EF-S Primes?

[DonSchap]

Okay... since everyone seems to be so quick to throw away money... how about f/1.2 EF-S primes?

11760

Yeah... think about it... you can get all these "silver-ringed devils" and lock your entire prime collection to your APS-C camera... and never have to worry about them working on your new EOS 5D, when it shows up, one day. :rolleyes:

In fact, you can just dump your old 20D/30D and all those expensive lenses... to start completely over again. :p

Okay... maybe I got lost somewhere, but exactly HOW does EF-S offer us a better lens solution? It looks as though its costing darn near as much as the regular stuff. :confused:

[CptOfGondor]

My guess is that with EFS, your APS grabs 100% of the image as opposed to a "crop" with the EF lenses. But with EFS, do you still have to factor a focal length multiplier?

Like will the EFS 50mm f1.2 be a 80mm on the EOS-20D?

[DonSchap]

The EF-S 85mm F/1.2... change the sheets... it could be here...

11761

for only $3500.00, based on lens quality. Don't you just love it... dead-end lenses... for the rest of us! :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

Something less than 50mm...

Of course, the EF-S 35mm f/1.2...

11777

[CptOfGondor]

LoL "stubby" looking when mounted on SLRs. I guess its kinda pointless, I mean, you still gotta factor in the lens conversion whether its an EF or EFS lens. Marketing ploy to trap unwary photographers into a corner.

[DonSchap]

This was meant as a parody. :D

I am totally disenchanted with the EF-S pricing of the new 17-55mm f/2.8.

For the price they listed on it, I expected it to be an "L" lens, at the very least and wrapped in a metal shell... not cheap plastic. Yuck! :mad:

[Clyde]

I am totally disenchanted with the EF-S pricing of the new 17-55mm f/2.8.

For the price they listed on it, I expected it to be an "L" lens, at the very least and wrapped in a metal shell... not cheap plastic. Yuck! :mad:


Today one of my friends is annoyed because he has been temporarily banned from an internet game server. You are upset because someone is charging too much for a product you won't buy. Another friend just had a relapse of breast cancer and is going to have a bilateral mastectomy this Wednesday.

Personally I think you are having perspective problems, perhaps you need to see things through a wider angle lens.

Clyde

[cdifoto]

Today one of my friends is annoyed because he has been temporarily banned from an internet game server. You are upset because someone is charging too much for a product you won't buy. Another friend just had a relapse of breast cancer and is going to have a bilateral mastectomy this Wednesday.

Personally I think you are having perspective problems, perhaps you need to see things through a wider angle lens.

Clyde

I vote stronger medication.

[timmciglobal]

It's why I'll keep telling people to buy the Nikon D50 and 18-200 VR.

At some point canon will say "Wow... we're losing alot of sales to nikon" and make an EF-s 18-200 with reasonable quality at reasonable price.

And I'll smile as people buy 5D's and I buy the 17-55 F2.8 IS for 800 because it won't work on their new 5D or 1 series.

Tim

[DonSchap]

Today one of my friends is annoyed because he has been temporarily banned from an internet game server. You are upset because someone is charging too much for a product you won't buy. Another friend just had a relapse of breast cancer and is going to have a bilateral mastectomy this Wednesday.

Personally I think you are having perspective problems, perhaps you need to see things through a wider angle lens.

Clyde

Philosophically, our photography microcosm is a reflection of our interests... we don't try to encompass the entire planet's problems with every action we take... but tend concentrate on the things that are closest to our "sphere of influence". Despite whatever I say, biological occurances will happen as they will... that's nature... and, unfortunately, we have to buy into to that, BUT what we don't have to buy into is a greedy marketing plan being imposed on us by a corporate giant, who thinks they hold all the cards. I'm here to say, "It isn't so!"

I implore our 'deep thinking' friends to join in a crusade that can sway the tide of this nefarious plan. I may not be able to stop cancer in my lifetime, but I'll darn sure stop my spending practices to make my statement LOUD AND CLEAR.

You and your friend have my sympathies for your plight. No one I know of, especially myself, takes any joy in seeing the pain and suffering of others... especially in things of this nature. I remind you, though, that this forum's focus and concerns are, IMHO, for the discussion and hopeful improvement of our our chosen artistic field of endeavor, digital photography. That is the reason why I have voluntarily come here... to participate, share and better these efforts, if I can. I do not feel it is a myopic approach, but only an honest and sincere one.

If this "lens discussion" were taking place on the 'Journal of the American Medical Association' (JAMA) website, I might concede your point. The last time I looked, though... it still said, "Digital Camera Resource Page." I do not sense that I am out of order, sir. Let's try to stay on topic. I figure that is, indeed, a FAIR request.

Again, my sincerest sympathies and well wishes for your stricken friend. Best of luck... always. :)

BTW: Don, what is it with you and the "meds", man? Whoa! :(

[ReF]

oh great, YET ANOTHER thread where donschap is pushing his opinions onto everyone. how many do we need?

i wonder when it became such a horrible thing to have choices in products. you can always choose to NOT buy a lens that's too expensive for your wallet. just get a cheaper or more suitable alternative and be done! it's not like there aren't enough high quality alternatives out there. if there weren't these expensive lenses around we'd be hearing complaints about lack of choices/high end products/or whatever else you can think of

[timmciglobal]

Who stoped complaining about not having high end choices? a 17-85 with better optical quality and less reach isn't a high end choice it just costs alot of money.

:)

Tim

P.S. Honestly, if this lens was 799 MSRP I wouldn't be complaining as much, we'll see how far canon knocks it down if at all.

[JTL]

I was hanging out and talking with the folks at B&H on Friday morning and the opinion of most of the Canon shooters was...it's a nice lens, but...

And some of these guys have a ton of gear, so it's not a matter of them not being able to afford it. It's eactly what Don (CDI) said:

" If it's aimed at pros...build it accordingly. If it's aimed at amateurs...price it accordingly".

I must have heard some version of that six times.

[ReF]

a 17-85 with better optical quality and less reach isn't a high end choice


my tone doesn't come across well in this, so don't think i'm annoyed or upset at all, but how is the 17-55 f2.8 IS any more comparable to a 17-85 f4.5-5.6 IS than a 70-200 f2.8 IS is to a 75-300 f4.5-5.6 IS?

[DonSchap]

Look... I did not make the lens, I did not offer the price... I am simply repulsed by the assumption it is WORTH what THEY have listed it for. It simply is not. And the future introductions of lenses priced like this or built like this is abhorant to me.

I simply say; "STOP THIS NONSENSE, NOW!" Get back to building them the right way and price them fairly.

I do not expect people to embrace my opinion... nor do I expect to be criticized for having one that may be defiant and different, which in the particular case, is not, but that really doesn't matter.

I say, "Welcome to America... home of free speech and the right to protest... even if you are an illegal immigrant from down South of the Border." Watch your television, tomorrow, for further updates on this and other salient stories of the times. :rolleyes:

Like they always say, "Aperture is worth a thousand words"... uhh, did I get that right? :confused:

[cwphoto]

Funny how I almost never hear professionals complain about the price of their gear...

...just an observation.:)

[cwphoto]

My guess is that with EFS, your APS grabs 100% of the image as opposed to a "crop" with the EF lenses. But with EFS, do you still have to factor a focal length multiplier?

