a $600 lens and the
> Nikon 18-70 which is half the price. Is the Canon twice as good as the
> Nikon
> lens? Will I notice the difference? Is this a fair comparison? From what I
> see Nikon dont have any other lens that does 17-85.

If the Canon 28-105 is good, then you'll love the17-85. It's the equivilant
of a 28-135 lens on a 35mm SLR, so the angle of view is similar, quality is
very good, and the addition of IS is also a huge plus. I've got one, and
have printed some very nice 13x19s using this lens. Only downside is price;
it's expensive.

Can't speak for the Nikon, but it has an excellent reputation.

>
> Hope I dont open a can of worms here!
>
> Joel
> South Africa
>
>

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

Thanks all for the input so far.

Would still ike to find someone who can give me a price performance
comparison between the two lenses.

In only had the 28-105 for my old EOS, would make sense to sell it as a kit
so I am not really bound to any particular body for my DSLR purchase.

Joel

"Brian Lund" <geronimo@-FORKERT-mobilixnet.dk> wrote in message
news:7bd60$42cc3027$3e3d8579$24224@news.arrownet.dk...
> > > I have narrowed it down to the Canon 17-85 IS which is a $600 lens and
> the
> > > Nikon 18-70 which is half the price. Is the Canon twice as good as the
> > > Nikon
> > > lens? Will I notice the difference? Is this a fair comparison? From
what
> I
> > > see Nikon dont have any other lens that does 17-85.
> >
> > If the Canon 28-105 is good, then you'll love the17-85. It's the
> equivilant
> > of a 28-135 lens on a 35mm SLR, so the angle of view is similar, quality
> is
> > very good, and the addition of IS is also a huge plus. I've got one, and
> > have printed some very nice 13x19s using this lens. Only downside is
> price;
> > it's expensive.
>
> And if you still own your EOS equipment that might be a reason to choose a
> Canon DSLR!
>
>
> Brian
>
>

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

IMHO: if you cannot articulate why you would need to spend $600 on a lens
for a $700 intro level dSLR you may want to rethink your decisions.
The kit lens that comes with the Canon is average (medicore is too negative
a word), the kit lens that comes with the Nikon is actually very, very good
in terms of aberration and distortion, which has been a great surprise to
many in using the D70. Again unless you understand what you are looking at
and see it as a problem with the lens then it is not a problem for you and
realistically should not be the major factor in your purchasing decision.
With film cameras the next model up the food chain is not necessarily all
that better a machine than the camera the next level down. This is clearly
not the case with dSLR camera bodies.
If you want the most sophisticated Canon you are better off spending the
money on the Canon D20 with the kit lens and using your 28-105 as needed. In
fact this is what I would do unless you have a specific need you can
articulate for why you need the highest quality wide angle optic you can
obtain. Wide angle lens designs for dSLRs are evolving and new models will
be coming out at more reasonable prices.
There is so much processing of digital images and such limited printing at
sizes beyond 8x10 that the difference in pixel count between 6 and 8 mps is
irrelevant in distingushing current consumer Nikon and Canon dSLRs, but that
is not the same as saying there is no difference between higher and lower
pixel count sensors. The main question is whether you are a Nikon or Canon
kind of person, which is like saying whether you like blue cars or red cars
better.

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

"Joel Dorfan" <bdorfan@MAPSicon.co.za> wrote in message
newsah567$ck9$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Like many others I am baout to enter the world of DSLR.
> It seems there are many opinions on XT vs D70s vs 20D etc. etc.
>
> At the end of the day I believe that any of the above will take far better
> pics than I will be capable of.
>
> So, I want to base my decision on which lens to get. I have a couple of
> extra $'s so will listen to what others have said and not buy the cheap
lens
> kit option and instead choose an alround lens that suits my needs and then
> find a body to match. I have used a Canon EOS SLR with 28-105 lens for
years
> and except for the need for some extra zoom from time to time found the
lens
> adequate.
>
> I have narrowed it down to the Canon 17-85 IS which is a $600 lens and the
> Nikon 18-70 which is half the price. Is the Canon twice as good as the
Nikon
> lens? Will I notice the difference? Is this a fair comparison? From what I
> see Nikon dont have any other lens that does 17-85.
>
> Hope I dont open a can of worms here!
>
> Joel
> South Africa

