Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EOS 20D and which lense to consider

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 26, 2005 11:24:02 AM

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

I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).

I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
benchmark at the moment).

What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.

And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
lenses on a 20D camera?

More about : eos 20d lense

Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:57:25 AM

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

In article <ee2ug1p7d5n9ebobkfk715dv4110qqnjir@4ax.com>, Charles wrote:

> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
> it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
> benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).

You don't need to buy "L" glass. Canon consumer-grade lenses are, for
the most part, quite good. And it's all made together to work together.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:43:12 PM

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

<Charles> wrote ...
>
> What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
> camera?

You'll probably find that people are very sensitive about their lenses,
especially on brand name viewpoints lol. For the sake of saving arguments
from cropping up
I'm not going to list what I think you should get, but I'll say that most
everyone who is serious about photography [and even those who are not] has
the Canon 50mm 1.8 in their gear. It is a VERY affordable lens with
surprising quality results. The Professionals often opt for the more
expensive 1.4 version of the 50mm lens. You'll likely not notice much of a
difference in image quality with the 1.8, and can pick it up for definitely
under $100USD. You won't be disappointed.

Take care,
Linda
Related resources
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:03:47 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:24:02 -0500, Charles wrote:

>I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
>it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
>benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
>I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
>graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
>few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
>lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
>benchmark at the moment).
>
>What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
>camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
>you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
>have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
>preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.

17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L. they were my first two L's for my 20D and
throw in a 50mm F1.4 for low light and you are off to a good start.

At B&H the 17-40 is 679.95 and the 70-200 is 579.95.


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

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:06:29 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:03:47 -0500, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:24:02 -0500, Charles wrote:
>
>>I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
>>it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
>>benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>>
>>I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
>>graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
>>few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
>>lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
>>benchmark at the moment).
>>
>>What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
>>camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
>>you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
>>have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
>>preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
>
>17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L. they were my first two L's for my 20D and
>throw in a 50mm F1.4 for low light and you are off to a good start.
>
>At B&H the 17-40 is 679.95 and the 70-200 is 579.95.

Here is a good site for how all the Canon Lenses preform. The reviews
are by users.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/


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

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:36:04 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:24:02 -0500, Charles wrote:

> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because it
> seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any benefit
> over Tamron lenses in my case).

L lenses are really more lens than you need. At least, image qualitywise.
Why waste your money? They are designed to meet the rather high
requirements of professionals and film. Plus, many pros and amateurs
shoot both film and digital, and just get the best lenses for film and use
them with digital as well. Doesn't mean you have to. If all you're going
to shoot is the 20D (or some other DSLR), you don't need to get lenses,
and pay the extra price, that cover the 35mm film frame. Just get lenses
that are designed to cover the digital sensor and no more.

> I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some graduations
> (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very few action shots.
> I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for lenses but a very rough
> guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a benchmark at the moment).

If that's what you're mostly going to shoot, you definitely DON'T need L
lenses. Consumer grade Canon, Tamron or Sigma lenses will do just fine.
The only exception would be for low light work like night sports or school
theater productions, etc. In those cases, maybe a fast prime lens or two
for those situations.

> What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
> camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would you
> recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I have
> more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
> preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.

Don't go by what's popular or what everybody else is using. Get what
works for YOU.

I suggest that you buy only one lens first. One that will handle about
80% of what you intend to shoot. Usually that means a zoom of moderate
wide angle to normal or short telephoto range. After you use it for a
while, you'll know what second lens to buy. And most times it won't be
what you would have purchased had you purchased both lenses at the same
time.

> And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
> difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron lenses
> on a 20D camera?

No. A most definite no. Not even a serious or professional photographer
would be able to tell the difference in just "eyeballing" a snapshot.
Using an 8x loupe...? Maybe. Using a loupe on an 8x10. Probably.

Stefan
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:13:47 PM

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

In article <ee2ug1p7d5n9ebobkfk715dv4110qqnjir@4ax.com>,
Charles@?.?.invalid writes
>I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
>it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
>benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
>I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
>graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
>few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
>lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
>benchmark at the moment).
>
>What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
>camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
>you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
>have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
>preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
>
>And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
>difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
>lenses on a 20D camera?

I think you are being over-influenced by the words of die-hard
enthusiasts. Sure, Canon L lenses are good, in fact excellent, but they
are really not necessary to get decent results under most conditions. If
you want to make 12x16" prints, or get good results in almost no light
and need an f/2.8 zoom or an f/1.4 fixed focal length lens, or want to
capture eagles in the sky 200m away, then you have no choice but to go
for the ultimate in quality and price. If you buy them just because
everyone tells you "they are the best" but you don't have these needs,
then you may be better off buying other things.

If your needs are for prints at say 4x6" size for distribution to
friends, or for putting up on a family web page, and will be taken in
decent light, then I don't think you will be able to tell the difference
between the L lenses and the better examples of the independent makers'
products (or indeed Canon's cheaper lenses).

