Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buying a 20D, should I consider a non Canon lens?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:05:22 AM

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

Here's where I am in my research/buying process. Over the past few years I
have spent several thousand dollars on various digital cameras. My current
'best' is a Fujifilm S602Zoom, which cost me some 1400 Canadian dollars a
few years ago. I have decided that a Canon 20D is going to replace it, and I
have no intention of buying another camera until the 20D, literally, wears
out. In my past I have not spent much time fussing about lenses. I guess you
could categorize me as a serious amateur photographer who is camera-smart
and lens-stupid. I do not want to be carrying more equipment than necessary,
so I want my lenses to be multi purpose as much as possible. I am willing to
spend what I consider to be reasonable money for a quality lens (I will get
additional lenses as time passes, and the need arises). I am after the "best
bang for the buck" kind of thing, both in cost and functionality, BUT...what
matters in the end is that I get a quality picture. Saving a few hundred
dollars and ending up with a poorer quality picture is NOT what I'm after.

Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that *maybe* I could
get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent one for less. Since I
believe personal experience is worth its weight in gold I decided to ask in
this NG.

I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this locally
which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the following
costs.

20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
20D body-only is $1799.00
So this lens is costing me $680.00

I have the following available...the pages list models and prices

Tamron
http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/tamron.htm

Sigma
http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/sigma.htm

Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated

WW

More about : buying 20d canon lens

Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:05:23 AM

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

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no...

>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
> 17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that *maybe* I
> could get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent one for less.
> Since I believe personal experience is worth its weight in gold I decided
> to ask in this NG.
>
> I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this locally
> which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the following
> costs.
>
> 20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
> 20D body-only is $1799.00
> So this lens is costing me $680.00
>
> I have the following available...the pages list models and prices
>
> Tamron
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/tamron.htm
>
> Sigma
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/sigma.htm
>
> Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated
>
> WW
>
>
>
>
Neither of the lenses you cite are equivalent. They are both wide to long
zooms, and neither give the width of the Canon, nor do they, or any other
lens that size, offer image stabilization. And, remember, as a general rule
of thumb, the larger the zoom ratio, the more the image degrades, so, at
least theoretically, the 17-85 (1:5) would have better image quality through
its range than the 28-200 (1:7.5) lenses you mention.
Many feel the Canon to be overpriced, though. An alternative could be the
Canon 28-135 IS, which sells for around $400 US, a couple of hundred less
than the EF-S version. It doesn't have the width of the 17-85, but it does
have image stabilization and more reach. It doesn't have the reach of the
Sigma and Tamron lenses, but it has IS and better quality glass. I have
one, as does my wife, and we both love it.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:05:23 AM

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

WormWood wrote:
>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
> 17-85 IS USM lens
>
> I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this locally
> which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the following
> costs.
>
> 20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
> 20D body-only is $1799.00
> So this lens is costing me $680.00
>
> I have the following available...the pages list models and prices
>
> Tamron
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/tamron.htm
>
> Sigma
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/sigma.htm


Here's a vote for the Canon:
http://www.virtualtraveller.org/sigmavscanon/sigmavscan...

It is possible you could find a better optics-for-the-dollar
sigma/tamron option and if so it's probable that the build quality would
not be as good. That includes durability, smooth operation, autofocus
speed, etc. Only autofocus might effect image quality, so that's a
reasonable trade-off. And lens selection is all about balancing
priorities, even with top of the line.

The other question is what kind of shooting do you do? The IS is not
that useful if you shoot action. The slow speed might be limiting too.
If you are patient enough to use a tripod & only shoot landscapes, a
non-IS Canon might get you a lot more bang for the buck. If you need
more telephoto reach, that's another factor. Maybe you don't need wide
angle? Is compactness/anonymity important? Maybe a huge slow 80-300ish
combined with a cheap 50mm 1.8 prime would get you what you need?

It sounds like you've been making regular deposits to the camera gods
over the years so even though you are looking at this as the only lens
you'll need, priorities can change dramatically if you consider the
other lenses you'll buy in the future and dovetail those in to be the
ultimate dream set in a few years. What if you decide you really need
f/2.8 & end up with two 18-70's? Maybe wide angle isn't critical now but
ultimately you'll want a 10-22mm?

