DSLRUsers.com

Hi
My brother just got a brandnew 20D with the kit lens EFS 18-55, he seem to very happy with it, but I would like to know how good ( image quality) of this lens compare to Nikon kit lens ( AFS 18-70), and any one can suggest a reasonable ( price ) good walk around lens for the 20D.
Any input appriciated.

Edit : this camera is way faster than my F80 base S2 pro.
Thanks
Spada

spada wrote:Hi
My brother just got a brandnew 20D with the kit lens EFS 18-55, he seem to very happy with it, but I would like to know how good ( image quality) of this lens compare to Nikon kit lens ( AFS 18-70), and any one can suggest a reasonable ( price ) good walk around lens for the 20D.
Any input appriciated.

Thanks
Spada

Why don't you ask him join here to discuss his need? we welcome all Canon users and have special section for them as "Canon Coral"

For get about your S2 Pro, it's slipping into the history by now.

Hi Birddog
He is going back to VN next week after 4 weeks holliday in Sydney, Melbourne, I told him about this forum so it is up to him when he back to VN.


Regards

Spada

spada wrote:Hi Birddog
He is going back to VN next week after 4 weeks holliday in Sydney, Melbourne, I told him about this forum so it is up to him when he back to VN.


Regards

Spada

Did you try to loan him some of your Nikon legend glasses to put on his 20D? he'll surprise with the outcome.

I posted some shots from the Canon 350d kit lens here for comparison, thinking they wouldn't be as good as those from the Nikon kit lens. But then I was strongly corrected by one of the professional photographers on this site for my assumption.

He suggested to me that the image quality is a function of more than the lens quality and that the different sensors and processing between Canon and Nikon could make a big difference in the picture quality.

He also suggested that stopping the lens down to f9 or so would make a dramatic difference, which it does. I've been shooting with the kit lens extensively, since then.

It's certainly not as good as my 20mm and 85mm primes.

It's fondly believed around here that Nikon is far better in every category. And the rest of us are tolerant of that. But it's a belief (like a religion), and it may not be borne out by science in every case. That is not to say that Nikonism equals Creationism in its blind denial of science.

I pointed out in another thread that one of the most respected Nikon lens analysts says that not all their lenses are quality checked. Indeed at least one Nikon lens is exactly the same as a Tamron lens, which are generally looked down on around here.

In Animal Farm, George Orwell has the pigs declare "Four legs good, two legs bad". It's never that simple, though is it?

Of course there's a see-sawing in who has the advantage at any given moment between Canon and Nikon. At the moment Canon is on top with the newly released dslrs. But Nikon will come back, of course.

Black and white is an honoured tradition in photography. But it's not an appropriate way to look at modern photographic equipment.

I’m with you Bob,

My last car was a Mercedes SLK230 and people would say one of two things to me (sometimes both) - you have too much money and/or you are a snob!

The simple fact was that I enjoyed driving the car - period!!

To me it does not matter whether you have a Canon or Nikon, Tamron, Nikkor, Canon or Sigma glass or even a cardboard box with a pinhole in it - the equipment will never determine the quality of the person but, it is the persons eye and finger that will determine the pic IMO

Well that's right Chris,

but as a rider you also well know that there's a certain professional level of equipment that you need for your work, too.

TEF Hughes QC who towered over the NSW bar for decades and commands fees of many thousands a day was once, the legend goes, asked in court what sort of a car he had.

He paused perplexed for a moment and answered: a brown one.

Hi
I totally agree with Bob and Chis, the quality is a function of the equipment ( lens ,cameras..) and the person who press the shutter release, however the better equipment the easier for the person behind it, I really don't worry about Nikon or Canon, they all have the same purpose, to take picture, I bought S2 ( nikon base), my Bros bought Canon, I only told him that if you like Canon then go for it but he is a newbie like me, so I try to get him a easier lens to go with until he get some experience then he will buy his own.
Thank for share some opinions in this post.

Regards
Spada

Just MHO.

The 18-55 is rubbish. I took about 20 photos with mine and its sits in the cupboard.

Maybe if you stop it down and hold your tongue the right way and ensure the moon is behind you, it might give acceptable results. But I just didn't have the time to persevere. I really don't like it much and shame on Canon for giving away such rubbish (though maybe that's why they give it away ...).