Like will the EFS 50mm f1.2 be a 80mm on the EOS-20D?

EF-S just has a smaller image circle - nothing more nothing less.

[DonSchap]

We haven't really been faced with a crisis of this magnitude before.

I am no "pro" by any means, nor do I want to be charged like one. This is still a glorified hobby to me... and as such, I will try to get the best bang for my buck... because no one is paying me for taking a single shot. I do what I do because it is what I like to do. When I get paid for something... it goes straight from the "realm of choice" to the "realm of work". Expectations are set... and not by you, but you had better meet them... or you won't be working long. Obviously, your equipment becomes a tax-write off and falls under a completely different expectation and heading. It's paid for by the proceeds and profits you gather in building your business, as it should be.

You want to see griping... go to the shipping dock and how they are handling the price of transportation, these days. Who is eventually going to get clobbered with costs... the professionals at the company? Heck no... it'll be you, sir... "Joe Consumer". (Whine one for the Gipper!)

Professional? No thanks. I stick with this hobby just supposing it is to be for fun. I want this equipment to perform because... it can. I purchase improvement because I want it in my art. I don't purchase for the sake of saying, "Hey... I just spent mega-bucks on this or that." Anyone can do that... with sufficient coin. Personally, having some company rape my wallet in my personal pursuit just doesn't sound that appealing... when I can go out and purchase:
a new Tamron SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD ($442) (of the same capability as the Canon EF-S 17~55 f/2.8 IS USM, minus the IS) and toss in a new Canon EF 70~300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($535), and have money ($200) left over for some really excellent filters, besides.

What is that all about? :confused:

I lose a whole 'nudder lens just to have IS capability and a plastic lens body around it? I think NOT! :mad:

Canon can go refigure this one... because if you buy it at $1200... you just solved their Christmas Party funds issue for 2006. Call me "Scrooge", but I have better ways to spend my "capital".

God bless us all, everyone! :D

[CptOfGondor]

Personally, having some company rape my wallet in my personal pursuit just doesn't sound that appealing... when I can go out and purchase:
a new Tamron SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD ($442) (of the same capability as the Canon EF-S 17~55 f/2.8 IS USM, minus the IS) and toss in a new Canon EF 70~300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($535), and have money ($200) left over for some excellent filters, besides.

What is that all about? :confused:

I lose a whole lens just to have IS capability? I think NOT! :mad:

Canon can go refigure this one... because if you buy it at $1200... you just solved their Christmas Party funds issue for 2006. Call me "Scrooge", but I have better ways to spend my "capital".

God bless us all, everyone! :D

totally...;)

[cwphoto]

No-one's holding a gun to your head Don. It's not like there's not plenty of good low-cost alternatives around either.

Just pretend the lens doesn't even exist. You'll be a lot happier.:D

[DonSchap]

pretend the lens does not exist. It is the only way to send a message to Canon...

"Hey boys... keep the junk... we'll wait for something worth our respective $1200!":mad:

I am real tired of:

"PRICE IT... and they will come."

[cwphoto]

pretend the lens does not exist. It is the only way to send a message to Canon...

"Hey boys... keep the junk... we'll wait for something worth our respective $1200!":mad:

I am real tired of:

"PRICE IT... and they will come."

Don why are you taking this so personally? I reckon Mercedes Benz's are over-priced for what they are - but I don't feel the need to go on a personal crusade about it, I just choose to buy a car that I feel gives me more practical value.

Life's too short Man.

[DonSchap]

It is a precedent.

If you guys decide to buy this lens... just wait until the next slew of "crap for a grand!"

That is precisely the problem You gobble this one up... they will continue to feed you more... and more.. and more. Not quality... just filler. This is the tip of the iceberg.

That's the point... plain and... obviously, not as simple as I had thought.

Does this make it any clearer? It ain't the lens... it's the delivery! The plan! The flippin' boardroom decision being forced into the public.

It certainly isn't personal... it's a warning.

You, my friends... have been warned. Like our friend "Smokey the Bear" says, "Only you can prevent forest fires"

11810

... and one tree is a blazin'.

Put it out... dead out. Tell them that:

"The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is D.O.A. @ $1200." ( Heck, at $800 it is still an elitest lens, but more within the realm of reason.)

[TheObiJuan]

I find this thread to be one of the funniest ever.
I do agree with some points, many expressed. Ultimately, you must appreciate the effort for a manufacturer to maintain lenses and devolop new ones for a niche. The cost is massive, ultimately leaving the bottom line where one might not expect. The elements that compose this lens, not just the materials, create the price. I suspect there is some inflation of the price to make it an elite lens and recoup some revenue, but as a company they should try to maximize profits to develop more equipment.

[DonSchap]

Development costs for soap are even high. It's still soap.

We're not asking Canon to re-invent the wheel, here... it's just basically "more of the same." They move the elements around, acheive some more light capture... throw it in a "plastic" shell and out it pops. BUY IT!

If you really want to re-invent a lens and impress me for $1200... build a small LED macro-flash into every macro lens, as part of it, where the lens controls it directly, based on preflash info. It would simplify the need and proper exposure for external collar flashes and make MACRO photography a lot easier.

Or... how about a lens with an ultraviolet laser range finder in it (so you don't blind the subject), which instantly has the precise distance to object (to the micron), focuses and 'click', it's part of history on your digital media card. Now, that's worth a "grand", my friends... not "image stabilization"... which is in darn near every pocket digital that's coming out, these days. It's effectively free... they aren't engineering it or inventing it... they are just INSTALLING it.

Or even a 'stackable' lens... much like the multipliers, but can be used completely solo or in combination with another lens snapped on the front.

For instance... your popular 24-70mmL... with a 70-200mmL slave unit, where you simply remove the front lens element of the first and then couple them together... instead having to unmount and remount the entire lens body... taking a chance of dropping something. Or even adding a 10-24mm slave unit to get the other end. Much like the fixed lens cameras... but with some QC involved, for the pros.

Now, to me, that is engineering something with real potential... especially when it comes to glass. It would simply blow the competition away... through optical advancement and technology. Simplify... make it easier for the photographer to...

GET THE SHOT! :D

(Oh cripes, why do I even bother... we're not on the same wavelength. Albert... save me a place in line...) :rolleyes:

[coldrain]

NOw you know why you are not a lens designer, Don.
Your brain is not capable of thinking about how complex lens design is.
That is ok, not everyone can be a lens designer anyway. But please, it would be nice if you did some introspection and see that you really have no idea what you are talking about. (I am reacting to your silly nonsense that they should just combine a 24-70 and 70-200. And end up with as good a lens.)

Becase you don't. And it is not so nice that you treat this board as your personal blog, writing all kinds of falsehoods and nonsense, because if no one refutes you crap, unsuspecting visitors may take your uninformed sillyness for actuall information. And that is not what this forum is about.

Not meant as offensive... but... do you have some kind of condition we should know about?

[DonSchap]

There is nothing wrong with your monitor, Cold. They control the vertical... they control the horizontal... and for the next few seconds... I control your thoughts.

Weird, huh? :eek:

[Vich]

NOw you know why you are not a lens designer, Don.
Your brain is not capable of thinking about how complex lens design is.
That is ok, not everyone can be a lens designer anyway. But please, it would be nice if you did some introspection and see that you really have no idea what you are talking about. (I am reacting to your silly nonsense that they should just combine a 24-70 and 70-200. And end up with as good a lens.)