One thing is clear from what you wrote. Optics must be excellent. I.S.
is not part of that. Maybe look at a limited zoom 24-70ish lens with the
most incredible optics and plan to add a wide & a tele to that in the
future. I think you should stick with the name brand unless there is
something really compelling.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Related resources
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:05:23 AM

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

In article <m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no>, "WormWood" <noone@none.net>
wrote:

Buying a Canon 20D, eh? A good choice for sure. <grin>

> Tamron
>
> Sigma
>
> Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated

Remember, you asked.

I am a brand name lens snob. I freely admit it.

When I see a Nikon or Canon or other "top name" body hanging from someone's
neck, but it has an "Acme" brand lens, I am amused that the photographer would
spend the money on a <ahem> "brand name" camera, but buy a third-party lens
because it is CHEAPER.

I don't notice the SPECIFICATIONS of the lens, but I DO notice that the cap
does NOT say "Nikon" or "Canon" or "Minolta", etc.

Just another viewpoint...

Good luck!
:) 
JR
May 3, 2005 5:05:27 AM

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

First, check out Simon's cameras in Montreal
(http://www.simonscameras.com/index.asp) the prices are better than Toronto
and you could save the provincial tax if you live outside Québec.

Next, if you want a really good lens, get the 24-70 f2,8 L it is probably
the best usefull lens for Canon cameras. You could order from B+H and save
about $200 on the lens. I don't have any personal experience with the Canon
28-135 IS but the reports are very good, especially as do it all lens.

Jean



"WormWood" <noone@none.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no...
> Here's where I am in my research/buying process. Over the past few years I
> have spent several thousand dollars on various digital cameras. My current
> 'best' is a Fujifilm S602Zoom, which cost me some 1400 Canadian dollars a
> few years ago. I have decided that a Canon 20D is going to replace it, and
I
> have no intention of buying another camera until the 20D, literally, wears
> out. In my past I have not spent much time fussing about lenses. I guess
you
> could categorize me as a serious amateur photographer who is camera-smart
> and lens-stupid. I do not want to be carrying more equipment than
necessary,
> so I want my lenses to be multi purpose as much as possible. I am willing
to
> spend what I consider to be reasonable money for a quality lens (I will
get
> additional lenses as time passes, and the need arises). I am after the
"best
> bang for the buck" kind of thing, both in cost and functionality,
BUT...what
> matters in the end is that I get a quality picture. Saving a few hundred
> dollars and ending up with a poorer quality picture is NOT what I'm after.
>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
> 17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that *maybe* I
could
> get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent one for less. Since
I
> believe personal experience is worth its weight in gold I decided to ask
in
> this NG.
>
> I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this locally
> which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the following
> costs.
>
> 20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
> 20D body-only is $1799.00
> So this lens is costing me $680.00
>
> I have the following available...the pages list models and prices
>
> Tamron
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/tamron.htm
>
> Sigma
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/sigma.htm
>
> Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated
>
> WW
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:32:30 AM

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

Two answers later (thanks Skip and Paul) and I have learned a couple of
things, and have a few more angles to consider as far as what I want this
'general purpose' lens to do. I'm also getting my initial opinion
confirmed...that a Canon lens is likely the way to go...though perhaps a
slightly different model...hmmmm...

Build quality is very important.

I take photos of whatever strikes my fancy, with one overall exception, I
could care less about action shots (ie: sporting events). I photograph
scenery, flora and fauna, buildings, ships, machinery, cars, people,
insects...if it strikes my fancy I take a shot of it. I am not looking for
the 'perfect lens' for all occasions (I know this doesn't exist), and I know
I will be buying at least one more lens in the not too distant future...a
macro is definitely on my list, for example. Basically, for my first *ever*
quality lens (and I'm 55 yrs old...so I've certainly put this off for long
enough)..I'm looking for a jack of all trades, or as close as I can get to
it. I am pretty certain the 17-85 Canon fits my needs...I just want to make
sure (based on the experience of others) that I am not overlooking a 'gem',
either from another maker, or from Canon.