I speak as someone who owns and regularly uses L lenses. In some cases,
I upgraded from cheaper prosumer versions, and for the uses I mention
above I would have difficulty telling the difference. I can tell the
difference in 12x16 or even 10x8 prints, done with great care by myself,
and on full sized files viewed at very large size on Photoshop

Apart from costing much more, the L lenses tend to be noticeably heavier
than the less expensive ones. My advice - and bear in mind I don't know
you so this has to be a bit of a guess - is that from the question you
asked, you would be well served with decent consumer or prosumer lenses
at around $4-500 each, rather than blowing it on 1 heavy pro lens. When
you have developed you interest in photography into a fetish, like most
of us posters here, then you should also have the knowledge and
experience to know when you need a much more expensive lens.

FWIW, here are a few specific suggestions.

The Canon 28-135 IS USM is a genuine bargain; I replaced my wide zoom
and long zoom with L lenses to get better quality, but I have not so far
seen any need to replace this.

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is superb, and good value if you like
taking close ups. The Tamron 90mm macro is also highly regarded, though
I have never used it myself.

The 50mm f/1.8 is also an absolute bargain. I paid 3x as much for the
f/1.4, but I doubt if you could tell the difference 95% of the time.

The Canon 20-35 zoom is reasonably good. I replaced mine with a 17-35 L
zoom a few years ago as I found it wasn't quite up to scratch - but I
was using the photos on 12x16 prints.

The Canon 18-55mm kit lens is nowhere near as bad as some people have
painted it (or it has serious production variations). At least, for the
USM version; my daughter has one and gets very good results from it.
Considering it is almost a give-away, I suggest you get one with your
20D.

Difficult to be more specific as we don't know what kind of photographs
you take - do you take a lot of landscapes or buildings (wide) or sports
shots (long).

I decided a couple of years ago not to buy any more Sigma lenses. The
14mm I bought in the 1990s would not work on my EOS 10D. It is a known
issue that Sigma lenses may not work on Canon bodies brought out after
them. To be fair, some very reputable people are highly impressed by the
quality of some of them.

Hope this helps.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:35:32 AM

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

<Charles> wrote in message
news:ee2ug1p7d5n9ebobkfk715dv4110qqnjir@4ax.com...
> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
> it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
> benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
> I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
> graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
> few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
> lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
> benchmark at the moment).

> And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
> difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
> lenses on a 20D camera?

If you only want to produce snapshots but want an SLR, go for the 350D and
save some money. I use a 350D and 3 L lenses because I want to use it for
more than snapshots. L lenses have a downside, they are big and heavy as
well as expensive. If I could make do with cheaper and smaller lenses I
would happily use the 18-55 kit lens, an EF 28 - 105 USB and possibly an EF
70 - 300 USB.

At a size of 5 by 7 you would notice little difference between the lenses.
But if you want to crop or focus very fast or get an extra stop or two in
dimmer light then L lenses begin to make sense. I love 'em - I'm hopefully
off to get my fourth tomorrow.

John
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:58:02 AM

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

In message <ee2ug1p7d5n9ebobkfk715dv4110qqnjir@4ax.com>,
Charles wrote:

>And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
>difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
>lenses on a 20D camera?

That depends on the specific lenses. Canon may make the few very best
lenses, but they are very few in number, and are generally heavy
telephoto lenses with multi-thousand-dollar price tags. In many lens
categories, Tamron lenses are sometimes better optically than the
Canons, but they are generally as or more expensive than the Canons.
Tamron's bottom lenses are probably worst than Canon's bottom lenses.

Tamron's Macro lenses, and their 28-75/f2.8 are all well-regarded, and
generally considered optically suoerior to Canon's offerings in their
class. Tamron doesn't have any IS models, though, and their focusing
tends to be a little slower and a little noisier.

In other words, there are no simple answers.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:58:03 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>
> Tamron's Macro lenses, and their 28-75/f2.8 are all well-regarded, and
> generally considered optically suoerior to Canon's offerings in their
> class. Tamron doesn't have any IS models, though, and their focusing
> tends to be a little slower and a little noisier.
>


"Generally considered optically superior..."? Not in my neighborhood.
Most folks that I know are not dying to trade their Canon 28-70 f/2.8
lenses fot the Tamron. Or their macros for that matter. The part about
the lenses being cheaper, noiser, and slower to focus is certainly true,
however.

Don't get me wrong. Tamron is fine. I got a deal on a used Tamron macro
and it is certainly good enough that I feel no need to trade up to
Canon. But Canon lenses generally are a better bet in all ways except price.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:01:36 AM

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

<Charles> wrote in message
news:ee2ug1p7d5n9ebobkfk715dv4110qqnjir@4ax.com...
> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
> it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
> benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
> I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
> graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
> few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
> lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
> benchmark at the moment).
>
> What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
> camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
> you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
> have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
> preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
>
> And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
> difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
> lenses on a 20D camera?