Becase you don't. And it is not so nice that you treat this board as your personal blog, writing all kinds of falsehoods and nonsense, because if no one refutes you crap, unsuspecting visitors may take your uninformed sillyness for actuall information. And that is not what this forum is about.

Not meant as offensive... but... do you have some kind of condition we should know about?
I'm with ObiJuan. This is one of the funniest threads ever. ROTFLMAO!

I'm also with Obi on the concept of allowing this very fine company (Canon) some profit. I just can't imagine what it takes to make to engineer 2nd generation IS, USM focus, etc. etc. All in all, Canon is consistantly making fantastic products, backs them like nobody else, and offers us wonderful looking future of more to come.

I vote that to gain absolution for bad mouthing such a fine establishment, DonS, you should be forced to purchase an EFS 17-55 f2.8 or EFS 60mm (your choice) and publish your newly found admiration. :) :o :D

:cool:

[DonSchap]

from Canon gets to be longer than some kind of "Try & Buy" period... then, perhaps, I will consider their upper-end glass as something worth plopping down a $1000 a copy. I don't see that happening, so my money is safely tucked away in my wallet or hovering in the bank account... waiting for the next 6-year warrantied TAmROn release.

Admittedly... I have been looking at the SIGMA APO 80~400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS, but again, the darn thing weighs nearly 4 lbs. (61.9 oz.). Almost as much as BIGMA (50~500mm f/4=6.3) at 64.9 oz! Unlike BIGMA, it does have a fixed minimum focus of 70.9" (just under 6 feet).

12560

I'm not sure if anti-shake (OS) was added because you'd be straining just to hold the lens up or what! Adding the 20D (15oz) w/ the BG-E2 (15 oz w/ batts) and a 580EX Flash (another 15 oz w/ batts) to the equation... we are looking as a serious amount of weight, here. Add the lens hood and we're at nearly, if not over 7 pounds! :eek: If you have never held seven-pounds up to your face... and held it steady... it's worth a try. Watch your teeth though.

Still, it is still fun to consider it all... and the medical insurance you will need for the hernia you probably wind up getting. Suddenly that TAmROn 200-500mm f/5-6.3 2-3/4 lb. lens is looking even better. No OS... but no hernia, either. There is something to be said for that. I'm certain that someone will. ;) (Minimum focus is 9 feet.)

12559

To be entirely fair, though, SIGMA's 170~500mm f/5-6.3 DG is more along the lines of the TAmROn. The SIGMA weighs only a 1/4 lb more, at almost 3 lbs (Minimum focus is just over ten feet).

12561

(Oh my, there's that nasty old lens "overlap" again... creeping into my 18-200mm focal length. We can't have that, now, can we? :rolleyes: )

I know, I know... "Don, don't be so pessimistic... uh, on the other hand... you did bring up SIGMA... and you know what that means..."

[jamison55]

IF this lens lives up to the initial quality that I see in it, it will replace two of my "pro" lenses - the 17-40 f4 (which I can sell for $575) and the 28-70 f2.8 (which I can sell for $750). That means I'll make $1325 - subtract the $1200 I paid for the 17-55 and I come out $125 ahead - come to think of it, that's what I paid for my first Tamron (a 35-105 f2.8).

I also get to reduce lens changes.

I gain a stop of light.

I gain 4 stops of handholdability.

Now if you were an OEM manufacturer and were marketing a new lens, how would you come up with a price? I'd guess that you'd first look at similar lenses offered by your competition. (competition being other OEM companies).

Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (a favorite of PRO wedding photogs) - $1200

Most of the Nikon wedding shooters that I know say they could shoot an entire wedding with just that lens.

Us Canon shooters were jealous.

In a poll last year of 3000 wedding photographers on a pro digital wedding forum I belong to, approximatey 60% of the respondents shot with a 20D.

Canon realizes how many pros shoot with their "prosumer" bodies and built a lens for them, chock full of the GLASS that is reserved for their pro series lenses, but they didn't want to legitimize their "prosumer" line and jeapordize their "Pro" line by putting a red ring around it.

They also realize how many "non-pros" have enough disposable income to drop $1200 on a lens (just read the sigs over at POTN or DPR).

So they created the perfect lens for pro wedding shooters who choose to use the 1.6 bodies (and are snatching this lens up like there's no tomorrow), and priced it in line with the same lens from their main competitor, and knew that they'd also catch some of the income from serious hobbiests with lots of disposable income.

Having said all of that, if I didn't shoot for money, my sig would look just like yours, Don. No shame in it. My first "good" lens was a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. It was SHARP it made beautiful pictures, and it wasn't good enough for pro use. Fair enough - not pro priced, shouldn't expect pro performance - and if I didn't have to depend on a lens to get me the shot that gets me paid, I'd have a bag full of similar lenses (just like you have).

The Canon 17-55 is pro priced, and those of us who are pros expect pro performance from it...and Canon put all the inner workings of an L lens into a plastic shell - does the plastic shell mean it won't perform like an L? Hmmmm. You might want to talk to Corvette (or Glock ;) ) owners about that one!

...of course for $1200 they could have included a $5 plastic hood...

[CptOfGondor]

Canon hoods aren't priced at $5. LoL.

[jamison55]

For those of you who were too weary to read the book I wrote in the last thread:

How much would you be willing to pay for a lens that replaces 2 other lenses worth $1300 and $1100 respectively (16-35 and 24-70 2.8's)?

How much would you pay for a zoom lens that is just as sharp as pro level primes from 17-55mm's (24, 35, 50 $2500 together)?

What would you pay for a lens with IS , giving you the handholdability of a f1.0 lens with the DOF of an f2.8?

I'll let you in on a little secret (don't tell Canon), I'd have paid 2K for his lens.

...and y'all are worried about a little plastic?

(PS - I reserve the right to change my mind after this weekend)

[jamison55]

Canon hoods aren't priced at $5. LoL.

No, but how much do you think it costs Canon to manufacture them?

[timmciglobal]

I'm tossed jamison between buying the tamron or the canon..

I'm waiting for tamron to come in to try it, I'll say this picking up canon I was quite disapointed at how plasticy and loose the zoom barrel seemed on copy I tried. Is there a slight wobble in yours if you touch it fully extended? I'm used to the L which is dead solid extended.

Tim

[jamison55]

No doubt, Tim, the Canon is a lot of money, and the Tamron appears to be a nice lens.

As for the wobble, I just compared it to my 28-70L (my only L with an extendable plastic barrel). The 17-55 wobbles about the same. You really have to move it with your fingers to get the tiniest amount of wobble on both lenses.

[cdifoto]

No doubt, Tim, the Canon is a lot of money, and the Tamron appears to be a nice lens.

As fot the wobble, I just compared it to my 28-70L (my only L with an extendable plastic barrel). The 17-55 wobbles about the same. You really have to move it with your fingers to get the tiniest amount of wobble on both lenses.

Does the EF-S feel like it's going to provide many years of service as far as "taking a beating"? I ask because I know with my Ls they're solid...and unless I do something really extreme and retarded they should last me a long long time. I don't like the idea of having to worry about the lens the whole time.

In other words is it a "mount it, shoot, don't worry" or a "mount it, shoot, be careful"?