WW
May 3, 2005 6:35:20 AM

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

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in
news:m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no:

> Here's where I am in my research/buying process. Over the past few
> years I have spent several thousand dollars on various digital
> cameras. My current 'best' is a Fujifilm S602Zoom, which cost me some
> 1400 Canadian dollars a few years ago. I have decided that a Canon 20D
> is going to replace it, and I have no intention of buying another
> camera until the 20D, literally, wears out. In my past I have not
> spent much time fussing about lenses. I guess you could categorize me
> as a serious amateur photographer who is camera-smart and lens-stupid.
> I do not want to be carrying more equipment than necessary, so I want
> my lenses to be multi purpose as much as possible. I am willing to
> spend what I consider to be reasonable money for a quality lens (I
> will get additional lenses as time passes, and the need arises). I am
> after the "best bang for the buck" kind of thing, both in cost and
> functionality, BUT...what matters in the end is that I get a quality
> picture. Saving a few hundred dollars and ending up with a poorer
> quality picture is NOT what I'm after.
>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon
> EF-S 17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that
> *maybe* I could get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent
> one for less. Since I believe personal experience is worth its weight
> in gold I decided to ask in this NG.
>
> I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this
> locally which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the
> following costs.
>
> 20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
> 20D body-only is $1799.00
> So this lens is costing me $680.00

Sounds reasonable, I would advise getting that lens! That gives you the
equivalent (in 35mm terms for FoV) of 27-136.

Next you should add the Canon 70-200 f4L and possibly a 1.4x
Teleconverter, presuming you have a use for a longer lens. That will
give you the equivalent of 112-320 for the lens and with the TC attached
you can go up to the equivalent of somewhere around 450.

So the 17-85 + 70-200 f4 + 1.4x TC gives you the ability to achieve the
FoV equivalent of 27-448 or better than 16x zoom in P&S terms.

This seems pretty versatile to me, but you can always add more lenses
later if required. e.g. The Canon 10-22 EF-S lens would give you the
equivalent FoV at the wide end of 16mm on a 35mm system, that's pretty
wide!


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:35:21 AM

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

Frank ess wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> What I don't have is an excellent quality general purpose lens so I
>> guess that's where I'd point you: to a moderate range zoom with
>> exquisite quality and plan to add a tele & wide (& macro).
>
>
> If I could have but one Canon EOS-use lens, it would be the 24-70 2.8L.
> It's not that wide or long, but in much of the real world you can back
> up a bit or get somewhat closer. Within its range are "normal", which
> many people expect from a snapshot camera, and long portrait, something
> that is useful in dragging the essence out of more than just folks'
> faces. Kind of a less-specialized-than-most piece of currency in the
> transaction between photographer and environment.


Sounds like a good plan!
<wishing I had been more moderate, discriminate & wise>


>
> Plenty dollars going in, plenty quality coming out. Value per
> shutter-release quite high in my repertoire and arsenal.
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 3, 2005 7:07:40 AM

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

In article <m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no>, WormWood <noone@none.net> wrote:

>20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
>20D body-only is $1799.00

I hope that's Canadian dollars.

Don't buy the kit lens. Buy the 50mm f/1.4. Not the f/1.8.

You should be able to do a lot better than these prices.

Some of the Tamron lenses are pretty good. I'm getting passable results
out of a 28-200 f/3.8 Tamron. For the money, I can just call it
something to use while I save up for an L/IS prime. I do actually have
the 18-55 kit lens. It's a bad design, feels cheap, etc., but you know
what? It's still the sharpest lens I've ever owned.

I have on order, the 50mm f/1.4 that everyone raves about. And my next
lens will probably be a wide Tamron zoom when it comes out, or a 135mm
prime. Maybe even a nice IS prime.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:26:51 AM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:05:22 GMT, WormWood <noone@none.net> wrote:
>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
> 17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that *maybe* I could
> get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent one for less.

Hello WormWood. To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent
to that lens. There's a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which you might consider.
It's a faster lens, it doesn't reach as far, and it lacks IS.
Tradeoffs; you know how it goes. I've never gotten to handle this
lens, I don't know how good it is.