The 17-40L seems to be the popular choice, but you won't really see any
difference between it and the Tamron selection on small (less than 8x10)
prints. Another choice would be the Canon 28-135 IS, an excellent non L
lens.
The fast L zooms are all over $1000.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 27, 2005 1:55:11 PM

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

I'd consider:

for family shots

18-55 kit lens ?
17-40 L
20-35 (lower cost)
all will give a reasonable wide angle on a 20D

28-135 gets good comments

50 1.8 will work as a portrait lens

Telephoto depends on how far away you are

85 1.8 is good
100 2.8 gets good comments
200 2.8
300 4 popular
400 5.6 good value compared to 2.8 range
100-400 popular
+ 1.4x TC
choice is yours.
August 27, 2005 7:48:07 PM

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

<Charles> wrote in message
news:ee2ug1p7d5n9ebobkfk715dv4110qqnjir@4ax.com...
> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
> it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
> benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
> I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
> graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
> few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
> lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
> benchmark at the moment).
>
> What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
> camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
> you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
> have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
> preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
>
> And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
> difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
> lenses on a 20D camera?

You'll get much more for your money of you buy Sigma, Tamron or Tokina. The
Sigma EX line often equals or betters Canon Ls. Look at the 10-20EX,
18-50EX, 70-200EX. Buying the 18-50EX and 70-200EX would fulfil most of your
needs and can be had for about $1000. Go to www.dpreview.com and ask there
in the Canon SLR forums.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:22:39 AM

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

In message <5BTPe.2811$sw6.1157@fed1read05>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>Another choice would be the Canon 28-135 IS, an excellent non L
>lens.

I'd call this a good lens; I don't know if I'd call it excellent. The
IS is nice, but optically, the lens isn't particularly sharp or a good
auto-focuser. It's pretty soft at 28mm. I'm thinking of replacing it
with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:22:40 AM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:D n72h15f5goo5u3is6scfg8a29493618h3@4ax.com...
> In message <5BTPe.2811$sw6.1157@fed1read05>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Another choice would be the Canon 28-135 IS, an excellent non L
>>lens.
>
> I'd call this a good lens; I don't know if I'd call it excellent. The
> IS is nice, but optically, the lens isn't particularly sharp or a good
> auto-focuser. It's pretty soft at 28mm. I'm thinking of replacing it
> with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I guess what I meant was "excellent for a non L lens." I've found it very
sharp, again, not compared to my 24-70 L, but sharp all the same. And AF
has been excellent, except in very low light levels, and that could be
attributable to the camera's capabilities, not the lens'. At 28mm, wide
open, it compares favorably to my 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro Tokina, and it
isn't all that far behind the 24-70 L.
I could send you images from the 28-135 and the 24-70, but they're HUGE!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 10:12:32 PM

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

350D
50/1.4
200/2.8
2x
20/2.8
0.8x
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:11:03 PM

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

For very roughly around $1000 and trying to cover a broad range not
knowing much about your needs, I'd consider the following as a
comprimise set:

Tokina 19-35mm or equivalent ~$175
Canon 28-135mm IS ~$400
Canon 75-300mm IS ~$400
Canon 50mm f/1.8 ~$75


-hh
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:35:02 PM

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

Aad wrote:
>
> OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
> What a waste.

A waste in which way?

Do you mean "too much camera for these lenses", or do you mean "too
much lenses for the camera"?


And for a $1000 investment in lenses with the camera body already a
given, what would you recommend instead?


-hh
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:42:07 PM

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

Douglas MacDonald wrote:
>
> If I had to choose only one lens for a 20D...

FWIW, I interpreted the question as "$1000 to spend", not only one
lens.

> a Sigma 28~70 f2.8 EX, DG, HSM.

Under $400, if I saw the correct lens listing at B&H. What would you
get for the remaining notional $600 of the budget?


> Tokina wide zooms for Canon are very soft. They make an OK portrait
> lenses but certainly not something I'd consider for detailed work. But
> then the "kit lens" which comes with a 20D can be a bit soft too and
> this also makes an OK portrait lens if you don't mind not having a
> really wide aperture.

What would you suggest in the 'equally wide' range, that's hopefully
not too far out of line price-wise? Ie, the $400 EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5
USM? Or do you think that there's no pragmatic alternative to either,
short of the $1400 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM? (Yes, I'm assuming EF lens
mount, not EF-S).

Just curious as to your thoughts on both questions.

-hh
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 11:28:26 PM

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

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> schreef in bericht
news:1125591063.633278.255520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> For very roughly around $1000 and trying to cover a broad range not
> knowing much about your needs, I'd consider the following as a
> comprimise set:
>
> Tokina 19-35mm or equivalent ~$175
> Canon 28-135mm IS ~$400
> Canon 75-300mm IS ~$400
> Canon 50mm f/1.8 ~$75
>
>
> -hh
>
OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
What a waste.

Aad from Holland
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 8:29:53 AM

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

Aad wrote:
>
> I think its to much camera for the lenses.

Understood. While I don't particularly disagree, my counterpoint
observation is that Canon dSLR's are still relatively new to the
marketplace, so there's going to be a price premium for the near term
forseeable future that results in the camera body being more expensive
than it is hypothetically really "worth". For example, the 1st Gen
digital Rebel probably sells used today for under $500, and the 20D
will probably be at that same price point within the next 2
years...being digital technology, they're going to effectively
depreciate in value at a faster rate than traditional film-based
cameras. Notionally, if you consider Canon's 1.6x dSLR's to be the
segment equivalent to an EOS-3, take a look at the New/Used price ratio
on a 3 - - it hasn't really lost that much ... maybe 30% ... despite
being around now for probably ~2x as long as all Canon dSLR's.