I have the 17-40 F4L which is a great lens. A little slow at F4, but a little cheaper than the 16-35 2.8! It is L quality and I got mine for $1350 AUD.

Anyway, just my opinion; but the 17-40 compared with the 18-55 is like night and day.

DionM wrote:Just MHO.

The 18-55 is rubbish. I took about 20 photos with mine and its sits in the cupboard.

Maybe if you stop it down and hold your tongue the right way and ensure the moon is behind you, it might give acceptable results. But I just didn't have the time to persevere. I really don't like it much and shame on Canon for giving away such rubbish (though maybe that's why they give it away ...).

I have the 17-40 F4L which is a great lens. A little slow at F4, but a little cheaper than the 16-35 2.8! It is L quality and I got mine for $1350 AUD.

Anyway, just my opinion; but the 17-40 compared with the 18-55 is like night and day.

Yes.

And so are the prices: you're comparing a $100 lens with a $1500 lens; are you surprised that there's going to be some difference between the two of them?

The 18-55 is generally regarded as a very cheap entry level lens. Like the Nikkor 70-300G.

And like the Nikkor 70-300G, I've seen some very good results from the 18-55.

Given that it's generally agreeed that the problem (in poorer images) generally results from issues beyond the equipment's quality, and that, clearly, good quality images are capable of being produced from the 18-55, perhaps you could take a few moments to rescue yours from its current resting place and learn how to use it properly?

Certainly, you won't get the same results that you do from the 17-40, but you just might be surprised.

Photographic QUALITY is not something that any amount of money can buy and it certainly doesn't come in a box. Cost has little to do with it either. Take your 17-40 which earns far greater applause than the 16-35 which is double the price, for example. A colleague who is a regular contributor to a number of Aussie photo rags uses the Canon kit lens (both version I and version II) and gets stunning results. But irrespective of kit and specs Photographic QUALITY is something that is hard won and must be fought for every inch of the way.

Would I buy a kit lens? No. It is made to fulfill a need far different from mine and truth be known I would not find great joy in most zooms. In digital capture there is far more going on than just optical quality in the presentation of a seemingly sharp picture. Now, more than ever, if it is about both kit AND ability.

gstark wrote:Yes.

And so are the prices: you're comparing a $100 lens with a $1500 lens; are you surprised that there's going to be some difference between the two of them?

The 18-55 is generally regarded as a very cheap entry level lens. Like the Nikkor 70-300G.

And like the Nikkor 70-300G, I've seen some very good results from the 18-55.

Given that it's generally agreeed that the problem (in poorer images) generally results from issues beyond the equipment's quality, and that, clearly, good quality images are capable of being produced from the 18-55, perhaps you could take a few moments to rescue yours from its current resting place and learn how to use it properly?

Certainly, you won't get the same results that you do from the 17-40, but you just might be surprised.

Hrm. "Use it properly". I think I eluded to that in my post - stop it down. Then it gets marginally better.

Oh, and I thought I prefixed my post with MHO - My Humble Opinion. That's fine if you don't agree - I was just posting my opinion on it. Maybe I also got a bad sample, who knows. What I do know is that my experience in shooting film and digital identified that to me, the 18-55 is a lens that leaves a lot to be desired.

Perhaps if you are used to the medocrity of Canons old kit lenses - 28-80 and 75-300, you probably won't notice the difference. But I ditched those lenses long ago in my film kit; as I could see differences on prints.

I also posted my suggestion of a decent walk around lens which, surprisingly, is what I use as a walk around lens - the 17-40 F4L. When I did my evaluation to replace the 18-55, it was the only choice really. The 20-35 USM while adequate, is just not wide enough for a 1.6x crop camera. And like the 18-55, I decided against the 17-85 EF-S as I am against EF-S lenses as a long term investment given 1.6x sensors may not be around forever (as shown by Canon's affordable 5D full-frame camera).

That really left the 17-40 F4L as the next logical step.

Lastly, you comment on cost. To me it would seem ridiculous to buy a $2500 body with class leading sensor size and image quality, and then stick a $100 lens on it, don't you think?