I've been shooting a lot with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Sometimes I
wonder if I shouldn't have gone with the Sigma 24-60, especially
since weight matters to me a lot. But I have no complaints, and
the price of the Tamron is quite attractive.

Best of luck, and happy shooting.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:01:48 AM

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

WormWood wrote:
> Here's where I am in my research/buying process. Over the past few
years I
> have spent several thousand dollars on various digital cameras. My
current
> 'best' is a Fujifilm S602Zoom, which cost me some 1400 Canadian
dollars a
> few years ago. I have decided that a Canon 20D is going to replace
it, and I
> have no intention of buying another camera until the 20D, literally,
wears
> out. In my past I have not spent much time fussing about lenses. I
guess you
> could categorize me as a serious amateur photographer who is
camera-smart
> and lens-stupid. I do not want to be carrying more equipment than
necessary,
> so I want my lenses to be multi purpose as much as possible. I am
willing to
> spend what I consider to be reasonable money for a quality lens (I
will get
> additional lenses as time passes, and the need arises). I am after
the "best
> bang for the buck" kind of thing, both in cost and functionality,
BUT...what
> matters in the end is that I get a quality picture. Saving a few
hundred
> dollars and ending up with a poorer quality picture is NOT what I'm
after.

I just replaced the kit lens of my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. After that I've been making a sort of wishlist for
body/lenses. Here it goes:
- Canon 350D. I appreciate the faster 20D but my smaller hands prefer a
smaller camera. The 350D is not as slow as the 300D, has a lot of
features of the 20D like FEC, MLU, selectable AF-modes and is smaller.
Also, 8MP is nice.

- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 - Covers the regular 28-80mm and gives a nice
constant aperture of f/2.8. I don't think either Canon or Tamron have
an requivalent in terms of range and aperture. The 17-85mm has IS but
is slower, the 16-35mm and 17-40mm have lesser range. An alternative
could be Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM but then you end up sacrificing mm
at the wider end. That said, I do like my Sigma 24-135mm but just wish
it was less noisier and faster to focus (HSM, maybe).

- Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 12-24mm. I like shooting landscapes so want a
wide angle. The Canon is a bit more expensive and is EF-S mount only.
>From what I've read, the Tokina 12-24mm might also be a good choice.

- Sigma 70-300mm APO. I rarely need telephoto so as much as I would
like to, I can't justify spending $$$ on the Canon 100-400mm "L".

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:23:49 AM

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

Hi,
Don't have any experience with 3rd party lenses but I do own some Canon L
glass. The 24-70 f/2.8 is an excellent lens for general purpose shooting. It
produces good quality images, focuses quickly and is fast enough to be very
useful in low light situations. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a life saver at
sporting events (especially indoor) where lighting is not the best and you
are trying to stop motion. It is quick focusing, produces sharp images and
the IS really makes a difference in low light situations. Quality is
remembered long after price is forgotten so why not buy the best you can
afford?

Bob
"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no...
> Here's where I am in my research/buying process. Over the past few years I
> have spent several thousand dollars on various digital cameras. My current
> 'best' is a Fujifilm S602Zoom, which cost me some 1400 Canadian dollars a
> few years ago. I have decided that a Canon 20D is going to replace it, and
I
> have no intention of buying another camera until the 20D, literally, wears
> out. In my past I have not spent much time fussing about lenses. I guess
you
> could categorize me as a serious amateur photographer who is camera-smart
> and lens-stupid. I do not want to be carrying more equipment than
necessary,
> so I want my lenses to be multi purpose as much as possible. I am willing
to
> spend what I consider to be reasonable money for a quality lens (I will
get
> additional lenses as time passes, and the need arises). I am after the
"best
> bang for the buck" kind of thing, both in cost and functionality,
BUT...what
> matters in the end is that I get a quality picture. Saving a few hundred
> dollars and ending up with a poorer quality picture is NOT what I'm after.
>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
> 17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that *maybe* I
could
> get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent one for less. Since
I
> believe personal experience is worth its weight in gold I decided to ask
in
> this NG.
>
> I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this locally
> which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the following
> costs.
>
> 20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
> 20D body-only is $1799.00
> So this lens is costing me $680.00
>
> I have the following available...the pages list models and prices
>
> Tamron
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/tamron.htm
>
> Sigma
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/sigma.htm
>
> Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated
>
> WW
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:51:41 PM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:12:47 -0500, Jim Redelfs
<jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