I own the 20d with the 28-105 USM and also the 17-85 IS, and I use both
lenses a lot. At 17mm there is some fair distortion but it seems to
disappear around 22mms. This shot was at 17mm
http://s124954247.onlinehome.us/gr [...] G_1094.jpg but I'll also say
it was fairly easy to fix with Photoshop cs2 and the extra few mm's on the
wide end come in pretty hand. If you weren't shooting with such straight
lines in the fame you would never notice. The sharpness is good and I've
been using this lens for indoor shooting quite a bit, almost as much as my
50mm 1.8 cause 50 seems to be too long in some peoples houses.

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

"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120689162.414622.96660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> To do a fair comparison, you might want to compare the IS lens to this
> Nikon, which gives you VR for under $500. You get a little less on the
> wide angle end but more on the tele end:
>
> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.p [...] uctNr=2145

Hmm this lens would be a better comparison perhaps
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co [...] Navigation
with that lens.

The first choise should be whether he wants a really wide angle or not I
guess...

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

frederick wrote:
> Joel Dorfan wrote:
>
>> Like many others I am baout to enter the world of DSLR.
>> It seems there are many opinions on XT vs D70s vs 20D etc. etc.
>>
>> At the end of the day I believe that any of the above will take far
>> better
>> pics than I will be capable of.
>>
>> So, I want to base my decision on which lens to get. I have a couple of
>> extra $'s so will listen to what others have said and not buy the
>> cheap lens
>> kit option and instead choose an alround lens that suits my needs and
>> then
>> find a body to match. I have used a Canon EOS SLR with 28-105 lens for
>> years
>> and except for the need for some extra zoom from time to time found
>> the lens
>> adequate.
>>
>> I have narrowed it down to the Canon 17-85 IS which is a $600 lens and
>> the
>> Nikon 18-70 which is half the price. Is the Canon twice as good as the
>> Nikon
>> lens? Will I notice the difference? Is this a fair comparison? From
>> what I
>> see Nikon dont have any other lens that does 17-85.
>>
>> Hope I dont open a can of worms here!
>>
>> Joel
>> South Africa
>>
>>
> I've never used the Canon 17-85, but use the Nikon 18-70 every day.
> The only faults with the lens IMO are that it vignettes, the zoom ring
> action is non-linear and does not feel very nice, and it does not focus
> closer than 0.38m.
> An example shot is at:
> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/print.jpg
> You can see the vignetting in the full frame of the image (bottom left).
> The exif data tells me that was shot at 70mm, f4.8, 1/125, iso200.
> Many reviewers seem to pick up on the vignetting at full wide angle, but
> miss it at full telephoto. As you can see from the image crops, it is
> as sharp as a pin at full aperture.
oops - I should add that the vignetting occurs at full, or near full
aperture.

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

What filter are you using ? Ever tried B+W Slim MRC UV filter ?