[DonSchap]

your explaining the marketing nuances that Canon used to determine this lens. Obviously, as you can see in the forum, it struck a sour note for price comparisons with other newly released lenses from the various manufacturers.

Once again, to me, this is just a hobby. I create scenarios for a shoot... grab a nice shot when it presents itself and, every once in a while, get a nifty pose out of a model. I have not made a dime selling shots... so doing the "pro-thing" is far off and way.

Honestly, like I said before... if I can get the shot with what I have... I will. If I have to invest some more coin into my bag to "get the shot"... I will. But to replace everything for the sake of shooting through "L"-glass... I'm sorry, the buck stops there! :cool:

Even the other photographers are up in the air concerning the cost of IS (OS) (or whatever you want to call "anti-shake") technology in the lenses. Personally, I cannot see why Canon just doesn't add it for free, from now on. Dog gone, it's in everything else for a lot less... than it is in each lens copy. Better yet, toss it into the EOS 40D (just like K-M did with their 7D. OMG, now there's a novel idea!) and get rid of the entire need for each lens to have it. Initially, it may have been worth the extra $400... but, I suspect those days are going to be over, very soon, as the third parties add their own. We're kind of done playing "Monopoly."

Jamison, again, thanks for taking the time to explain your take on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (aka the Plastic-"L") :cool:

[jamison55]

Does the EF-S feel like it's going to provide many years of service as far as "taking a beating"? I ask because I know with my Ls they're solid...and unless I do something really extreme and retarded they should last me a long long time. I don't like the idea of having to worry about the lens the whole time.

In other words is it a "mount it, shoot, don't worry" or a "mount it, shoot, be careful"?

How about "Mount it, shoot it, don't drop it on a granite floor from 6 feet". Honestly, the only part that I could see being damaged from a fall is the plastic filter ring (it's metal on all my L's"). Other than that, I'm not worried about the build quality. It's much more solid than my Tammy 28-75 was!

The way everyone talks about this lens, you'd think the build quality was on par with the 50 f1.8 :D ...

[jamison55]

Once again, to me, this is just a hobby. I create scenarios for a shoot... grab a nice shot when it presents itself and, every once in a while, get a nifty pose out of a model. I have not made a dime selling shots... so doing the "pro-thing" is far off and way.

Don, for someone in your position I think you've built yourself a nice kit of high quality optics! (and a path I would be on myself if this was just a hobby - not that I would't have lusted after the L glass - I just wouldn't have been able to justify it). I think you'd cach a lot less heat, however, if you don't try to convert the world :D. There are plenty of other folks that can justify owning the best, even if there are no financial returns on their investment.


Even the other photographers are up in the air concerning the cost of IS (OS) (or whatever you want to call "anti-shake") technology in the lenses.

I must say, that I find IS of questionable value in a 17mm lens. Without the IS, I can handhold it below 1/30 (and any slower picks up subject movement - you should see all the blurred pics of my kid and dog I got this week - the room's sharp, though). The fact is, I would have paid a premium for a lens with this range/speed without IS!

[cdifoto]

How about "Mount it, shoot it, don't drop it on a granite floor from 6 feet". Honestly, the only part that I could see being damaged from a fall is the plastic filter ring (it's metal on all my L's"). Other than that, I'm not worried about the build quality. It's much more solid than my Tammy 28-75 was!

The way everyone talks about this lens, you'd think the build quality was on par with the 50 f1.8 :D ...

lol. That's good though. People did make it sound like an f/2.8 kit lens. My only argument against it now is the whole EF-S part. I'm trying my darndest to shy away from those. Although I'll be a hypocrite if I buy the Tokina.

[jamison55]

I must say, that I find IS of questionable value in a 17mm lens. Without the IS, I can handhold it below 1/30 (and any slower picks up subject movement - you should see all the blurred pics of my kid and dog I got this week - the room's sharp, though). The fact is, I would have paid a premium for a lens with this range/speed without IS!


Although...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/_MG_1072.jpg

BTW - I broke my 50% crop rule...these are 100% crops - and I was bracing my arm on the arm of my la-z-boy for the non IS shot...

[JTL]

I still say it's a lot to pay for what may eventually be a dead-end (I only spent $300.00 on my dead-end lens)...but if you have the need (or just have the bucks)...well...enjoy it! But I do hope it's sales a flop because it's a bad trend to start having to pay a pro price for a consumer lens that locks you into an APS-C body...

[jamison55]

I still say it's a lot to pay for what may eventually be a dead-end (I only spent $300.00 on my dead-end lens)...but if you have the need (or just have the bucks)...well...enjoy it! But I do hope it's sales a flop because it's a bad trend to start having to pay a pro price for a consumer lens that locks you into an APS-C body...

Yep, and I may be screwed in three years when all Canon's DSLR's are full frame. Good thing it's a tax write off!

On the other hand, here's a lens that would be impossible currently on a full frame lens. Otherwise the 24-105L IS would have been 2.8! In order to do that, however, the lens would have to be so big and heavy as to be impractical.

So until Canon has a full frame body with clean ISO 12800, I'll take a crop body with an f2.8 IS "standard" zoom!

[Vich]

lol. That's good though. People did make it sound like an f/2.8 kit lens. My only argument against it now is the whole EF-S part. I'm trying my darndest to shy away from those. Although I'll be a hypocrite if I buy the Tokina.
I'm thinking, if you do go FF, just sell the lenses along with your old camera. You'll loose a lot less with the lens than your camera.

I've got a serious itch for another L quality lens. Something outside the "normal" range since I already have 2 good zooms and a prime (50 f1.4) . This thread is making me curious about Jamison's findings on this EF-S - that is, if 17mm goes low enough.

Yep, and I may be screwed in three years when all Canon's DSLR's are full frame. Good thing it's a tax write off!

On the other hand, here's a lens that would be impossible currently on a full frame lens. Otherwise the 24-105L IS would have been 2.8! In order to do that, however, the lens would have to be so big and heavy as to be impractical.

So until Canon has a full frame body with clean ISO 12800, I'll take a crop body with an f2.8 IS "standard" zoom!
And this may be an excellent justification for always having a slightly cropped format around, at least as a 2nd.

Only thing I worry about (a little) is that we're no longer getting the sweet spot on a FF lens, we actually have to accept things all the way to the edges. Particularly on a 17mm FOV, that may be a slight drawback.

However; your logic does ring true. So in 3 years it's a little obsolete. Meanwhile, you had 3 years with a great performer (we hope we hope).

[timmciglobal]

My problem with it is purly dollars.

The tamron at 475 I'm probalby going to pick up, if the canon was 899 I'd own one by now.

Honestly I think canon droped the ball. I think there is ALOT of people who the 1 grand mark is like the 99 cents mark in the impulse buy items. I'll pay 899 for a lens but I won't pay 1199 for a consumer build lens. Once it breaks 1K I say "ok so why is this plastic?"

Part of me is annoied too because after playing with the 60 F2.8 EF-S I can see just how high quality of a prime they can build using EF-S cost benefits on the cheap. That is lending to my annoyance over plucking down so much money to replace my very well built 24-105. Though I'll fully admit everytime I shoot with a F2.8 or faster lens I want one. It's the 20D's fault but the AF is so much better with F2.8 lenses.