>In article <m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no>, "WormWood" <noone@none.net>
>wrote:
>
>Buying a Canon 20D, eh? A good choice for sure. <grin>
>
>> Tamron
>>
>> Sigma
>>
>> Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated
>
>Remember, you asked.
>
>I am a brand name lens snob. I freely admit it.
>
>When I see a Nikon or Canon or other "top name" body hanging from someone's
>neck, but it has an "Acme" brand lens, I am amused that the photographer would
>spend the money on a <ahem> "brand name" camera, but buy a third-party lens
>because it is CHEAPER.
>
>I don't notice the SPECIFICATIONS of the lens, but I DO notice that the cap
>does NOT say "Nikon" or "Canon" or "Minolta", etc.
>
>Just another viewpoint...
>
>Good luck!
> :) 
>JR

If you can prove no aftermarket lens matches the Canon's for image
fidelity, then you have a point. Otherwise, you are operating under
the same misconceptions that people who brand-match all their audio
equipment do. And most of them shop at Best Buy.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:22:34 PM

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

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-D9B5F7.00124703052005@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no>, "WormWood" <noone@none.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am a brand name lens snob. I freely admit it.
>
> When I see a Nikon or Canon or other "top name" body hanging from
> someone's
> neck, but it has an "Acme" brand lens, I am amused that the photographer
> would
> spend the money on a <ahem> "brand name" camera, but buy a third-party
> lens
> because it is CHEAPER.
>
> I don't notice the SPECIFICATIONS of the lens, but I DO notice that the
> cap
> does NOT say "Nikon" or "Canon" or "Minolta", etc.
>
> Just another viewpoint...
>
> Good luck!
> :) 
> JR

How about "cheaper" and "as good as?" We have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro that
matches the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro pretty well, it is one of the most
respected macro lenses on the market today. Don't jump to conclusions.
There are lenses made by aftermarket mfrs. that Canon doesn't have a match
for, like the Sigma 12-24 EF mount lens. Yes, Canon makes the 10-22, but
that's an EF-S mount, not compatible with, for instance, the 10D or 1D/1D
mkII.
Admittedly, in the main, OEM glass is better, case in point, I have a Tokina
28-70 f2.8 ATX Pro that will soon be replaced by a Canon 24-70 f2.8L. It's
too soft, and causes the occasional "Err99" on my 20D.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 3, 2005 9:36:26 PM

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

In article <VNEde.60087$Nn.60047@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
Bob Krecak <rkrecak@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>Quality is
>remembered long after price is forgotten so why not buy the best you can
>afford?

I'm happily taking pictures with my Tamron zoom, while saving the money
for when I encounter someone who got over his head buying Canon L lenses
and needs to liquidate.

Would I be better off with my camera in a drawer, with just a body cap?
I don't think so.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:36:27 PM

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

james wrote:
>
> Would I be better off with my camera in a drawer, with just a body cap?
> I don't think so.


Drill a hole in the cap & take pinhole shots!

: - )

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:23:29 AM

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

In article <3u3f71l985hroet44flrkpie3hpjc848aa@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> If you can prove no aftermarket lens matches the Canon's for image
> fidelity, then you have a point.

I suspect you misunderstood my words.

In fact, I canNOT prove your challenge, but I still have a prejudice against
seeing Sigma or Tamron or Acme or whatever hanging from a "top name" body.

> Otherwise, you are operating under the same misconceptions
> that people who brand-match all their audio equipment do.
> And most of them shop at Best Buy.

I harbor NO illusion or misconception at all. I have no doubt that may well
be third-party lenses of equal - or perhaps even greater - overall quality
than those made by the camera maker.

My prejudice against third party glass persists.

I am not beyond hope, though: While most of my component A/V equipment is
Pioneer, I have let a little bit of Sony creep in. I must be mellowing...