> A bit like bying a ferrari and mount some 100 dollar tires under it.
> It results in a lot of potention but not being able to use it.

Well, the last tires I bought for my 911 were only around $140 each.
Granted, they were not AutoX tires, but since I normally only Street
the car, trying to keep my tires-only operating expenses under 50 cents
per mile is a consideration for day-to-day enjoyment. Otherwise it
threatens to become a garage queen. There's similar parallels in
camera glass, such as usability due to lens weight. It doesn't do a
casual hobbiest much good to have the ultimate system if its so heavy
that he always leave it at home.


> I've just bouhgt de 20d with the 16-35 2.8L and ordered the 24-70 2.8L
> (the 70-200 2.8L IS is on my wishlist)

Sounds like your rule of thumb is that each lens should cost the same
as the body..?


> The glass will last much longer then the body so therefore:
> buy the best lens(es) you can, and if you have to cut on the budget, buy a
> cheaper body. (second hand 10d or something like that)

Which I agree with myself as a general rule of thumb.

However, I feel that the high rate of change in digital technology
makes this a bit problemmatic in real world applicability...from a
simplistic "take a step back" viewpoint, I think of the 20D as being
the equivalent of a 35mm film body that's only really worth around
$500...as such, applying a lens$=body$ rule of thumb would suggest that
it only really merits lenses that sell for around $500.

Similarly, the cameras & lenses can be simplistically be broken down
into 3 very broad catagories (price bands): low / medium / high.
Since the 20D isn't the top of Canon's dSLR line, its at best a
medium, so its OK for the lens choices to only be a medium too.


> And don't invest in ef-s. Your next body might be full frame!

Definitely.


-hh
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 9:15:28 AM

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

-hh wrote:
>
> Douglas MacDonald wrote:
> >
> > If I had to choose only one lens for a 20D...
>
> FWIW, I interpreted the question as "$1000 to spend", not only one
> lens.
>
> > a Sigma 28~70 f2.8 EX, DG, HSM.
>
> Under $400, if I saw the correct lens listing at B&H. What would you
> get for the remaining notional $600 of the budget?
>
> > Tokina wide zooms for Canon are very soft. They make an OK portrait
> > lenses but certainly not something I'd consider for detailed work. But
> > then the "kit lens" which comes with a 20D can be a bit soft too and
> > this also makes an OK portrait lens if you don't mind not having a
> > really wide aperture.
>
> What would you suggest in the 'equally wide' range, that's hopefully
> not too far out of line price-wise? Ie, the $400 EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5
> USM? Or do you think that there's no pragmatic alternative to either,
> short of the $1400 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM? (Yes, I'm assuming EF lens
> mount, not EF-S).
>
> Just curious as to your thoughts on both questions.
>
> -hh

About so-called "soft" lenses, would anybody please mention a few
"hard", preferably Canon, no L glass, for my 20D. Please...seriously.
I only have the 18-55 USM but wish to buy better. Canon only!
Thank you.

PN
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 9:39:38 AM

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

"pIxEL8eD_nITs" <not_my_email@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4317DFEA.DB0D36F5@nospam.gmail.com...
> -hh wrote:
>>

>>
>> What would you suggest in the 'equally wide' range, that's hopefully
>> not too far out of line price-wise? Ie, the $400 EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5
>> USM? Or do you think that there's no pragmatic alternative to either,
>> short of the $1400 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM? (Yes, I'm assuming EF lens
>> mount, not EF-S).
>>
>> Just curious as to your thoughts on both questions.
>>
>> -hh
>
> About so-called "soft" lenses, would anybody please mention a few
> "hard", preferably Canon, no L glass, for my 20D. Please...seriously.
> I only have the 18-55 USM but wish to buy better. Canon only!
> Thank you.
>
> PN

Before you eliminate "L" glass, consider the f4 series of lenses, the 17-40,
24-105 IS and 70-200. All look very good, and the 17-40 and 70-200 are
pretty well priced, both under $600US. The 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM is a very
good lens (BTW, it's "sharp" not "hard.") And you might look at fixed focal
length lenses like the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2, 28mm f1.8, etc...
So, a 17-40 f4L, 28-135 IS and a 70-200 f4L would give you excellent lenses
with good coverage for under $1600US for all three.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 10:22:30 AM

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

-hh wrote:
> Aad wrote:
>
>>OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
>>What a waste.
>
>
> A waste in which way?
>
> Do you mean "too much camera for these lenses", or do you mean "too
> much lenses for the camera"?
>
>
> And for a $1000 investment in lenses with the camera body already a
> given, what would you recommend instead?
>
>
> -hh
>
If I had to choose only one lens for a 20D, it would be a Sigma 28~70
f2.8 EX, DG, HSM. I could live with moving back and forth for most of my
shots. I absolutely cannot see the value in Canon Zoom lenses under the
70~200 f2.8. Over, of course is a different matter.

Tokina wide zooms for Canon are very soft. They make an OK portrait
lenses but certainly not something I'd consider for detailed work. But
then the "kit lens" which comes with a 20D can be a bit soft too and
this also makes an OK portrait lens if you don't mind not having a
really wide aperture.