Sheetshooter wrote:Photographic QUALITY is not something that any amount of money can buy and it certainly doesn't come in a box. Cost has little to do with it either. Take your 17-40 which earns far greater applause than the 16-35 which is double the price, for example. A colleague who is a regular contributor to a number of Aussie photo rags uses the Canon kit lens (both version I and version II) and gets stunning results. But irrespective of kit and specs Photographic QUALITY is something that is hard won and must be fought for every inch of the way.

Would I buy a kit lens? No. It is made to fulfill a need far different from mine and truth be known I would not find great joy in most zooms. In digital capture there is far more going on than just optical quality in the presentation of a seemingly sharp picture. Now, more than ever, if it is about both kit AND ability.

This is true. I found the 18-55 not delivering what I wanted. The 17-40 delivers it in spades. True, it is a little slower than I want, but I am looking at a fast wide prime to fill that hole.

There is nothing worse than taking a well composed, yet blurry, dull photograph. This is where the kit lens let me down and thus it got replaced.

Maybe one day I will drag it out of the cupboard, but I don't see the point. I have a great lens that covers the same focal length. Why would I use the cheaper lens?

Dion,

For those of us in quest of something better there IS one very good use for the kit lens:

Keep it in a box to make selling the camera at upgrade time a more attractive proposition!!

I would also like to recruit your advice regarding the 17-40 zoom. IF in my pending purchase of a DSLR I should choose to go with Canon then it would be the EOS1DS MkII and the 17-40 is certainly an attractive proposition for the other BIG IFF of IF I opt for zooms along with primes: How does it perform on 36x24 capture (film or digital)? A significant decider in going for the Canon system (along with 36x24 capture) would be the 24mm T/S (I shoot architecture and the buitl environment a hell of a lot) I also do other stuff though and the 17-40 seems it could be an ideal wide-all-purpose solution to reportage.

Cheers,

Maybe the kit lens dissatisfaction is a Canon thing, Most if not all 18-70 owners seem very happy with their kit lens.

Mine does no longer get used cause I got the 24-120Vr and I like the extra length.

But I agree with gstark, that you have to compare apples with apples.

I also think that the kit lenses of the 350d/d50/d70s are not targeted at serious photographers/serious amature more to drag people into the Dslr at an affordable price point.


my 2cents if it makes cents.

MATT

I've never used my kit lens as I have better glass, but I have seen some great photos from it. If you don't zoom in to 100% on the original image most people probably wouldn't notice too much difference.

DionM wrote:Hrm. "Use it properly". I think I eluded to that in my post - stop it down. Then it gets marginally better.

That would be "alluded", but stopping it down is only a part of the equation.

Oh, and I thought I prefixed my post with MHO - My Humble Opinion. That's fine if you don't agree

Yep. Check who I am on this system ... I should know that it's fine if I don't agree with you, considering that's one of the rules that I have set here.

- I was just posting my opinion on it.

As I was mine.

Maybe I also got a bad sample, who knows.

While that is certainly a valid possibility, let's do the math: by your own admission, you've shot maybe 20 frames with the lens. With all due respect, and considering all of the variables that go into carrying out a satisfactory lens test regime, and thus learning the characteristics of any particular piece of equipment, 20 frames is hardly exhaustive.

In this instance, even "scratching the surface" seems a bit on the generous side, IMHO.

I also posted my suggestion of a decent walk around lens which, surprisingly, is what I use as a walk around lens - the 17-40 F4L. When I did my evaluation to replace the 18-55, it was the only choice really. The 20-35 USM while adequate, is just not wide enough for a 1.6x crop camera.

In your opinion, and for your needs.

My walkaround is the Nikkor 24-120VR, and I rarely miss the wider end of the spectrum. I am actually quite surprised at this outcome, because I fully expected to miss the 18mm quite a bit. In the 12 months or so that I switched, I've noticed this absence a grand total of once!

And like the 18-55, I decided against the 17-85 EF-S as I am against EF-S lenses as a long term investment given 1.6x sensors may not be around forever (as shown by Canon's affordable 5D full-frame camera).

Affordable ????

ROTFLMAO!