:) 
JR
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:35:31 AM

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

In article <FQSde.886$eU.692@fed1read07>, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

> How about "cheaper" and "as good as?"

Nope. It's still not acceptable for the simple reason: It doesn't say
"Canon".

> Don't jump to conclusions.

I didn't and I don't. I didn't say my prejudice makes sense. I'm not
financially secure, either. (Perhaps due, in whole or in part, to my
ridiculous penchant that accessory purchases match the name of the brand name
item they will accessorize.)

> There are lenses made by aftermarket mfrs. that Canon doesn't have a match
> for

Now THAT I was unaware of. I'll take your word for it.

> Admittedly, in the main, OEM glass is better, case in point, I have a Tokina
> 28-70 f2.8 ATX Pro that will soon be replaced by a Canon 24-70 f2.8L. It's
> too soft, and causes the occasional "Err99" on my 20D.

That's applying WAAAAY too much objectivity for me. Considering that
photography is your "job", I expect you apply MUCH more financial good sense
than would I. I expect I couldn't afford to work (or purchase) for myself and
make a viable business (or income) of it.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:35:32 AM

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

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-BC67D2.20353103052005@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <FQSde.886$eU.692@fed1read07>, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> How about "cheaper" and "as good as?"
>
> Nope. It's still not acceptable for the simple reason: It doesn't say
> "Canon".
>
>> Don't jump to conclusions.
>
> I didn't and I don't. I didn't say my prejudice makes sense. I'm not
> financially secure, either. (Perhaps due, in whole or in part, to my
> ridiculous penchant that accessory purchases match the name of the brand
> name
> item they will accessorize.)
>
>> There are lenses made by aftermarket mfrs. that Canon doesn't have a
>> match
>> for
>
> Now THAT I was unaware of. I'll take your word for it.

The above mentioned Sigma and Tamron wide zooms are wider than anything
Canon offers for the EF mount (D60, 10D, 1D), the super wide Canon is for
EF-S mounts like the Rebel and 20D.
>
>> Admittedly, in the main, OEM glass is better, case in point, I have a
>> Tokina
>> 28-70 f2.8 ATX Pro that will soon be replaced by a Canon 24-70 f2.8L.
>> It's
>> too soft, and causes the occasional "Err99" on my 20D.
>
> That's applying WAAAAY too much objectivity for me. Considering that
> photography is your "job", I expect you apply MUCH more financial good
> sense
> than would I. I expect I couldn't afford to work (or purchase) for myself
> and
> make a viable business (or income) of it.
>
> :) 
> JR

Financial "insecurity" is what led me to buy that Tokina, purchased before
photography made any significant contribution to the household income. And,
while still not exactly rolling in money, we reached the conclusion that we
needed the speed of an f2.8 lens and sharpness of the Canon "L".
Photography is still a side job for me, so these things need to make
financial sense. One of the dangers of bringing your spouse into your hobby
is that she becomes an enabler, wanting the same things you do, which leads
to the occasional duplication of equipment, thus we have 2 20D bodies, 2
28-135 IS lenses, on the way to getting 2 Quantum flashes (at a grand a
piece, that comes literally a piece at a time...) Now the shopping list
consists of 2 24-70 f2.8L lenses, one 70-200 f2.8L and one 16-35 f2.8L
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:43:35 AM

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

Thanks for all the info folks. Some factors were raised that I had not
considered. I will be doing a bit more research before I buy, but I am now
confident that whatever I go with for my first lens, I won't be second
guessing myself after the buying is done.

WW
May 4, 2005 7:13:28 AM

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

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no...

>
> WW

Think about this - the engineers who design the lenses have access to the
internal design documents for the cameras and vice-versa. If you spend your
good money on a 20D, why skimp on the lens. I only buy (and will continue to
buy) Canon regardless of any review I read. At least I know that the whole
system was designed by essentially the same people.

Just go canon L, although the 17-85 is probably the best street lens.The
24-70 f2.8/L is nice but lacks the wide end which you really need for that
1.6x sensor. Ideally, here is what I recommend:

17-85
70-200 f/4L
50mm f1.4 (optional bright prime)

About US$1000 and you got excellent coverage and quality.