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:54:51 PM

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

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> schreef in bericht
news:1125603302.334469.37260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Aad wrote:
>>
>> OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
>> What a waste.
>
> A waste in which way?
>
> Do you mean "too much camera for these lenses", or do you mean "too
> much lenses for the camera"?
>
>
> And for a $1000 investment in lenses with the camera body already a
> given, what would you recommend instead?
>
>
> -hh
>
I think its to much camera for the lenses.
A bit like bying a ferrari and mount some 100 dollar tires under it.
It results in a lot of potention but not being able to use it.
I've just bouhgt de 20d with the 16-35 2.8L and ordered the 24-70 2.8L
(the 70-200 2.8L IS is on my wishlist)

The glass will last much longer then the body so therefore:
buy the best lens(es) you can, and if you have to cut on the budget, buy a
cheaper body.
(second hand 10d or something like that)
And don't invest in ef-s. Your next body might be full frame!

Just an opinion.
Aad
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:54:52 PM

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

>"Aad" wrote The glass will last much longer then the body so therefore:
> buy the best lens(es) you can, and if you have to cut on the budget, buy a
> cheaper body.
>

I'd be careful with the generalization that lenses will last 'much longer'
than the digital body. Some of the newer usm lenses, including the expensive
ones, are not built anywhere near as sturdy as lenses of old. I'd not be
surprised if a 3-5 year life becomes the norm. I doubt very much that [like
with the older film industry lenses] that a photographer will be talking
about his/her trusty 20 year old EF USM lense that's still popping out
perfection. This is all speculation of course. Only time will bear the
undisputable reality of lens life expectancy.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 7:37:45 PM

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

> About so-called "soft" lenses, would anybody please mention a few
> "hard", preferably Canon, no L glass, for my 20D. Please...seriously.
> I only have the 18-55 USM but wish to buy better. Canon only!
> Thank you.

The cost seems to equate fairly closely with the hardness (sharpness) of the
lens.

I.E. The more you pay, the sharper the lens in most cases.

Hence why L glass is usually sharper than it's non L equivalents.

Prime lenses are also usually sharper than their zoom equivalents as there
are less compromises.

If you want a fairly sharp lens for peanuts try the prime 50 1.8

I am by no means an expert but if you read enough posts (and play with your
equipment enough :)  you learn fast on this newsgroup!

Hope that helps,

John
September 2, 2005 10:34:33 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:

> I'd be careful with the generalization that lenses will last 'much longer'
> than the digital body. Some of the newer usm lenses, including the expensive
> ones, are not built anywhere near as sturdy as lenses of old. I'd not be
> surprised if a 3-5 year life becomes the norm. I doubt very much that [like
> with the older film industry lenses] that a photographer will be talking
> about his/her trusty 20 year old EF USM lense that's still popping out
> perfection. This is all speculation of course. Only time will bear the
> undisputable reality of lens life expectancy.

I'm using a 12 year old EF USM at the moment. No problems other than
those that were present when it was brand new, eg it's optically quite
soft wide open at the long end. Some of the current EFs seem to be
more sturdily built than mine, and I'd be surprised if they didn't
last >20 years if not abused.

- Len
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 12:16:02 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>>"Aad" wrote The glass will last much longer then the body so therefore:
>>buy the best lens(es) you can, and if you have to cut on the budget, buy a
>>cheaper body.
>>
>
>
> I'd be careful with the generalization that lenses will last 'much longer'
> than the digital body. Some of the newer usm lenses, including the expensive
> ones, are not built anywhere near as sturdy as lenses of old. I'd not be
> surprised if a 3-5 year life becomes the norm. I doubt very much that [like
> with the older film industry lenses] that a photographer will be talking
> about his/her trusty 20 year old EF USM lense that's still popping out
> perfection. This is all speculation of course. Only time will bear the
> undisputable reality of lens life expectancy.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
>
Lenses in the "much longer life" category you speak of are invariably
fixed focal length (prime) lenses with no motors or electronics in them.
I have some such lenses and apart from a little fungus, do indeed take
excellent pictures.

I also have a 120 ~ 300 f2.8 lens which is an awesome beast that has
been returned to Sigma twice. Once from a frozen Zoom ring and once it
was dead for no reason. This lens is about 18 months old and may never
survive long enough to pay for itself. I'd Expect a Canon lens to last a
little longer but not as long as any of my Rodenstock lenses.

--
Douglas
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:24:24 PM

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

"Leonard"wrote

> I'm using a 12 year old EF USM at the moment. No problems other than
> those that were present when it was brand new, eg it's optically quite
> soft wide open at the long end. Some of the current EFs seem to be
> more sturdily built than mine, and I'd be surprised if they didn't
> last >20 years if not abused.
>

Hi Len,

Compare the quality (in build) of your 12 year old EF USM lens to a newer
similar model today. Night and day. Lenses are like the car industry, old
cars where cheaper and better built, today they are x3 the price for
basically disposible after 3 years concepts.

Unlike you I'd be very surprised if any of the current digital lenses are
even on anyone's lips in 20 years other than the odd, 'do you remember
when...'