Ok, compared with its big brother, yes, it's less unaffordable, but this is still not going to be the replacement for the 20D, as good a camera as the specs suggest it will be.

And the 1.6 sensors will be around for a lot longer than I expect you may be inferring.

Lastly, you comment on cost. To me it would seem ridiculous to buy a $2500 body with class leading sensor size and image quality, and then stick a $100 lens on it, don't you think?

Don't tell me that; tell that to the dickheads who actually, and actively, try and sell that sort of rubbish! I agree that it's a total mismatch. The problem is that most salespeople are motivated by the fact that they need to make a sale in order to eat, and that tends to, in many cases, enable most so-called salespeople to seem to have undergone an ethicsectomy.

I'm sure that there's still a couple around who will listen to what your needs are and recommend solutions targetted to your needs, but in terms of Canon gear, I can think of only one such person in Sydney, and I suspect he might not be totally competetive on price, which is how most people today seem to want to make their buying decisions.

Not to appear contradictory, but I find that in Sydney the very best Canon prices on Pro level gear, backed up by a great depth and breadth of advice is Baltronics at Artarmon. If I skip my way aloing the Canon path that will be my source of choice. If I go Nikon then I shall split the deal out of fairness between ECS and Vanbar (not that that point is terribly relevant to the kit lens discussion.)

Cheers,

Sheetshooter wrote:Not to appear contradictory, but I find that in Sydney the very best Canon prices on Pro level gear, backed up by a great depth and breadth of advice is Baltronics at Artarmon. If I skip my way aloing the Canon path that will be my source of choice. If I go Nikon then I shall split the deal out of fairness between ECS and Vanbar (not that that point is terribly relevant to the kit lens discussion.)

Cheers,

Baltronics was certainly the supplier I had in mind wrt Canon gear.

While Vanbar are good, and I've not had any personal experience with ECS (but all recommendations suggest they too will be fine) don't overlook our own resources for purchasing Nikon, either.

I will respect that you may have established relationships at Vanbar and ECS, and those pre-existing relationships are important to maintain.

Sheetshooter

I would also like to recruit your advice regarding the 17-40 zoom.

Have you seen landscape sample from 5D on Canon website? This was done with 17-40.

Well from my short experience with this lens, I share the same opinion with many other users more in depth, this lens is 'poor man' L lens. Simply, it is not that great and it seems that it does not good job on digital. The latest samples from 5D shows that again.

I am not a great expert in Canon gear, but my advice, if you really consider this lens, dig the internet in search of honest opinions or the best check it by yourself before purchase.

Regards,

K.Polak

Kristian,

I had a nose about on the Canon Australia website but found no images. I'm dumb, I know. Could you please post the link to the shot - I'd be curious to see the sample you mention?

Cheers,

Here is link from a mirror, sample in original size, should download faster:

http://cyfrowa.info/5d/landscape.jpg

Regards,

K.Polak

Sheetshooter wrote:Kristian,

I had a nose about on the Canon Australia website but found no images. I'm dumb, I know. Could you please post the link to the shot - I'd be curious to see the sample you mention?

Always canon.jp first.

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html

gstark wrote:

DionM wrote:Hrm. "Use it properly". I think I eluded to that in my post - stop it down. Then it gets marginally better.

That would be "alluded", but stopping it down is only a part of the equation.

Not sure if I should put this in this thread, or else if I should start up a new thread.

The question I have is what sorts of things CAN you do to 'improve' pictures out of a poorer lens. Stopping down is obviously one part of it, but what other techniques can you use? Im presuming most of them are compositional, such as choosing contrasty backgrounds etc??

Id imagine that these techniques would typically work on the better lenses to produce even more stunning pics as well, so would be worth learning?

Rob.

Thanks ever so much for the links. That landscape is an absolute shocker in every respect right from choice of subject to optical performance.

My next question is (if it is not too far off track):

Is there a similar samples page from Nikon (and don't tell me the stuff posted here, I mean a glimpse into the mind of the folk who make this stuff.)

