Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

-What is wrong with the EF-S 17-85 kit lens??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 9:02:03 PM

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

why would this not make a good walking around lens??
or for many other purposes???

thanks
chas



....

More about : wrong kit lens

Anonymous
September 11, 2005 10:21:51 PM

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

Is it better than the 18-55? In more than just focal length I mean.

T.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 10:25:49 PM

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

<tlai909@visto.com> wrote in message
news:1126488111.105888.327140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is it better than the 18-55? In more than just focal length I mean.
>
> T.
>
Much better. As it should be, as it's about 5.5x the price. Better optical
quality, better build quality, and of course, there's IS...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 4:57:57 AM

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

On 9/11/05 5:02 PM, in article 28a9i1hgk5c3mt0fu5r6gfkkj6vk144bqf@4ax.com,
"chasm@texas.net" <chasm@texas.net> wrote:

> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> or for many other purposes???
>
> thanks
> chas
>
>
>
> ...
There is nothing 'wrong' with the EF-S 17-85 kit lens. Potential draw backs
are that it is not "L" quality glass and it will not work on a full frame
DSLR if you plan on acquiring one of those in the future. Other than that
it is a very good everyday walking around lens.
Chuck
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:36:20 PM

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

chasm@texas.net wrote:
>
> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> or for many other purposes???
>
> thanks
> chas
>
> ...

There's nothing wrong with that lens, for walking around or whatever.
With appropriate sharpening on the image in PS - as all digital images
from dslrs require - it is a tack-sharp lens.

Colin D.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:36:21 PM

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

> There's nothing wrong with that lens, for walking around or whatever.
> With appropriate sharpening on the image in PS - as all digital images
> from dslrs require - it is a tack-sharp lens.
>
> Colin D.

Colin: I know everybody says this (that all dslr images require sharpening)
but, in truth, I haven't found that to be the case on my 350XT/17-85IS
combo. At least not in all cases; some images definitely benefit, but most
of those are images where I was slightly off-focus or there was a bit of
camera shake that needed to be dealt with. And yes, I've got my camera set
to "zero" sharpening which, I think (and could be wrong) actually means zero
sharpening (unlike most point & shoots I've owned, where "zero" is simply a
nominal, relatively benign amount, and to actually eliminate sharpening one
needs to go to a negative number).

What impresses me most going from an Olympus 5050 to the dRebel 350XT is the
way I can keep enlarging a section (pixel-peeping, I believe it's called?)
without seeing the image go to pieces. No artifacts, no slight aberrations
in areas of constant color & intensity.

Of course, the downside is that the camera/lens is so much better at
resolving the image that it exposes self-inflicted problem a lot more
clearly, especially focus and camera-shake issues. And by camera-shake, I
don't mean anything that's the camera's fault.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:51:29 AM

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

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > There's nothing wrong with that lens, for walking around or whatever.
> > With appropriate sharpening on the image in PS - as all digital images
> > from dslrs require - it is a tack-sharp lens.
> >
> > Colin D.
>
> Colin: I know everybody says this (that all dslr images require sharpening)
> but, in truth, I haven't found that to be the case on my 350XT/17-85IS
> combo. At least not in all cases; some images definitely benefit, but most
> of those are images where I was slightly off-focus or there was a bit of
> camera shake that needed to be dealt with. And yes, I've got my camera set
> to "zero" sharpening which, I think (and could be wrong) actually means zero
> sharpening (unlike most point & shoots I've owned, where "zero" is simply a
> nominal, relatively benign amount, and to actually eliminate sharpening one
> needs to go to a negative number).

Ok, Mike. I almost exclusively shoot RAW on my 300D, which definitely
does not sharpen in camera. The images are pretty good, as you say, but
a Canon rep recommended sharpening in Photoshop Unsharp mask at 300% and
0.3 pixels, threshold 0. I find that these settings make the definition
practically leap off the paper at any print size bigger than about 8x10.
>
> What impresses me most going from an Olympus 5050 to the dRebel 350XT is the
> way I can keep enlarging a section (pixel-peeping, I believe it's called?)
> without seeing the image go to pieces. No artifacts, no slight aberrations
> in areas of constant color & intensity.
>
> Of course, the downside is that the camera/lens is so much better at
> resolving the image that it exposes self-inflicted problem a lot more
> clearly, especially focus and camera-shake issues. And by camera-shake, I
> don't mean anything that's the camera's fault.

If you are using the IS on the lens, I'm a bit surprised about you
getting shake in your shots. I have hand-held shots at 1/5 sec at 85mm
with no shake visible. Do you have a problem with steadiness?