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:33:11 PM

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

"Douglas MacDonald" >
> Lenses in the "much longer life" category you speak of are invariably
> fixed focal length (prime) lenses with no motors or electronics in them. I
> have some such lenses and apart from a little fungus, do indeed take
> excellent pictures.
>
> I also have a 120 ~ 300 f2.8 lens which is an awesome beast that has been
> returned to Sigma twice. Once from a frozen Zoom ring and once it was dead
> for no reason. This lens is about 18 months old and may never survive long
> enough to pay for itself. I'd Expect a Canon lens to last a little longer
> but not as long as any of my Rodenstock lenses.
>

Hi Douglas,

Just to clarify, I was suggesting to Aad that he may want to be careful
suggesting that modern lenses will last 'much longer' than the body. It is
my belief, much like those opinions you've expressed here, that lenses today
are simply not built to last, and that very few people will have the lenses
they buy today in 20 years from now [well they may have the lenses still but
the lenses won't be working as anything but book ends ;-) ]

I equate the life expectancy of modern lenses to that of modern car industry
output...everything is cheaper built, 3x more expensive, and all that with a
life expectancy of no more than a day past the 3-5 year manufacturer
warranty. The price difference is not as grave in the lense industry, and
maybe in some instances the lenses are less expensive now.

Take care,
Linda
September 4, 2005 7:32:10 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Leonard"wrote
>
>
>>I'm using a 12 year old EF USM at the moment. No problems other than
>>those that were present when it was brand new, eg it's optically quite
>>soft wide open at the long end. Some of the current EFs seem to be
>>more sturdily built than mine, and I'd be surprised if they didn't
>>last >20 years if not abused.
>>
>
>
> Hi Len,
>
> Compare the quality (in build) of your 12 year old EF USM lens to a newer
> similar model today. Night and day. Lenses are like the car industry, old
> cars where cheaper and better built, today they are x3 the price for
> basically disposible after 3 years concepts.

Doesn't seem to be a comparable model (to the 70-210 USM). All the zoom
teles are either cheap micro-USM tat or expensive L types. When I said
that some of the new ones seemed pretty good I was thinking of the 10-22
and 17-85 EF-S types that I've tried recently. Of course they might well
be disposable after 3 years or so if full-frame continues to get
cheaper, but that won't be because of build quality issues.

- Len
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:05:51 AM

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

Charles wrote:
> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
> it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
> benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
> I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
> graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
> few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
> lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
> benchmark at the moment).
>
> What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
> camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
> you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
> have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
> preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
>
> And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
> difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
> lenses on a 20D camera?

Here is my lenses:

http:www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/index.php?display=utstyr

The text is in norwegian, but focal length are the same in both english and
norwegian... ;-)

--
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/index.php
September 5, 2005 2:02:39 PM

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

Charles wrote:
> I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
> it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
> benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
>
> I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
> graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
> few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
> lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
> benchmark at the moment).
>
> What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
> camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
> you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
> have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
> preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
>
> And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
> difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
> lenses on a 20D camera?



Hello,
I am also in the market for a 20D camera lens, but with a much greater
emphasis placed on fast action sports photography in daylight. What I
need is a zoom that tops out at 300-400mm and won't cost over $600 or
so. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 9:09:00 PM

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

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:_rESe.3288$7p1.1360@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>> Hi Len,
>>
>> Compare the quality (in build) of your 12 year old EF USM lens to a newer
>> similar model today. Night and day. Lenses are like the car industry, old
>> cars where cheaper and better built, today they are x3 the price for
>> basically disposible after 3 years concepts.
>
> Doesn't seem to be a comparable model (to the 70-210 USM). All the zoom
> teles are either cheap micro-USM tat or expensive L types. When I said
> that some of the new ones seemed pretty good I was thinking of the 10-22
> and 17-85 EF-S types that I've tried recently. Of course they might well
> be disposable after 3 years or so if full-frame continues to get
> cheaper, but that won't be because of build quality issues.
>
> - Len

Agreed.

I bought the 17-85 EF-s and I am pleasantly surprised by the build quality.

I have to admit I haven't been into photography long enough to remember
lenses from 10 years ago, but I would be amazed if they were that much
better!

Going back to your previous post Linda, I don't think old cars were cheaper
and better built atall. They were heavier, underpowered, thirsty, and had
little by the way of frills (and rusted away in no time).
By comparison, new cars are cheaper to buy due to manufacturing advances and
technology allows the manufacturer to get far more out of them.
The only disadvantages I can see are that petrol has gone up in price
significantly and emissions legislation has strangled a small portion of the
extra power that improved technology has provided but these do not outweigh
the advantages.

I feel that in the subject of cars your statement is simply nostalgic, We
all remember things with rose coloured spectacles but in the cold light of
day almost all old cars would be a sorry comparison next to their new
equivalents.

I don't know if this is the case for lenses but I certainly hope so

Another often misconstrued aspect of modern engineering is that "things
aren't built as well as they used to be", this is usually because
traditional designs were often vastly overenginnered in certain areas while
other aspects were overlooked or the technology wasn't good enough. An
example on a lens would be a superbly engineered housing but a motor which
would burn out after a few years. Manufacturers now try to match the
lifespan of all the components to offer the consumer the best value for
money (e.g. whats the point in paying extra for the casing if the motors
will burn out in five years?).