Must admit big film takes a hell of a lot of beating and I could let myself get angry if I wanted to about having to expand my tool box.

robboh

...what sorts of things CAN you do to 'improve' pictures out of a poorer lens. Stopping down is obviously one part of it

Stopping down a lens, in term of quality, is a bit tricky. With cheap lens you stop it down to go over manufacturer cuts so you can achieve the pick performence of a lens - sweet point. But there is a catch - lens resolution. More stopped down the less resolution from a lens. I dont remember source link, but as far as I remember f8 results in 50 or even 30 lpp, which is not very impresive result. You can open a lens wider, but then cheap kit lens by definition doesnt work that well giving propably even wors resolution. That is the problem with kit lenses.

Also mind that using smaller appertures makes DOF wider. So it is limited as a creative tool.

Personally I recon - yes you can use kit lens for taking good images, but...it is not right tool. It is designed (usualy, with some exception) as a item allowing your body to be able to take an image at all and sell camera. However having kit lens, you can always practise other aspects of good photography: composition, creative lighting, finally story. Just....it is a shame later, when you catch a great shot and find that could be better to have it not that blurred

Regards,

K.Polak

Sheetshooter,

Try to check this link for D2X

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/d2x

Going back to Canon samples, well I dont think that it was right choice to using 17-40 for samples in terms of quality. Other lenses, ie wide primes could perform much better.

Again, I am not an expert in Canon gear, but what I hear from Canon guys is that this company doesnt care too much about wide angle lenses, which I assume would be your main concern. They go rather into normal and telephoto. And above that the main flow are bodies. This is where most R&D goes. Maybe somebody more familar with the subject can confirm or deny that statement.

Regards,

K.Polak

robboh wrote:The question I have is what sorts of things CAN you do to 'improve' pictures out of a poorer lens. Stopping down is obviously one part of it, but what other techniques can you use? Im presuming most of them are compositional, such as choosing contrasty backgrounds etc??

While the conventional wisdom is that most lenses perform best a stop or two dwon from maximum, there is really no substitute for doing your own research, using your own equipment, and coming up with a baseline platform that works for you.

Probably the first thing you need to do is to have a good play with the lens, and learn about its characteristics. How does it shoot, at (a) various focal lengths, and (b) various apertures?

You need to really combine these factors over a variety of sample images and lighting conditions in order to properly determine what a lens is capable of doing - shoot some images at, say, 18mm using a related range of aperture and shutter speed settings. Exercise the full range of apertures available. Do the same at 24mm. 35mm. 50mm. 55mm.

Use your EXIF data to help you recall what you've been doing, and critically examine the images to see what works, and what doesn't. Commit both extremes to memory.

Repeat this exercise on a variety of subjects, with a variety of lighting, contrast and wb conditions.

Camera technique is vitally important too: correct exposure helps to minimise distractions (such as noise) from within the image. Holding the camera correctly, and/or shooting from a solid, fixed perch (such as a quality tripod) all help you to get the best of the equipment that you're using.

While the basic rule regarding relationship between your shutter speed and the reciprocal of your focal length holds true, for the purposes of this exercise, it would probably pay you to be a little more conservative than might otherwise be the case.

Clearly, with a lens like an 18-55, or an 18-70, simply shooting 20 frames and throwing your hands up in disgust, declaring the lens as "rubbish", is simply not going to do the lens justice.

Id imagine that these techniques would typically work on the better lenses to produce even more stunning pics as well, so would be worth learning?

Yes, I'd have to agree, but it's actually very easily summed up: the more you know about (and understand) the usage and limitations of your equipment, the more effectively you'll be able to make better use of it, and to work around those limitations, to produce better images.

The bottom line is that by using correct techniques, the photographer can extract stunning images from equipment that others might never consider to be acceptable. And I see examples of this, on this forum, almost daily.

krpolak wrote:Stopping down a lens, in term of quality, is a bit tricky. With cheap lens you stop it down to go over manufacturer cuts so you can achieve the pick performence of a lens - sweet point. But there is a catch - lens resolution. More stopped down the less resolution from a lens.

Generalisations, as a whole, should be treated with a grain of caution.

Certainly, your last statement here, as quoted and unqualified, is without foundation.

The general rule is that most lenses perform best stopped down one or two stops from wide open. Some perform even better when further stopped down, while others do not.