Tim

[jamison55]

I understand and don't understand the folks who are complaining about price...who doesn't want things cheaper!?

But forget about the plastic for a sec.

This lens is unique. No other lens like it has ever been made.

If it were just a 17-55 f2.8, that'd be one thing. The Nikon 17-55 is a brick (with the build quality of N!kon's other pro level lenses).

But the Nikon lens (for all it's solid weight) is only a 2.8 lens.

This lens is (for many subjects) an f1.0 lens.

No one has ever made a 28-90 f1.0 zoom.

How much do Canon 50 f1.0 lenses sell for?

[cdifoto]

I understand and don't understand the folks who are complaining about price...who doesn't want things cheaper!?

But forget about the plastic for a sec.

This lens is unique. No other lens like it has ever been made.

If it were just a 17-55 f2.8, that'd be one thing. The Nikon 17-55 is a brick (with the build quality of N!kon's other pro level lenses).

But the Nikon lens (for all it's solid weight) is only a 2.8 lens.

This lens is (for many subjects) an f1.0 lens.

No one has ever made a 28-90 f1.0 zoom.

How much do Canon 50 f1.0 lenses sell for?


But it's really only an f/1 for things that stay absolutely still. I almost never shoot things that stay perfectly still. A useful lens of course, but not justifiable to everyone with the f/1 argument.

[Vich]

This lens is (for many subjects) an f1.0 lens.

Let's see, the stops go f/1.0 f/1.4 f/2.0 f/2.8 ...

So I guess you're refering to the IS gaining you 3 stops. True in some respects, but still a vastly different animal from a 1.0 (or even 1.4). Subject movement aside, the DOF on f1.0 would be several times less.

Reminds me of Fred Miranda's review of the 24-70 f2.8 (click here) (http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/) where he states:

"It would be like having a 24mm f/2.8L, 28mm f/2.8L, 35mm f/2.8L, 50mm f/2.8L and 70mm f/2.8L all in one lens."

So Jamison, you're in good company :)



I've also never cared much for the bokeh on the 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f2.8, as compared with the primes (in particular, the f1.2 and f1.4 primes). Can't wait to see the 17-55 bokeh.

I'm currently nursing an itch for another expensive lens (told the wife this morning and got the Green Light :) ). This one will be on the list (the long search begins ...)

[ReF]

I understand and don't understand the folks who are complaining about price...who doesn't want things cheaper!?

But forget about the plastic for a sec.

This lens is unique. No other lens like it has ever been made.

If it were just a 17-55 f2.8, that'd be one thing. The Nikon 17-55 is a brick (with the build quality of N!kon's other pro level lenses).

But the Nikon lens (for all it's solid weight) is only a 2.8 lens.

This lens is (for many subjects) an f1.0 lens.

No one has ever made a 28-90 f1.0 zoom.

How much do Canon 50 f1.0 lenses sell for?

good points.

for you guys that complain about the build, well you have your thoughts about it and that's valid.

though another way to think of it is that nikon has one with better build and canon has one with IS. what do you choose, the IS or the better build? they are both about the same price so to be fair, if you wanted both IS AND better build shouldn't they charge you for both? i'm thinking that a POSSIBLE reason the better build was left out was because including it would lead to an even higher sticker price that the public may not accept.

i see your point about the f1.0 comparison AND the arguments against it. while not apples to apples, there ARE numerous still subjects to shoot and IS will work better for low light during those times when you don't want super shallow DOF. no, IS won't capture action like an f1.0 lens but shooting moving subjects with such a shallow DOF isn't exactly easy.



Even the other photographers are up in the air concerning the cost of IS (OS) (or whatever you want to call "anti-shake") technology in the lenses. Personally, I cannot see why Canon just doesn't add it for free, from now on. Dog gone, it's in everything else for a lot less... than it is in each lens copy. Better yet, toss it into the EOS 40D (just like K-M did with their 7D. OMG, now there's a novel idea!) and get rid of the entire need for each lens to have it. Initially, it may have been worth the extra $400...

1. add it for free? for one thing it's hard enough to engineer the the optics in a 17-55 f2.8 lens. then for IS you have to engineer a whole new set of lenses that have to work with each other AND the non IS elements. now factor in that canon had to compensate in some way for the negative effects of adding extra elements in order to keep image quality up. sure, they can do all that for free :rolleyes:

2. canon will always have to continue developing IS in lenses even if they do come up with a sensor based stabilizer. why? because sensor based IS will only work with cropped sensors - the reason is because the sensor moves around and needs a large image circle. you can't build FF with IS because the sensor will move out of the image circle. or they could introduce lenses with even larger image circles to work with the stabilized FF sensor and make all of their other existing non-IS lenses obsolete.

[timmciglobal]

I don't know why they don't build an IS 0X TC.

If you ask me thats the future "it" product. A UV filter type TC with IS instead of any extension.

Tim

[Vich]

I don't know why they don't build an IS 0X TC.

If you ask me thats the future "it" product. A UV filter type TC with IS instead of any extension.

Tim
Great idea Tim!

[snap]

Deja vu? It seems I read this discussion on another thread -- or two.

Economic theory says that the value or worth of an item is what someone -- or the market -- pays. Obviously, some people think that the price of the 17-55 is worth the cost. Others do not. Some people think that the lower cost of, say a Tamron lens, is worth the price, others not. Thus, those who want to pay for the 17-55 can do so, and those who do not want to pay the price need not. Sounds simple to me. :confused:

[JTL]

Deja vu? It seems I read this discussion on another thread -- or two.

Economic theory says that the value or worth of an item is what someone -- or the market -- pays. Obviously, some people think that the price of the 17-55 is worth the cost. Others do not. Some people think that the lower cost of, say a Tamron lens, is worth the price, others not. Thus, those who want to pay for the 17-55 can do so, and those who do not want to pay the price need not. Sounds simple to me. :confused:You miss the point my good fellow. How would like to live in a world where, by next PMA, every new Canon consumer lens cost one thousand dollars or more? It's like any form of extortion...if one pays (excluding Jamie, of course :D ), we all suffer...

[cwphoto]

You miss the point my good fellow. How would like to live in a world where, by next PMA, every new Canon consumer lens cost one thousand dollars or more? It's like any form of extortion...if one pays (excluding Jamie, of course :D ), we all suffer...

You're not serious are you JTL.:confused:

It's a competitive market, prices (as always) shall be based on what the market is prepared to pay and the volume targets of the supplier.

If you think the price is too high, DON'T BUY THE FRIGGIN' LENS.:rolleyes:

[timmciglobal]

I don't know if competative is the right word...

The 18-200 VR is a nice lens. The 18-200 sigma and tamron been out... where is canon one?

I think canon is big enough that they "Do whatever the hell they want" and deal with it because what you gonna do?

As long as canon puts out better lenses they can charge really whatever they want because no one else can afford the R&D to compete with them or the manufacturing plants. Ripoff or not I can't switch to nikon and get the same performance of a 1dmk2 so if I'm a pro I'll pay for whatever canon asks. If I'm an amateur I'll either be happy with sigma quality or "pay whatever canon asks".

Canon has no real incentive to be competitive in lenses, in bodies sure but not lenses. If Sigma or tamron introduce HSM lenses or nikon licenses VR out then I'd see more competition but the choice on 17-55 is tamron which has some big downsides or canon. Either pay up or deal so canon had chance to set their peice at whatever they really wanted.