=bob=

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120706667.559721@ftpsrv1...
> frederick wrote:
>> Joel Dorfan wrote:
>>
>>> Like many others I am baout to enter the world of DSLR.
>>> It seems there are many opinions on XT vs D70s vs 20D etc. etc.
>>>
>>> At the end of the day I believe that any of the above will take far
>>> better
>>> pics than I will be capable of.
>>>
>>> So, I want to base my decision on which lens to get. I have a couple of
>>> extra $'s so will listen to what others have said and not buy the cheap
>>> lens
>>> kit option and instead choose an alround lens that suits my needs and
>>> then
>>> find a body to match. I have used a Canon EOS SLR with 28-105 lens for
>>> years
>>> and except for the need for some extra zoom from time to time found the
>>> lens
>>> adequate.
>>>
>>> I have narrowed it down to the Canon 17-85 IS which is a $600 lens and
>>> the
>>> Nikon 18-70 which is half the price. Is the Canon twice as good as the
>>> Nikon
>>> lens? Will I notice the difference? Is this a fair comparison? From what
>>> I
>>> see Nikon dont have any other lens that does 17-85.
>>>
>>> Hope I dont open a can of worms here!
>>>
>>> Joel
>>> South Africa
>>>
>>>
>> I've never used the Canon 17-85, but use the Nikon 18-70 every day.
>> The only faults with the lens IMO are that it vignettes, the zoom ring
>> action is non-linear and does not feel very nice, and it does not focus
>> closer than 0.38m.
>> An example shot is at:
>> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/print.jpg
>> You can see the vignetting in the full frame of the image (bottom left).
>> The exif data tells me that was shot at 70mm, f4.8, 1/125, iso200.
>> Many reviewers seem to pick up on the vignetting at full wide angle, but
>> miss it at full telephoto. As you can see from the image crops, it is as
>> sharp as a pin at full aperture.
> oops - I should add that the vignetting occurs at full, or near full
> aperture.

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

[BnH] wrote:
> What filter are you using ? Ever tried B+W Slim MRC UV filter ?
>
> =bob=
I don't believe it's the filter, I use a standard hoya UV filter for
lens protection. The vignetting isn't any worse at 18mm with a Hoya
circ polariser that is wider than than the UV filter.
The vignetting occurs at 70mm as well - not just 18mm!
It's not a biggie - on most zoom lenses that I've ever used, shooting at
full aperture has been much of a no-no anyway because they get soft.
They probably vignette too - but I've just never noticed because I
always avoided using them wide open.
Based on old habits I automatically clicked the wheel down a stop when I
took the picture that I posted a link to. At 70mm, that only reduced it
from f4.5 to f4.8!, as revealed in the exif data.

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

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120713994.912250@ftpsrv1...
> [BnH] wrote:
>> What filter are you using ? Ever tried B+W Slim MRC UV filter ?
>>
>> =bob=
> I don't believe it's the filter, I use a standard hoya UV filter for lens
> protection. The vignetting isn't any worse at 18mm with a Hoya circ
> polariser that is wider than than the UV filter.
> The vignetting occurs at 70mm as well - not just 18mm!
> It's not a biggie - on most zoom lenses that I've ever used, shooting at
> full aperture has been much of a no-no anyway because they get soft. They
> probably vignette too - but I've just never noticed because I always
> avoided using them wide open.
> Based on old habits I automatically clicked the wheel down a stop when I
> took the picture that I posted a link to. At 70mm, that only reduced it
> from f4.5 to f4.8!, as revealed in the exif data.

Frederick,

Try it without a filter. I don't believe in 'protection' filters as they
just add low quality glass to the image

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

Tom Scales wrote:

> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120713994.912250@ftpsrv1...
>
>>[BnH] wrote:
>>
>>>What filter are you using ? Ever tried B+W Slim MRC UV filter ?
>>>
>>>=bob=
>>
>>I don't believe it's the filter, I use a standard hoya UV filter for lens
>>protection. The vignetting isn't any worse at 18mm with a Hoya circ
>>polariser that is wider than than the UV filter.
>>The vignetting occurs at 70mm as well - not just 18mm!
>>It's not a biggie - on most zoom lenses that I've ever used, shooting at
>>full aperture has been much of a no-no anyway because they get soft. They
>>probably vignette too - but I've just never noticed because I always
>>avoided using them wide open.
>>Based on old habits I automatically clicked the wheel down a stop when I
>>took the picture that I posted a link to. At 70mm, that only reduced it
>>from f4.5 to f4.8!, as revealed in the exif data.
>
>
> Frederick,
>
> Try it without a filter. I don't believe in 'protection' filters as they
> just add low quality glass to the image
>
>
Thanks - but no thanks with an 18-70. It has a very big front element
for a "general purpose lens" (ie the one that stays on the camera 75% of
the time), the front element isn't recessed very much at all, lens caps
drive me crazy, and with those factors taken into account, even though
I'm pretty careful, I have little doubt that I'll damage it if I don't
use a filter. Plus, I don't see any ill effects on the images from the
filter, and do not believe that the vignetting of this lens is related
to the filters I use.