And there is more to lens performance than simply its resolution, which is, of course an important characteristic. But so too is colour rendition, as is contrast.

What about maximum speed - of aperture? And of AF, if appropriate?

Weight? Size??? Build quality?????

All of these factors, and a whole lot more, combine to make up each lens, and each lens will be different.

And the only way that you can really start to use a lens to its best advantage is to stick it on the pointy end of your camera ans start using it to make photos.

Anything else is just bullshit!

I dont remember source link, but as far as I remember f8 results in 50 or even 30 lpp,

For which particular lens?

Personally I recon - yes you can use kit lens for taking good images, but...it is not right tool.

I respectfully suggest that you go back and have a good look at many of the very fine images on this site that have been made with a kit lens of one type or another.

It is simply not the tool that matters; it's the person making the image!

gstark

Certainly, your last statement here, as quoted and unqualified, is without foundation

Well, I am presty sure what I am talking about

And there is more to lens performance than simply its resolution...
All of these factors, and a whole lot more, combine to make up each lens, and each lens will be different

That is true. And this is what I wrote under stopping down quote. It realated only to this issue to whole lens performance.

And the only way that you can really start to use a lens to its best advantage is to stick it on the pointy end of your camera ans start using it to make photos

Which I indeecated ant the end of my post.

Quote:
I dont remember source link, but as far as I remember f8 results in 50 or even 30 lpp,

For which particular lens?

Theoreticial MAXIMUM resolusion, which means that real lens can only equal AT BEST. I can provide recources when come back home, I dont have them here.

It is simply not the tool that matters; it's the person making the image!

I am far away to deny this statement. I think you overinterpreted my previous post. Please, read it again. I really hate when people overdo that I say.

However, I will tell you something - when I do painting I go for the best paints and paper I can afford. Could I do eqaully good painting with cheaper ones? Sure I could, finally it is my hand what drives a brush. So, why I choose more expensice? Because I dont want to find after few years that these paintings are gone in its fines due to pigment fading and acid in paper. And I stated that in the last sentcence of my previous post regarding to photography. Please, read it again.

Regards,

K.Polak

krpolak wrote:

gstark

Certainly, your last statement here, as quoted and unqualified, is without foundation

Well, I am presty sure what I am talking about

Fine.

The statement was unqualified, and presented without evidence. I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have to support that one statement.

It is simply not the tool that matters; it's the person making the image!

I am far away to deny this statement. I think you overinterpreted my previous post. Please, read it again. I really hate when people overdo that I say.

My only response to this is the same one I give to my son from time to time: take care in what you are writing, and read and reread it before you press the "submit" button.

These are your words, and we can only read them as you have written them: if we read more into them than you intended, surely that is because you haven't been selective enough in your choice of words in the first instance?

And yes, I am and have been making allowances for the fact that English isn't your native tongue.

Damnit.
Why did I have to be brought into this.

gstark

The statement was unqualified, and presented without evidence.

I hope I dont have to bring evidence to every statement I make. Otherwise I should write a book and sell it

I made an affort to find it again. Hope my boss will understand Here it comes some resources about lens resolution:


1. Regarding to my polish language resources, which I recon does not make sens to bring here calculation based on Rayleigha edge and Kühlera contrast theory, for wave lenght 555 nm maximum, theoretical resolutions are:

f D
1,4 550 lp/mm
2.0 385 lp/mm
2.8 263 lp/mm
4,0 185 lp/mm
5.6 135 lp/mm
8.0 94 lp/mm
11.0 69 lp/mm
16.0 42 lp/mm
22.0 31 lp/mm

I was wrong previously providing value 50 (30) lpmm (but mentiond 'as far as remember' leaving space you guys to check). However mind that these are maximum theoretical values. Regarding to autor cheap zoom lenses doesnt go over 40 lpmm. Regarding to Rayleigh and Kühlera, please find english resources by yourself.

More resources in english about lens resolution you can find here:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html


2. Next lens degradation comes from poore auto focus and focusing quality really depends on body/lens you have, doesnt it? This site (english) explains in depth why. In short, due to AF you can loose up to next 50% of your resolution.

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/af.html

3. Not even mention wrong camera handling technique, which has further impact.


That is all I can provide now. Sure is enough to take a deep dive.