Cheers
Musty.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:08:36 AM

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

In message <Q5ydneqywLjIIerfRVn-1A@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Drill a hole in the cap & take pinhole shots!

Get cheap extension tubes and go pinhole telephoto.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:26:43 AM

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

In message <s5Xde.33318$AE6.16826@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>Think about this - the engineers who design the lenses have access to the
>internal design documents for the cameras and vice-versa. If you spend your
>good money on a 20D, why skimp on the lens.

Would you consider buying a $470 Tamron 90mm Macro that is a bit sharper
than Canon's $400 100mm macro "skimping".

Skimping has nothing to do with brands names; Canon makes many
coke-bottle lenses for skimpers, and many of their low-end lenses are
nearly impossible to manually focus.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
May 4, 2005 9:44:14 AM

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

In article <Q5ydneqywLjIIerfRVn-1A@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>james wrote:
>>
>> Would I be better off with my camera in a drawer, with just a body cap?
>> I don't think so.
>
>
>Drill a hole in the cap & take pinhole shots!

I'll pick up a spare body cap next time I'm at a camera shop :-)
Will the electronics allow the exposure without a lens?
May 4, 2005 10:24:27 AM

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

In article <s5Xde.33318$AE6.16826@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
>news:m7Ade.1198021$8l.23411@pd7tw1no...
>
>>
>> WW
>
>Think about this - the engineers who design the lenses have access to the
>internal design documents for the cameras and vice-versa. If you spend your
>good money on a 20D, why skimp on the lens.

Precisely because the good money was spent on the camera, and some of
the $300 lenses seem pretty good to me. I can buy one or two of these,
and at some point when I recover financially, I can still upgrade. I'm
getting results from my Tamron zoom that I'm satisfied with.

I don't disagree with your point of view, but to some people, there's a
big difference between a $275 lens (which works pretty well!), and a
$1700 lens (whose quality I can certainly appreciate). I can buy one
with pocket money, while the other will require discipline, sacrifice,
and probably dealing with an angry woman. Big difference.

But the gist of your argument seems to be that I should be ashamed of
myself for buying a good camera and putting a mediocre lens on it. I
don't think I'm prepared to accept that kind of criticism over any of my
hobbies. I've got just average tires on my decent car, and I record my
piano with "merely adequate" microphones too. I'm getting good results
from all of the above.

Now I can see from my photos where my Tamron lens is soft, but I'm not
able to be that critical, since even soft, these are the best exposures
I've made in more than 30 years of photography. Although my favorite
photos are still some things I did with a Brownie, and a Polaroid
rollfilm camera, as a child.

>17-85
>70-200 f/4L
>50mm f1.4 (optional bright prime)
>
>About US$1000 and you got excellent coverage and quality.

See, in your world "$1480" is "about $1000".

I was willing to spend about a thousand bucks on accessories,
and for that, I got a Flash (420EX), a Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6,
a nice bag, some flash cards, the 50mm f/1.4, Velbon tripod, and
another camera (a Powershot A85, which I've ended up using a lot more
than my 20D!)
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:34:43 PM

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

james wrote:

> In article <Q5ydneqywLjIIerfRVn-1A@speakeasy.net>,
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>james wrote:
>>
>>>Would I be better off with my camera in a drawer, with just a body cap?
>>>I don't think so.
>>
>>
>>Drill a hole in the cap & take pinhole shots!
>
>
> I'll pick up a spare body cap next time I'm at a camera shop :-)
> Will the electronics allow the exposure without a lens?


I saw a web site where someone did this with a DSLR. Not sure of the
specifics.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 4, 2005 6:17:32 PM

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

A good lens will outlast a camera body no matter if its a digital or
film why compromise.