Tim

[JTL]

I'm very serious. Remember ATM fees? First they started with banks that weren't your own...annoying, but understandable. Now, they've spread to banks where you have an account. Why? No one complained. What did it have to do with the market? Nothing really. It's was just people being too lazy and stupid not to be ripped off. Until it’s too late. People always throw around "the market". The market is bull! It’s a catchphrase that people pull-out instead of actually analyzing the true forces at work. What drives everything is stupidity...not "the market"...unless you want to argue that "the market" is actually the trading of, or more accurately, the arbitraging of human stupidity...

But a topic such as this is way beyond the scope of this forum...

[cwphoto]

II think canon is big enough that they "Do whatever the hell they want" and deal with it because what you gonna do?
Tim

Easy: buy a cheaper lens, buy an equivalent lens from another manufacturer, or buy into another system (Nikon is a logical alternative but their lenses are no cheaper than Canon's).

You have plenty of choice, including the right NOT to buy.

[snap]

You miss the point my good fellow. How would like to live in a world where, by next PMA, every new Canon consumer lens cost one thousand dollars or more? It's like any form of extortion...if one pays (excluding Jamie, of course :D ), we all suffer...

Ah, but people will buy the 17-55 -- because it is worth it. I will buy it because it is worth it to me. In abstract theory, a boycot of the 17-55 might, indeed, lead to a price decrease. However, in a world of imperfect information (not all Canon users read this forum), there is not much we can do, practically, to affect lens prices. Canon's pricing hardly constitutes extortion. No one is forced to buy the lens. There are other alternatives. One can buy two lenses to bridge the focal length range; one can buy third party lenses. We have lots of choices, one of which is to buy or not buy the 17-55.

I do respect the opinions of those who think the lens is overpriced. I also enjoy and learn from the discussions. Thanks.

[cwphoto]

The market is bull! It’s a catchphrase that people pull-out instead of actually analyzing the true forces at work. What drives everything is stupidity...not "the market"...unless you want to argue that "the market" is actually the trading of, or more accurately, the arbitraging of human stupidity...

But a topic such as this is way beyond the scope of this forum...

It's the market JTL - if you don't understand it that's fine, but IT IS 'the market'. First grade Commerce.

I suggest you vote with your wallet and pass on this lens at this price. However you may find that thousands of people feel that at this price the lens represents value - that's all that matters. The price is set by the market - always has been, always will.

[JTL]

Ah, but people will buy the 17-55 -- because it is worth it. I will buy it because it is worth it to me. In abstract theory, a boycot of the 17-55 might, indeed, lead to a price decrease. However, in a world of imperfect information (not all Canon users read this forum), there is not much we can do, practically, to affect lens prices. Canon's pricing hardly constitutes extortion. No one is forced to buy the lens. There are other alternatives. One can buy two lenses to bridge the focal length range; one can buy third party lenses. We have lots of choices, one of which is to buy or not buy the 17-55.

I do respect the opinions of those who think the lens is overpriced. I also enjoy and learn from the discussions. Thanks.I have some land in Mississippi I’d like to talk to you about...:D

[snap]

I'm very serious. Remember ATM fees? First they started with banks that weren't your own...annoying, but understandable. Now, they've spread to banks where you have an account. Why? No one complained. What did it have to do with the market? Nothing really. It's was just people being too lazy and stupid not to be ripped off. Until it’s too late. People always throw around "the market". The market is bull! It’s a catchphrase that people pull-out instead of actually analyzing the true forces at work. What drives everything is stupidity...not "the market"...unless you want to argue that "the market" is actually the trading of, or more accurately, the arbitraging of human stupidity...

But a topic such as this is way beyond the scope of this forum...

But that is the market. The market consists of people buying things. Maybe they have good information, maybe not. For example, in the last 10 years or so, there has been much attention paid in the field of finance to how investors make emotional and irrational decisions, not based on facts, but based on emotions and gut-level impulses. Witness the dotcom bust. Prices were driven up by people betting on the come, not by rational decisons. This was the MARKET. There is a market for everything. Look how our government officials are elected -- on 30 second sound bites. Yes, people are lazy. But that is the market, that is market behavior. That is what market means. Whether people are informed or uninformed -- that is the "market."

There is a market for camera lenses. Some people have good information, some people do not, and people use information in different ways. Do people make emotional decisions when they buy cameras and lenses?

[JTL]

It's the market JTLI really don't want to argue...but, in this case, you really don't know what you're talking about..."the market" didn't set anything...

[cwphoto]

I really don't want to argue...but, in this case, you really don't know what you're talking about..."the market" didn't set anything...

I'm half-way through an Economics degree JTL... the market sets the price, period.

I haven't the time nor the inclination to argue with you JTL as I get the sense you don't have the capacity or the open-mindedness to understand this. I concede - you win, game over.

[cdifoto]

JTL, "the market" is a term for "people who buy". That's it. Plain and simple. "The market" does NOT imply that those people are intelligent shoppers who have done their research. "The market" is just shoppers. People with money to spend. Period.

[JTL]

But that is the market. The market consists of people buying things. Maybe they have good information, maybe not. For example, in the last 10 years or so, there has been much attention paid in the field of finance to how investors make emotional and irrational decisions, not based on facts, but based on emotions and gut-level impulses. Witness the dotcom bust. Prices were driven up by people betting on the come, not by rational decisons. This was the MARKET. There is a market for everything. Look how our government officials are elected -- on 30 second sound bites. Yes, people are lazy. But that is the market, that is market behavior. That is what market means. Whether people are informed or uninformed -- that is the "market."

There is a market for camera lenses. Some people have good information, some people do not, and people use information in different ways. Do people make emotional decisions when they buy cameras and lenses?So, if you all decide dog crap is good to eat, and all they start selling at the store is dog crap, then I and every else who doesn't want to eat dog crap aren't supposed to try and convince you that dog crap is CRAP? I'm sorry...but it doesn't matter that I decide not to buy it. You all think dog crap is yummy. So now that's all there is. But it's still crap and you're all stupid for eating it. The fact that you're all stupid remained constant, regardless of the market conditions. But, I will keep trying to convince you not to eat dog crap because that's the only way that I don't have to eat dog crap as well...

And, what if "the market" wants another Hitler? Is that O.K. just because that's what everyone wants? Really, you guys have got to invest a little more intellectual captial...

[timmciglobal]

"You have plenty of choice, including the right NOT to buy."

No you don't.

If I tell you that you can buy water from your local city at 2.99 a gallon or you can buy it at the store or have it shipped in for 25 cents a gallon but it's worse tasting and it may contain bacteria does that make the 2.99 a gallon local water fairly priced?

If your starving and someone offers you a filet migon for 475 bucks is that overpriced?

The 17-55 is a nice lens, it's just overpriced because the competition is... nothing. Your choice is "buy it or deal with so-so focus, no usm, no IS" The 18-200 VR came out because nikon wants selling points for people to buy their cameras over canon which have better bodies. The canon camp doesn't need selling points they have the best glass in the dSLR consumer market, they have the best sensors. All thats left is to gouge as much money as possible until "The next big thing" causes you to have to become more price competitive.