Anyway I am waffling now, but in short I know what you said about the
automotive industry is inaccurate and I certainly hope the same is true of
the photographic industry too.

Otherwise I'm looking at a future of dodgy lenses and expensive replacements
: (
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:56:25 AM

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

"John Ortt" wrote>
>
> Going back to your previous post Linda, I don't think old cars were
> cheaper and better built atall. They were heavier, underpowered, thirsty,
> and had little by the way of frills (and rusted away in no time).
> By comparison, new cars are cheaper to buy due to manufacturing advances
> and technology allows the manufacturer to get far more out of them.
>

Fair enough on old cars being more thirsty, but not at all accurate for many
old models on your other points. I'll take yesterdays heavy metal over
today's thin tin any day. Even the 4x4s crumble like a tin can when hit
head on at low mileage, imagine what an Fiesta or Firefly or Sprint would
do.

The auto industry has had the largest increases in sale pricing since 1970
out of any other big ticket industry (with the exception of realestate, but
with a house you normally get more back than what you put into it, a much
better investment than 99% of consumer cars that depreciate the minute you
sign the papers). A person only needs to be familiar with buying cars over
the past 35 years, or lacking that real buying experience you only have to
take a look at consumer guides, current and archived to compare prices.

Samples:

1970- Volkswagon Beetle $1,799 (many can still be seen on the roads today).
2003- Volkswagon New Beetle $16,399 - $23,999 (many of which were in for
repair prior to the 3yr manufacturers warrenty running out, and 2 major
recalls). I doubt you will be seeing any of these on the road in 30yrs from
now.

1970- Toyota Corolla $1,686 (it was not unusual to see 15 and 20 yr old
Corollas on the road)
2003- Toyota Corolla $13,570 - $14,680 more than 8x the price. (you don't
see too many lasting past 10 years.)

More generalized forms of comparison are a 2004 Plymouth Neon sells for more
now than the highest end Porche did in the 1970s. Yet when the Neon first
came out it sold for less than $9,000 and only some 12 years later is double
and higher (depending on feature optionals bought) Today's loaded New Beetle
($23,999) sells for more than a high-end, fully loaded BMW in 1969 ($2,727).

Granted cars have gotten more efficient, but so have fridges, stoves,
microwaves, stereos and so on, yet none of those industries have witnessed
anywhere near the increase in selling prices that the auto industry has.
Most of the cars today, not just the economy cars have thinner seats, flimsy
controls (plastic instead of plastic/rubber mix or plastic with rubber
coating like the older cars...some of them even had chrome knobs). New cars
also cost more for maintanence because all essential parts are disposable.
You don't fix fuel injection units (other than a blow out of dirt or minor
clogs) you rip the unit out and snap in a new one for $1,000 and up. 4 Wheel
Disc Braking systems??? Way more expensive than the old braking systems
(drums on back). The 4 disks wear out much faster in my experience, and all
mechanics will agree.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 11:35:31 AM

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

"Jeff" <jreastham4444@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125939759.306058.96140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am also in the market for a 20D camera lens, but with a much greater
> emphasis placed on fast action sports photography in daylight. What I
> need is a zoom that tops out at 300-400mm and won't cost over $600 or
> so. Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Good luck. You'll either get your budget, cheap glass, or slow lenses.
Since $600 puts the f/2.8 L series zooms out of the question, lenses like
the L series f/4 or the Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6, 100-300 f/4, or 80-400
f/4.5-5.6 But even some of them don't fit your budget.

Dave
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:08:10 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:56:25 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>
>"John Ortt" wrote>
>>
>> Going back to your previous post Linda, I don't think old cars were
>> cheaper and better built atall. They were heavier, underpowered, thirsty,
>> and had little by the way of frills (and rusted away in no time).
>> By comparison, new cars are cheaper to buy due to manufacturing advances
>> and technology allows the manufacturer to get far more out of them.
>>
>
>Fair enough on old cars being more thirsty, but not at all accurate for many
>old models on your other points. I'll take yesterdays heavy metal over
>today's thin tin any day. Even the 4x4s crumble like a tin can when hit
>head on at low mileage, imagine what an Fiesta or Firefly or Sprint would
>do.

That's by design.
When the energy of the crash is absorbed by the body crumpling, the
passengers survive better. When the body/frame doesn't deform from the
crash energy, it passes it on to the passengers.
It's called "crumple zones", and it's a design feature of most
passenger cars. It's a saftey feature.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:54:07 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> "Linda Nieuwenstein" wrote:
> > I'll take yesterdays heavy metal over today's thin tin any day.
>>
> That's by design.

True, its by design - but not just the one design element alluded to.

> It's called "crumple zones"...

Which were invented ~50 years ago by Mercedes. What they've learned
over that time period is that much of the injury trauma potential is
due to the peak impulse, which is what helped contribute to the general
elimination of body-on-frame vehicle designs (it helped that they were
cheaper too).

And while all structural elements of a vehicle are now used to help
dissipate the energy levels, the weight of the structures are a design
variable for total vehicle weight, which becomes a trade-off versus
fuel efficiency standards (ditto for oil viscocity specifications and
OEM tires...every fraction of an MPG is counted these days).