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

frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120776687.292697@ftpsrv1...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>
>> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120705065.794515@ftpsrv1...
>>
>>
>>>I've never used the Canon 17-85, but use the Nikon 18-70 every day.
>>>The only faults with the lens IMO are that it vignettes, the zoom ring
>>>action is non-linear and does not feel very nice, and it does not focus
>>>closer than 0.38m.
>>>An example shot is at:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/print.jpg
>>>You can see the vignetting in the full frame of the image (bottom left).
>>>The exif data tells me that was shot at 70mm, f4.8, 1/125, iso200.
>>>Many reviewers seem to pick up on the vignetting at full wide angle, but
>>>miss it at full telephoto. As you can see from the image crops, it is as
>>>sharp as a pin at full aperture.
>>
>>
>> Are you using a filter on the lens? My 18-70 doesn't vignette at all.
>>
>> Tom
> Why would a filter cause vignetting at 70mm on an 18-70 lens?
> Could you try your 18-70 at fully wide at 18mm, and 70mm. Take some test
> shots of an evenly lit wall, then please report back.
> I just did with the filter off, and the vignetting is there at 70mm f4.5,
> but completey gone (to my eyes) at f5.6. The filter makes no difference
> at 18mm or 70mm.

I will, but not any time soon. I haven't had my cameras out in awhile, as I
am posting this from my wife's hospital room. Other priorities right now.

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

Tom,
Sorry to hear about your wife, hope she gets better. Do they have WiFi
in the hospital or are you using the phone line?
Paul


Tom Scales wrote:

> I will, but not any time soon. I haven't had my cameras out in awhile, as I
> am posting this from my wife's hospital room. Other priorities right now.
>
>
>

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

In article <Vbjze.187614$IO.108328@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Tom Scales
<tomtoo@softhome.net> writes
>frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:1120776687.292697@ftpsrv1...
>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1120705065.794515@ftpsrv1...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've never used the Canon 17-85, but use the Nikon 18-70 every day.
>>>>The only faults with the lens IMO are that it vignettes, the zoom ring
>>>>action is non-linear and does not feel very nice, and it does not focus
>>>>closer than 0.38m.
>>>>An example shot is at:
>>>>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/print.jpg
>>>>You can see the vignetting in the full frame of the image (bottom left).
>>>>The exif data tells me that was shot at 70mm, f4.8, 1/125, iso200.
>>>>Many reviewers seem to pick up on the vignetting at full wide angle, but
>>>>miss it at full telephoto. As you can see from the image crops, it is as
>>>>sharp as a pin at full aperture.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you using a filter on the lens? My 18-70 doesn't vignette at all.
>>>
>>> Tom
>> Why would a filter cause vignetting at 70mm on an 18-70 lens?
>> Could you try your 18-70 at fully wide at 18mm, and 70mm. Take some test
>> shots of an evenly lit wall, then please report back.
>> I just did with the filter off, and the vignetting is there at 70mm f4.5,
>> but completey gone (to my eyes) at f5.6. The filter makes no difference
>> at 18mm or 70mm.
>
>I will, but not any time soon. I haven't had my cameras out in awhile, as I
>am posting this from my wife's hospital room. Other priorities right now.
>
Tom,

Sorry to hear about your wife, hope she is OK.

I seem to have missed the early part of the thread. However, the
vignetting on the full frame pic is fairly consistent with that I used
to see at the long end of my late Canon 100-300 USM lens. Most people
think vignetting is only a problem with wide angle lenses; it is true
that external causes (too many filters, too narrow a lens hood etc.) are
much more common for wide angle lenses, but internal constraints are
quite common for long focal length lenses, especially ones built down to
a modest budget. Long lenses tend to require larger elements, and
avoiding internal cut-off at every point in the complex optical path can
sometimes require just too much extra width to meet the manufacturer's
size/cost criteria. It should disappear if you stop down a couple of
stops.

David
--
David Littlewood