Edit: The next day fex-ex return from factory service has to come from somewhere, it's the 17-55 profit margin not the "cost of repairs." Canon knows they are dealing with a high end group of people in dSLR's who will pay 300 bucks more then somethings worth to get higher quality, same group who will pay 75 grand to lexus.

Tim

[cwphoto]

because that's the only way that I don't have to eat dog crap as well...

Just because we now like to eat dog-crap doesn't mean that dog-food has been withdrawn from the shelves though. You have a choice to eat dog-crap or dog-food - up to you.

If the rest of us see value in dog-crap how does it affect you given that you still have a choice NOT to eat dog-crap?

[cdifoto]

These arguments are just absurd. It's simple. Don't buy the friggin' lens.

[cdifoto]

"You have plenty of choice, including the right NOT to buy."

No you don't.

If I tell you that you can buy water from your local city at 2.99 a gallon or you can buy it at the store or have it shipped in for 25 cents a gallon but it's worse tasting and it may contain bacteria does that make the 2.99 a gallon local water fairly priced?

If your starving and someone offers you a filet migon for 475 bucks is that overpriced?

The 17-55 is a nice lens, it's just overpriced because the competition is... nothing. Your choice is "buy it or deal with so-so focus, no usm, no IS" The 18-200 VR came out because nikon wants selling points for people to buy their cameras over canon which have better bodies. The canon camp doesn't need selling points they have the best glass in the dSLR consumer market, they have the best sensors. All thats left is to gouge as much money as possible until "The next big thing" causes you to have to become more price competitive.

Edit: The next day fex-ex return from factory service has to come from somewhere, it's the 17-55 profit margin not the "cost of repairs." Canon knows they are dealing with a high end group of people in dSLR's who will pay 300 bucks more then somethings worth to get higher quality, same group who will pay 75 grand to lexus.

Tim

Hey guess what Tim....the lens/car is apparently WORTH IT to them. That does NOT mean it HAS to be worth it to you. Drive a damn Subaru if you don't wanna pay for a Lexus. Better yet, walk.

[cwphoto]

"You have plenty of choice, including the right NOT to buy."

No you don't.

Tim

Yes you DO.

You have a choice of dozens of different lenses in this range from multiple manufacturers - that is choice.

[cdifoto]

Yes you DO.

You have a choice of dozens of different lenses in this range from multiple manufacturers - that is choice.

Dunno 'bout you Christian but I see this as a hopeless, pointless argument with a couple guys who need to go back to school. I'm not going to partake of it any longer.

[cwphoto]

Dunno 'bout you Christian but I see this as a hopeless, pointless argument with a couple guys who need to go back to school. I'm not going to partake of it any longer.

Yeah I made that promise a few posts back, but just like Michael Corleone; they pull me back in...

[timmciglobal]

I wouldn't even be saying this if canon hadn't decided to double screw people and build it on the cheap.

You can say it's a nice lens but you can't say it's fairly priced. It's deffinitly priced based on what the market will pay not what it should cost.

Tim

[JTL]

Dunno 'bout you Christian but I see this as a hopeless, pointless argument with a couple guys who need to go back to school. I'm not going to partake of it any longer.

Yeah I made that promise a few posts back, but just like Michael Corleone; they pull me back in...Sorry, you guys are right...I'll stop now...

But don't presume to question my education or my integrity...that's not right, Don...

[cwphoto]

It's deffinitly priced based on what the market will pay not what it should cost.

Tim

Welcome to capitalism. Tell me, do MCI price their services based on the cost of providing such service or what they think they can get away with in the present "market"?...

[timmciglobal]

Go back to school?

Excuse me? I didn't insult you don't insult me.

Did I say canon isn't following US MBA graduate 101 school? Actually word for word I did. Build it the cheapest you can charge the most people will pay for it. Only lower prices when the competition threatens sales or you need to attract customers to your system and lock them in.

IE: the 17-55 F2.8 Is is a ripoff because canon shoved out cheap extremly high quality bodies and sensors and now having locked in many "amateurs who won't buy a 1 series" want a solution to which only canon can provide as no other competition produces USM (or HSM) lenses in that length or AF compatiblity to level canon does with it's own mount.

It's "textbook" correct. I don't like it.

Tim

[Vich]

Dunno 'bout you Christian but I see this as a hopeless, pointless argument with a couple guys who need to go back to school. I'm not going to partake of it any longer.
Just rolled up to the computer to see what's up on the site.

Sigh. Not this again!

My .02. I think it is valid to discuss amongst ourselves what we believe the price should be, based upon the value it delivers to us.

We could curse Canon as price gougers if we believe that's what's going on, or take a different perspective regarding it.

The "market" will adjust itself to the true value, since only so many people can afford overvalued purchases. I think most marketing companies (what Canon really is) will try to tap the "first buyers" in their market before selling at lesser profit margins.


May I return the discussion to EF-S lenses? The title implied EF-S Primes, but the discussion seems to be about EF-S Zooms.

I've all but decided on getting a Canon 70-200 f4 plus an ultra-wide zoom.

The question: Will an EF-S Ultra-Wide zoom have less inherent distortion than an EF format Ultra-Wide with basically the same range? I would thing so. What would you say?

The Tokina results that Cold has been posting are great sales points for IQ (except the light flare). However; the perspectives seem to be nearly fisheye-like.

[timmciglobal]

If your asking in particular to the 10-22 it seems ok outside of borders. I've been looking for one myself but tossed between it and the tokina.

Tim

[cdifoto]

Vich why'd you quote me with that response? I'm not the one that pulled the thread off topic...

And my comment was in response to the futility of the argument. A lack of understanding what the terms being used mean render a discussion (or argument) pointless.

Like I said, I'm done. I'm pretty much done with this entire forum actually. It's been going downhill for quite awhile now.

[coldrain]

Yes exactly. The Canon EFS 10-22 vs Tokina 12-24 (full frame lens). Also; have you (or someone) have an opinion about the IQ comparison of these two lenses, exp. as regards the appeal of the image. I realize a lens may have a few weak points, but achieving very appealing photos most of the time is my goal, not overcoming that one difficult situation.
Nothing fisheye about either the 10-22 or the 12-24... and the Tokina is not a full frame lens.

[Vich]

Nothing fisheye about either the 10-22 or the 12-24... and the Tokina is not a full frame lens.
The buildings on the left seemed to lean towards the buildings on the right (or is it visa-versa). I recall thinking I'd need to PP for a more natural look. I realize some like that look for more dramatic effect, just that sometimes I'd rather not. You'll probably say "well then don't use 12mm" and be true in saying it. I confess I used to use 28mm on my FF SLR but otherwise know nothing about ultra wide angle shooting.

I did not know the Tokina was not FF. Thank you for that. It looks like a nice choice. Any idea how these two lenses compare otherwise? I've heard a lot of recommendations for the Canon.

Another thought was to get either the new EFS 17-55 or the 16-35L.

[coldrain]

The reason the buildings are leaning is because the camera is slightly pointing upwards. Converging lines like that are not the ame as barrel distortion though... if I had held the camera level, the buildings would not seem to crooked. You get the same effect with any lens, but the wider the lens, the more exaggerated distances become, and the more pronounced this effect becomes. A fisheye has not been corrected or optimized for distortion. The distortion actually is a gimmick for fisheye lenses.