So........ and the and of day, where do we finish with our cheap kit lens?

Please mind, that I dont touch at all artistic aspects of photography. All my post as simply related to very technical aspect of lens resolution.

My only response to this is the same one I give to my son from time to time: take care in what you are writing, and read and reread it before you press the "submit" button.

With whole respect - and vice versa. I recon my previous post was pretty clear.


Regards,

K.Polak

Thanks for the interesting insights into the various lenses and their qualities/failings. i always enjoy reading the varied opinions that the members of this site have and the depth of knowledge that people are willing to share. With respect to all, I try to remove any emotion when reading the posts and try very hard to critically read what has been written. The debates are a fantastic learning tool but it serves no purpose to bring any negative attention to the poster. In my own humble experience, you are able to take good photographs with most lenses. I have used the kit lens extensively and given the price (free, came with the camera), I have been very happy with it. Would I buy one, nope but then again I am in a situation where I am prepared to spend a little more as I see all of this as a long term investment. Can I really see the differences between the various lenses that I use? Well yes on the A4 prints, on my web uploads - not really. Am I a professional photographer having to earn a living from my work, no but I do appreciate quality and as the funds become available, I try to purchase the best performing lens that I can. Whilst I wait for the funds to come in, then I will continue to happily use the lenses that I have and keep producing the work that I am proud of... Lets remind ourselves of the fun and pleasure we gain from taking the photographs and not get too caught up in the equipment ...what works for you is good for you..

Big V

And that is perfect sum up about kit lenses

Regards,

K.Polak

Sheetshooter wrote:I would also like to recruit your advice regarding the 17-40 zoom. IF in my pending purchase of a DSLR I should choose to go with Canon then it would be the EOS1DS MkII and the 17-40 is certainly an attractive proposition for the other BIG IFF of IF I opt for zooms along with primes: How does it perform on 36x24 capture (film or digital)? A significant decider in going for the Canon system (along with 36x24 capture) would be the 24mm T/S (I shoot architecture and the buitl environment a hell of a lot) I also do other stuff though and the 17-40 seems it could be an ideal wide-all-purpose solution to reportage.

99% of the time I really like my 17-40 F4L. Its biggest drawback is that it is F4. But that's fine, as my system is getting built around a couple of useful zooms (which I have, the 17-40 F4L and the 70-200 F2. and then building up quality, fast primes around that.

I have not tried my 17-40 on my film body so cannot comment on that. I daresay it will not be as bad as my old 28-105 at the edges, if that's what you are wondering.

If you are doing archi and built environment nothing replaces a T/S lens though. I use mine for some archi and it is not as bad in curvature as my old Tokina 19-35 from my film days, but it does introduce some distortion.

DionM wrote:

Sheetshooter wrote:I would also like to recruit your advice regarding the 17-40 zoom. IF in my pending purchase of a DSLR I should choose to go with Canon then it would be the EOS1DS MkII and the 17-40 is certainly an attractive proposition for the other BIG IFF of IF I opt for zooms along with primes: How does it perform on 36x24 capture (film or digital)? A significant decider in going for the Canon system (along with 36x24 capture) would be the 24mm T/S (I shoot architecture and the buitl environment a hell of a lot) I also do other stuff though and the 17-40 seems it could be an ideal wide-all-purpose solution to reportage.

99% of the time I really like my 17-40 F4L. Its biggest drawback is that it is F4.

When have you ever needed 17mm@f2.8?

gstark wrote:That would be "alluded"

Not a good way to start a post, being the spelling police

but stopping it down is only a part of the equation.

We will leave that for another day ...

Yep. Check who I am on this system ... I should know that it's fine if I don't agree with you, considering that's one of the rules that I have set here.

I didn't read the rules. I'm a rebel without a cause

While that is certainly a valid possibility, let's do the math: by your own admission, you've shot maybe 20 frames with the lens. With all due respect, and considering all of the variables that go into carrying out a satisfactory lens test regime, and thus learning the characteristics of any particular piece of equipment, 20 frames is hardly exhaustive.

In this instance, even "scratching the surface" seems a bit on the generous side, IMHO.