Colin D.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:51:30 AM

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

>> Colin: I know everybody says this (that all dslr images require
>> sharpening)
>> but, in truth, I haven't found that to be the case on my 350XT/17-85IS
>> combo. At least not in all cases; some images definitely benefit, but
>> most
>> of those are images where I was slightly off-focus or there was a bit of
>> camera shake that needed to be dealt with. And yes, I've got my camera
>> set
>> to "zero" sharpening which, I think (and could be wrong) actually means
>> zero
>> sharpening (unlike most point & shoots I've owned, where "zero" is simply
>> a
>> nominal, relatively benign amount, and to actually eliminate sharpening
>> one
>> needs to go to a negative number).
>
> Ok, Mike. I almost exclusively shoot RAW on my 300D, which definitely
> does not sharpen in camera. The images are pretty good, as you say, but
> a Canon rep recommended sharpening in Photoshop Unsharp mask at 300% and
> 0.3 pixels, threshold 0. I find that these settings make the definition
> practically leap off the paper at any print size bigger than about 8x10.

My brother's 300D definitely benefits a bit more from sharpening (pretty
much your exact technique, which I believe he picked up on FredMiranda.com)
than anything I've taken. Overall I'm going through a "phase" where I'm
preferring the look & texture of unsharpened images, which is probably, I'll
admit, reactionary after having used P&S cameras for so long.

>> Of course, the downside is that the camera/lens is so much better at
>> resolving the image that it exposes self-inflicted problem a lot more
>> clearly, especially focus and camera-shake issues. And by camera-shake, I
>> don't mean anything that's the camera's fault.
>
> If you are using the IS on the lens, I'm a bit surprised about you
> getting shake in your shots. I have hand-held shots at 1/5 sec at 85mm
> with no shake visible. Do you have a problem with steadiness?

The only time it happens is due to user-error, typically if I'm in Aperture
mode, forgot about it, have the ISO low (also forgotten about from the
previous shot), and end up with something unexpected because I was taken
something quick & dirty. I can't get to 1/5 at 85mm, but I've gotten down to
1/15 and been quite surprised. I've also got to get used to the 70-200 F4
which doesn't have IS.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:51:59 AM

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

tlai909@visto.com wrote:
>
> Is it better than the 18-55? In more than just focal length I mean.
>
> T.

yes.

Colin D.
September 13, 2005 7:33:19 PM

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

In article <4324B164.AD1239D0@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1 says...
>
>
> chasm@texas.net wrote:
> >
> > why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> > or for many other purposes???
> >
> > thanks
> > chas
> >
> > ...
>
> There's nothing wrong with that lens, for walking around or whatever.
> With appropriate sharpening on the image in PS - as all digital images
> from dslrs require - it is a tack-sharp lens.

Speak for yourself. I very seldom have to sharpen anything using my D70
and 18-70mm DX.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:26:04 AM

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

>> There's nothing wrong with that lens, for walking around or whatever.
>> With appropriate sharpening on the image in PS - as all digital images
>> from dslrs require - it is a tack-sharp lens.
>
> Speak for yourself. I very seldom have to sharpen anything using my D70
> and 18-70mm DX.

With higher-quality cameras, I suspect that sharpening is entirely a matter
of personal taste. Those of us making the leap from P&S cameras probably fit
into two different categories in that regard. Some of us want to see
something that's like what we had before, only better (a higher-resolution,
but still "edgy" image), while others are willing to embrace the differences
and recognize that an "edgy" image doesn't actually offer better resolution,
and the lack of processing (of an unsharpened, less-contrasty image)
provides a more-realistic photo.

During my earlier incarnation as a point-and-shootist, I was always looking
for "edgy" detail. But now, after a short while with the 350XT, I'm a new
man! Clean, unadulterated images rock.

For someone really wondering about what goes on in a P&S camera, check out
the jpeg file sizes. The dRebel350, at 8 megapixels and highest-quality
(aside from raw) file settings produces images between 3 & 3.5 megabytes
with astounding detail & clarity. The typical P&S of 5-6 megapixels delivers
files sizes as large, or larger. Why? Because in-camera sharpening has added
complexity that didn't exist in the original.

I have to admit I was initially surprised at how small the file sizes were
for high-quality jpegs on the 350XT, and assumed that it would be quite a
trade-off in quality from raw, but it certainly delivers the goods.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d910198cc87a208989713@news.mweb.co.za...
> In article <4324B164.AD1239D0@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1 says...
>>
>>
>> chasm@texas.net wrote:
>> >
>> > why would this not make a good walking around lens??
>> > or for many other purposes???
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > chas
>> >
>> > ...
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with that lens, for walking around or whatever.
>> With appropriate sharpening on the image in PS - as all digital images
>> from dslrs require - it is a tack-sharp lens.
>
> Speak for yourself. I very seldom have to sharpen anything using my D70
> and 18-70mm DX.
>
> --
> Look. See. Click. Share.
> www.leica.co.za
> www.dallasdahms.com
January 31, 2006 5:30:30 AM

Being able to handhold and get a single good 1/5second exposure out of several is not an indication that handholding is sufficient for 1/5 second.
!