A fisheye sample (10.2mm Nikkor on 1.5x crop APS-C):
http://mishami.image.pbase.com/v3/27/562027/2/44192384.DigitalTerrainarchitectural_views0019.jpg

And a normal wide angle lens (almost without barrel distortion) (12-24 @12mm):

[coldrain]

The EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM is a good lens, and in lens element configuration an "L" in disguise, like the EF-S 17-55 IS USM (and maybe the EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro). It is comparable to the EF 17-40 f4 L.

Tokina pros:
* Less distortion over entire zoom range
* Less vignetting than competition
* Great colour reproduction
* Price
* Very good contrast
* Sharpest of the ultra zooms, even sharper than the wide angle primes from canon and Nikon.
* Very well built (almost "L" like) (Tokina is known for that)
* Can even be used in 1.3x crop from about 14mm, and on full frame from about 18mm

Tokina cons:
* No USM
* Noticable CA when wide (can be corrected in RAW)
* Flaring, probably more prone to that than the Canon

Canon pros:
* USM
* Goes 2mm wider
* Almost no CA
* Contrast and colour are good (maybe not as good as the Tokina)

Canon cons:
* Price
* limitted to APS-C from EOS 300D up.
* Vignets more over entire zoom range than Tokina, but is much better than the Sigma in that respect.

[Vich]

Thanks Cold. Appreciate the thoughtful response. I presume from your prior post that "APC only" could also be on the Tokina CONS list.

Considering the purpose in life for the Tilt-Shift lens (and the natural effect pointing a camera upwards that a Tilt-Shift corrects); I suppose you're saying WA just exagerates that fact of life. I'm not about to pay $1K for a Tilt-Shift, or put up with it's manual focus etc. since I'm not overly into architecture photos. Also; PP can correct it given the right product (CS2).

Question though; would I be correct in thinking I could get a good distortion corrected WA lens, point it straight ahead, then crop the bottom part. Sort of a poor man's tilt-shift. Does that pan out or is it flawed.

I'm thinking that 16 or 17mm will be adequate for me on a 1.6 crop. I'd like an Ultra Wide on occassion, but that stretched out odd perspective look is a tool that will take some skill at using to a positive effect.

[cwphoto]

Question though; would I be correct in thinking I could get a good distortion corrected WA lens, point it straight ahead, then crop the bottom part. Sort of a poor man's tilt-shift. Does that pan out or is it flawed.

That would work.:)

[Vich]

That would work.:)
Well, one strong arguement for ultra-wide WA.

I think I'll mount my 18-55 kit and give this a try (as much as I can at 18mm).

Thanks! :p

[RichNY]

I did a search for something else tonight and stumbled across this thread... I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. This was like a good book I couldn't put down when reading it from start to finish straight thru!

We need to start a thread with links to the classic threads.

I have just one question, is it worth buying a 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens? ;)

[DonSchap]

I would say... "NO!"

Save the friggin' money and get the American Photo Editor's Choice 2006 TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF).

15614

15615

Use the money you wisely saved by not paying for a big-name brand lens for photography lessons. LOL! :eek:

[RichNY]

That's the one Jamison and CW traded up to right?

My only concern is that if I buy the Tamron that will be one less sale for Canon and they won't reach the economy of scale to lower the price on the lens for everyone else. Wouldn't that hurt lots of members on the forum???

[Rex914]

I would say... "NO!"

Save the friggin' money and get the American Photo Editor's Choice 2006 TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF).

15614

15615

Use the money you wisely saved by not paying for a big-name brand lens for photography lessons. LOL! :eek:

I would agree, except that some people really need the IS, even at this focal length and don't wish (or can't) lug around a tripod. The Tamron is great in all other respects though.

[DonSchap]

C'mon... you can get a lot of lens for $750!

Even you, Rex, have to see that point of view. Good lord, use a rope or something. Tie one end of hunk of clothes line to a 1/4-20 bolt in the screw hole of the camera body and step on the other end of the line... stretch... and you have instant and effective Image Stability... with EVERY lens! You can buy a lot of rope for $750!

(Don't get too nuts with the STRETCH part... just snug... and that's all.)

Don't believe this works? GO ahead, try it. You're in for a real surprise. What do you want... a good looking photographer... or a quality shot... without expensive IS? Personally... my money stays... MY MONEY! Sometimes the simple solutions are the best. Call it a "Hick-Trick" if you want, but it does work.

Use the money you saved for a nice Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or a TAmROn SP AF70-210mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) lens. Either would be a nice addition to the 17-50mm.

Anything, but do not toss it away on a $1200 EF-S lens! You're giving the Canon-staff exactly what they want... a great christmas party! Sorry, not this year, guys.

[ReF]

look what you've done, rich! :mad: :D

[Rex914]

I'm a bit amused at the reply and had a nice rebuttal typed out, but I'll leave it at this. No use arguing over something I'm not getting for a year. :D

By then the 17-55, if I'm even still interested in it, will be hundreds less than it goes for now.

[RichNY]

look what you've done, rich! :mad: :D

LOL- Sorry I was feeling a little punchy tonight and just wanted to be a little instigator ;) :D I thought these words would have caught some attention "traded up to"

I was just reading the American Photo Editor's Choice 2006 awards and stumbled upon this... couldn't be, could it?

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2490/editors-choice-2006-camera-lenses-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-is-usm-page9.html

Instigator mode OFF

[DonSchap]

Look... spend as you please, but I will be more than just hard-pressed to ever cough up that kind of coin for IS... for the reasons I stated. Canon-elitests may do as they wish... it is still only an image. :p I just don't want anyone to think that Canon is the only lens that can deliver the goods.

I made my case... and I bought my lens. :D It's in the bag.

Reactor mode in "STAND BY" :cool:

[adam75south]

i'd be too afraid to drop and break it...$1200 plastic lens??? i don't doubt its capabilities though. looks like it's an awesome lens picturewise.

i really don't understand why there's an ef-s line at all...but then again that's why i'm on this board...to learn from all you pros.

[DonSchap]

Don't hang the PRO-sign around my neck, thank you. I am an avid hobbiest using my cameras for the enjoyment, not the profit. I haven't made a dime in earning off my shoots, but I have given a lot of it away to thankful subjects. Of course, if someone wants MORE of something, they can pop for supplies. I figure that's at least fair.

In my experience, knowledge does not necessarily come from the money-makers, it also comes from ordinary people who really take the time to test, examine, experiment and enjoy their interests. Even complete boobs can occasionally contribute worthwhile knowledge if asked properly. :eek:

High-priced lensing does not guarantee a good shot. You can actually take reasonable stuff with lesser lenses, if you truly appreciate and understand their shortcomings. It's when you exceed their capabilities that those shortcomings truly affect your images. "Know your stuff"... the equipment you own. Practice with it and don't wait until you have some bizarre circumstance to find out if the equipment is capable of managing it.

A good rule I have found to use is: If you are indoors and the lens is an f/4 or higher... use the FLASH! The chances are that you will introduce unwanted noise into your shots, otherwise.

If the lens is an f/2.8 or lower... enjoy the shot... but meter it closely. You will usually get some seriously nice looking images, if metered correctly. A tripod usually will only help your image quality by eliminating camera shake.

Above all... try to enjoy the experience of light management. Each image should be something evaluated and learned from for the next shot. :D