You are quite correct. I'm not one for detailed lens tests though. I took some photos of well known subjects on a brightly lit, beautiful Brisbane day. That was enough for me.

By the same token, with the first few shots out of my better quality glass, I was happy. I didn't do detailed lens comparisons. I just knew that the look and performance pleased my eye.

My walkaround is the Nikkor 24-120VR, and I rarely miss the wider end of the spectrum. I am actually quite surprised at this outcome, because I fully expected to miss the 18mm quite a bit. In the 12 months or so that I switched, I've noticed this absence a grand total of once!

I thought I would miss it a lot more than I do, too. I used to shoot 19mm on my film and loved it ('cept for the distortion on my 19-35 Tokina lens) and hated the thought of losing that. But its not so bad, most of the time.

Affordable ????

ROTFLMAO!

Ok, compared with its big brother, yes, it's less unaffordable, but this is still not going to be the replacement for the 20D, as good a camera as the specs suggest it will be.

That's what I meant. It is affordable c/with offerings in the Canon, Nikon etc families. Yes it isn't cheap, but if it saves me spend a fortune on wide angle lenses the its a saving, isn't it? On the flipside, that 400mm lens I've been wanting has now become a 600 mm lens Dunno how to break that to my wife - I need a new camera AND an even more expensive lens!

And the 1.6 sensors will be around for a lot longer than I expect you may be inferring.

Ah, the universal discussion of the DSLR world - the crop factor. Lets not go there. I know it will be around for a while, but it may not be around for a while in bodies that I want.

Don't tell me that; tell that to the dickheads who actually, and actively, try and sell that sort of rubbish! I agree that it's a total mismatch. The problem is that most salespeople are motivated by the fact that they need to make a sale in order to eat, and that tends to, in many cases, enable most so-called salespeople to seem to have undergone an ethicsectomy.

I'm sure that there's still a couple around who will listen to what your needs are and recommend solutions targetted to your needs, but in terms of Canon gear, I can think of only one such person in Sydney, and I suspect he might not be totally competetive on price, which is how most people today seem to want to make their buying decisions.

You are correct.

What I meant was, don't sour the buying experience by skimping on a lens. I would rather see a new user with a 350D and say a 17-40 F4L than a 20D and an 18-55, if budget is a constraint.

gstark wrote:Clearly, with a lens like an 18-55, or an 18-70, simply shooting 20 frames and throwing your hands up in disgust, declaring the lens as "rubbish", is simply not going to do the lens justice.

Okay, how about that just about everyone who has the 18-55 calls it 'rubbish' too

As a piece of glass with a motor that slowly focusses, its probably okay.

But I have been spoilt by smooth AF, razor sharp optics and various other 'treats' offered up to me by the L glass. And I can't go back

From a very innocent question, at the beginning, this thread has gone from an interesting to Holden vs Ford (Canon vs Nikon for those who dont live for metaphors) to quite emotional and somewhat 'I think I need a lawyer or a new technical manual on the essence of lens goodness.'

Animosity has never been a part of this forum yet I don't feel the love tonight. Who cares? Cheap lenses sometimes are the vehicles of good photos and really expensive lenses can be the vehicle for really poor photos. Some of the greatest photos of all time were taken with what might be considered by todays standards as cheap or poor quality.

My point may not be clear but it is at least as clear as where this thread has left me.

Peace and love to all...and stop quoting everyone everybody. Go and have dinner.

Regards

Peter Mc

petal666 wrote: When have you ever needed 17mm@f2.8?

Fairly often.

Low light streetscapes.

Inside museums (at the Vasa museum in Stockholm I was shooting at 1600 and 3200 ISO).

Where is the Canon vs Nikon? This is about cheap v's expensive.

DionM wrote:

petal666 wrote: When have you ever needed 17mm@f2.8?

Fairly often.

Low light streetscapes.

Inside museums (at the Vasa museum in Stockholm I was shooting at 1600 and 3200 ISO).

Get a tripod

Get a tripod

Was waiting for that.

Didn't feel like lugging a tripod around over there. Plus I think they were not allowed in the museum

petal666 wrote:Where is the Canon vs Nikon? This is about cheap v's expensive.

The trouble with expensive is it costs a lot more.