r



WormWood wrote:
> Here's where I am in my research/buying process. Over the past few years I
> have spent several thousand dollars on various digital cameras. My current
> 'best' is a Fujifilm S602Zoom, which cost me some 1400 Canadian dollars a
> few years ago. I have decided that a Canon 20D is going to replace it, and I
> have no intention of buying another camera until the 20D, literally, wears
> out. In my past I have not spent much time fussing about lenses. I guess you
> could categorize me as a serious amateur photographer who is camera-smart
> and lens-stupid. I do not want to be carrying more equipment than necessary,
> so I want my lenses to be multi purpose as much as possible. I am willing to
> spend what I consider to be reasonable money for a quality lens (I will get
> additional lenses as time passes, and the need arises). I am after the "best
> bang for the buck" kind of thing, both in cost and functionality, BUT...what
> matters in the end is that I get a quality picture. Saving a few hundred
> dollars and ending up with a poorer quality picture is NOT what I'm after.
>
> Until a few minutes ago I was going to get this camera with the Canon EF-S
> 17-85 IS USM lens, when it suddenly popped into my head that *maybe* I could
> get a better lens for the same money or an equivalent one for less. Since I
> believe personal experience is worth its weight in gold I decided to ask in
> this NG.
>
> I will be spending Canadian dollars, and I am going to buy this locally
> which limits my choices, but such is life. I'm looking at the following
> costs.
>
> 20D body with 17-85 lens is $2479.00
> 20D body-only is $1799.00
> So this lens is costing me $680.00
>
> I have the following available...the pages list models and prices
>
> Tamron
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/tamron.htm
>
> Sigma
> http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/sigma.htm
>
> Recommendations and/or other insight greatly appreciated
>
> WW
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:38:33 PM

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

My recommendation:
Buy the 20D body alone, and the Canon EF 17-40L.
An incredibly sharp lens.
--
© Johnny Slothman
-Slowest Contractor in the East...
If you need it done 10 years from now, call Johnny
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:39:34 PM

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

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:2pBde.1198746$8l.670850@pd7tw1no...
> Two answers later (thanks Skip and Paul) and I have learned a couple of
> things, and have a few more angles to consider as far as what I want this
> 'general purpose' lens to do. I'm also getting my initial opinion
> confirmed...that a Canon lens is likely the way to go...though perhaps a
> slightly different model...hmmmm...
>
> Build quality is very important.
>
> I take photos of whatever strikes my fancy, with one overall exception, I
> could care less about action shots (ie: sporting events). I photograph
> scenery, flora and fauna, buildings, ships, machinery, cars, people,
> insects...if it strikes my fancy I take a shot of it. I am not looking for
> the 'perfect lens' for all occasions (I know this doesn't exist), and I
> know I will be buying at least one more lens in the not too distant
> future...a macro is definitely on my list, for example. Basically, for my
> first *ever* quality lens (and I'm 55 yrs old...so I've certainly put this
> off for long enough)..I'm looking for a jack of all trades, or as close as
> I can get to it. I am pretty certain the 17-85 Canon fits my needs...I
> just want to make sure (based on the experience of others) that I am not
> overlooking a 'gem', either from another maker, or from Canon.
>
> WW


From a jack-of-all-trades point of view, if you're still open to
suggestions, I think you would be very happy with the Canon 17-85 ( I have
this lens), coupled with Canon's 28-135 (I have this lens too). Both are IS
lenses and together they will provide an approximate range of 27 ~ 136mm and
45~216mm respectivly when used with the 20D camera (I have this camera).
With just these two lenses, I would guess that some 90% + of your lens needs
would be satisfied. So long as we're thinking in terms of generality. If you
decide to go wider, consider Tokina's 12~24 (19~38mm) new lens.

nick

>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:39:18 AM

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

"Nick C" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4tadnc6qZc630uTfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

>
> From a jack-of-all-trades point of view, if you're still open to
> suggestions, I think you would be very happy with the Canon 17-85 ( I have
> this lens), coupled with Canon's 28-135 (I have this lens too). Both are
> IS lenses and together they will provide an approximate range of 27 ~
> 136mm and 45~216mm respectivly when used with the 20D camera (I have this
> camera). With just these two lenses, I would guess that some 90% + of your
> lens needs would be satisfied. So long as we're thinking in terms of
> generality. If you decide to go wider, consider Tokina's 12~24 (19~38mm)
> new lens.

I have decided to go with the 17-85 for this stage of my 'new camera
adventure'. Thanks again to all who commented. I learned some stuff...my
horizons are broadened, and I will be keeping these comments in mind when I
purchase additonal lenses.

WW
!