What you will find is that not all manufacturers use the same gage
(thickness) of sheetmetal steel. Mercedes uses one of the thicker ones
and they generally do better on crash tests ... and this is despite
apparent self-contradictions such as the current C-Class which had
better crashworthiness results than its prior design, despite MB going
to a thinner sheetmetal (and for which they caught flak from their
customers).


So much for discussing the distraction of the analogy.


The bottom line is that engineering trade-offs do happen every day, and
they will holistically examine all factors that go into a particular
design.

The trade-off is a resource (eg, cost) allocation that serves to apply
resources to those things that are proportional and appropriate to the
real *and* perceived priorities for that product and its key
characteristics.

Generically speaking, when the durability of a product is so good such
that it is taken for granted, that's generally a "green light" to
examine ways to make the design less expensive to manufacturer at the
expense of reliability - - you can think of it as an area where there's
excessive design safety margin, so by reducing the margin, you can make
the product less expensive to produce "without hurting anybody".

This happens all the time in manufacturing for the simple reason that
it generally is a good business strategy.

For example, if a primary consumer complaint is chipped paint, that's
where resources will be focused: to improve the paint to reduce those
perceived shortcomings. Likewise, if no one ever complains about
paint, particularly if its expensive to paint, that's where they'll go
look for a possible cost savings.

This is a Design for Manufacturing (DFM) cost accountability process
and it applies for every subcomponent element: glass, USM motors,
gears, metal/plastic mounts, etc, etc. The general objective today is
to make the product "good enough" and not "too good", since delivering
that extra quality costs money somewhere...if there isn't a clear
payback for doing it, it will invariably be reviewed to see if it can
be trimmed.


-hh
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:26:48 PM

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

> Fair enough on old cars being more thirsty, but not at all accurate for
> many
> old models on your other points. I'll take yesterdays heavy metal over
> today's thin tin any day. Even the 4x4s crumble like a tin can when hit
> head on at low mileage, imagine what an Fiesta or Firefly or Sprint would
> do.

Agreed, but most of that is due to safety requirements, modern cars being
better at disipating energy using crumple zones than their older
equivalents.
One unfortunate side effect is that a modern car in a collision with an old
car without crumple zones usually comes off far worse but you can't win em
all :) 

<snip>

> More generalized forms of comparison are a 2004 Plymouth Neon sells for
> more now than the highest end Porche did in the 1970s.
<snip>

Don't forget that comparing prices 20 years ago with today is highly
inaccurate since inflation is the main cause of the difference. However, I
hadn't realised you were in the states so I can't really coment on the
economic side of things over there. My experience in the UK is that cars
have got consistently cheaper by comparison to earnings (hence the rise in
cars on the road).

> Granted cars have gotten more efficient, but so have fridges, stoves,
> microwaves, stereos and so on, yet none of those industries have witnessed
> anywhere near the increase in selling prices that the auto industry has.

Fair point...

> Most of the cars today, not just the economy cars have thinner seats,
> flimsy controls (plastic instead of plastic/rubber mix or plastic with
> rubber coating like the older cars...some of them even had chrome knobs).
> New cars also cost more for maintanence because all essential parts are
> disposable.

Usually because replacement costs less than the labour associated with
repairing them....

> You don't fix fuel injection units (other than a blow out of dirt or minor
> clogs) you rip the unit out and snap in a new one for $1,000 and up. 4
> Wheel Disc Braking systems??? Way more expensive than the old braking
> systems (drums on back).

But also way better!


Before we get flamed for going off-topic we had better close this thread.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Linda :) 

I am glad anyway, it would be a boring (and wasteful) world if everyone
always wanted a new car.
Thanks to you there will always be people driving round in cherished
examples of beautiful old cars.

And I'm a bit of a hypocrite anyway as I drive round in a ten year old car
myself (but mainly due to financial issues rather than by choice).

All the best and happy motoring,

John
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:26:49 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:26:48 +0100, "John Ortt"
<johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:

>> Granted cars have gotten more efficient, but so have fridges, stoves,
>> microwaves, stereos and so on, yet none of those industries have witnessed
>> anywhere near the increase in selling prices that the auto industry has.
>
>Fair point...

Not really.
In fridges, stoves, microwaves, stereos and so on, there have been
steady mino changes, but he general designs have remained the same.
Fridges still look the same, have the same general structure. Cars, in
the meantime, have had major changes; frames are mostly gone, crumple
zones have been designed in, engines have had major changes, the
entire fuel system has changed (several times).
Stoves have'nt changed except in a few models using flat tops.
Microwave ovens are basically the same.
Stereos have added CD changers, and use more efficient (and less
costly to manufacture) parts.
Overall, cars have undergone much more major and comprehensive changes
than appliances have.
Those changes cost money.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
September 13, 2005 8:46:02 PM

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

I'm pretty happy with my 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. It's not exactly a fast
lens, but the high ISO performance of the 20D is really good, so it
might be good enough. It's also well within your budget.

I think you're going to have touble getting anything faster for under $600.

>
>
> Hello,
> I am also in the market for a 20D camera lens, but with a much greater
> emphasis placed on fast action sports photography in daylight. What I
> need is a zoom that tops out at 300-400mm and won't cost over $600 or
> so. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
>
!