View Full Version : lens for canon xt...
saldiamond
06-28-2006, 12:51 PM
i'm planning on buying a 350d in the next couple of months, and i am still deciding over lenses.
i have a 35mm canon rebel with a 24-85mm lens (edit - i'm sorry! i have a 28-80mm lens) - would that still be okay on the xt, or should i go ahead and buy a new lens?
i'm planning on buying a 350d in the next couple of months, and i am still deciding over lenses.
i have a 35mm canon rebel with a 24-85mm lens - would that still be okay on the xt, or should i go ahead and buy a new lens?
Here's (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=6&sort=7&cat=27&page=1) some reviews of that lens. It should be better than the kit lens that you should forego.
A great alternative is the 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=3) if you want to move up in the world at a reasonable price.
One thing you should be aware of is that the sensor on the 350d is APC-S sized, slightly smaller than film. Accordingly, the 35mm film Effective Focal Length (known as 35-EFL) requires a 1.6 multiple. So a 28mm film lens mounted on the XT will have the same FOV as 44mm on a film camera. So your 24mm won't look like a 24mm any more. If you like that wide view, you'll need a different lens.
Is it the Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM? This one?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/78356878-M.jpg
If so it will be fine.
I see Vich already replied...with more info...:D
Edit: Saw your edit...time for an upgrade! Even though a lot of people are very critical of the EF-S 17-85 IS, it will produce results that you are acustomed to and give you a similar focal range coverage that you're use to and give you image stabilization in the bargin.
As you collect opinions, keep in mind, people generally tend to be overly critical on photo forums...
coldrain
06-28-2006, 01:31 PM
No, that 28-80 USM will NOT be ok on your 350D/XT. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a lens that is worse!!!
It really is that bad (I have a Rebel 2000 too, with same crap lens). You are much better off with the 18-55 kit lens.
saldiamond
06-28-2006, 02:19 PM
No, that 28-80 USM will NOT be ok on your 350D/XT. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a lens that is worse!!!
It really is that bad (I have a Rebel 2000 too, with same crap lens). You are much better off with the 18-55 kit lens.
wow...okay! based on everyone's replies, i WONT be using the 28-80. i'll probably be looking into buying the 24-85, 28-105 or the tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
thanks! :D
coldrain
06-28-2006, 02:26 PM
With the 18-55 kit lens you will have a lens that, on the 1.6x crop factor 350D/xt, has the same focal range as the 28-80 on your film rebel.
If you go for a 28-xxx lens, you will lose the wide end. So... if you do/did use the wide end, get either a lens that does go wide (Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma 18-50 f2.8, Tokina 16-50 f2.8), get the kit lens, or get a wide zoom like the Tokina 12-24 f4.
cdifoto
06-28-2006, 02:45 PM
If you're on a budget, I recommend getting the 18-55mm kit lens with the camera body since it won't add much to the price, and purchasing the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (please be sure to note the apertures!) at the same time. You'll be able to go as wide as you're already used to, plus get a little more length and versatility from a quality yet wallet friendly lens.
some guy
06-28-2006, 02:56 PM
i agree the 28-80 is pretty much bottom rung Canon lens. Well there's always the 35-80mm :rolleyes:
I respectfully disagree with cdi-ink to get that 28-105 if you are getting the kit lens. Too much focal range overlap. Might as well take that money and get a 70-300 Sigma APO DG Macro. Sure there's a 55-70mm gap, but that's easily remedied with taking two steps forward. :)
coldrain
06-28-2006, 03:24 PM
I do not disagree with cdi :p.
The 28-105 is a nicer lens, simple... And the kitlens will then just be used to fill in the 18-28mm part. Until you get a nicer wide angle solution.
cdifoto
06-28-2006, 03:46 PM
i agree the 28-80 is pretty much bottom rung Canon lens. Well there's always the 35-80mm :rolleyes:
I respectfully disagree with cdi-ink to get that 28-105 if you are getting the kit lens. Too much focal range overlap. Might as well take that money and get a 70-300 Sigma APO DG Macro. Sure there's a 55-70mm gap, but that's easily remedied with taking two steps forward. :)
The reason I suggest those two despite the overlap is exactly as coldy said above me...the kit would be for a 10mm filler only. It's cheap enough to not feel bad about that. Chances are when you're that wide you're doing landscapes and want to be stopped down anyway, which is where the kit lens can actually shine a bit. For general use you'd have the optically better, quieter and faster focusing, slightly wider aperture 28-105 which would get you a little longer quite nicely.
some guy
06-28-2006, 04:50 PM
I still respectfully disagree. Different opinions I suppose.
The reason I suggest those two despite the overlap is exactly as coldy said above me...the kit would be for a 10mm filler only. It's cheap enough to not feel bad about that. Chances are when you're that wide you're doing landscapes and want to be stopped down anyway, which is where the kit lens can actually shine a bit. For general use you'd have the optically better, quieter and faster focusing, slightly wider aperture 28-105 which would get you a little longer quite nicely.
i'm in the 28-105 camp too. that lens is cheap and pretty high quality at the same time. if you're going to be dropping the cash for a dslr and putting up with the bulk, might as well get better image quality for it. the kit lens is actually pretty decent for the super-low price and as others said, will be a good gap filler on the wide end or as a beater lens when going to places you wouldn't want to bring more expensive glass to.
not wanting to go into details again, i'd like to simply give the warning that many third party lenses have focusing issues on canon bodies. i seriously suggest researching this more or asking questions should you want to venture down the third party path.
aparmley
06-29-2006, 09:08 AM
"Don't. . . D-D-Dont-Don't. . . Don't believe the hype!"
:D
I'm going to go out on a line here and say - the 28-105 is a pretty good lens for the money - It has great range - However, I'd prefer that range to be something like 18-95 instead. . . just my opinion.
"Don't. . . D-D-Dont-Don't. . . Don't believe the hype!"
:D
I'm going to go out on a line here and say - the 28-105 is a pretty good lens for the money - It has great range - However, I'd prefer that range to be something like 18-95 instead. . . just my opinion.Which brings me back to the EF-S 17-85 IS...say what you will...there is no other lens with this coverage (and with IS mind you) and it is not half as bad as people try to make it out to be...and it would be fine for most people...maybe not the hyper-critical nerds that frequent this joint, agreed, but for most "normal" people...
coldrain
06-29-2006, 02:31 PM
Which brings me back to the EF-S 17-85 IS...say what you will...there is no other lens with this coverage (and with IS mind you) and it is not half as bad as people try to make it out to be...and it would be fine for most people...maybe not the hyper-critical nerds that frequent this joint, agreed, but for most "normal" people...
I very much disagree... it actually is quite a bad lens. What makes it so bad? internal reflections that put a haze over the whole picture, sucking the life out of colour, deminishing contrast, and even lacking in sharpness.
The kit lens performs better when stopped down. The 17-85 just is not a good lens, and yes, post processing can hide that to some extent.
I very much disagree... it actually is quite a bad lens. What makes it so bad? internal reflections that put a haze over the whole picture, sucking the life out of colour, deminishing contrast, and even lacking in sharpness.
The kit lens performs better when stopped down. The 17-85 just is not a good lens, and yes, post processing can hide that to some extent.You forgot to say in your opinion...;) Your statement is catagorical and is not backed-up by the majority of the reviews on FM.
Over on the FM site the EF-S 17-85 IS received an overall rating is 7.6 based on 153 reviews as of the time I wrote this. I would tend to put my faith in an overall good rating as determined by a large sampling of users rather than the opinion of one person (even if I respect that one opinion ;) ), thank you. The consensus is not bad by any means...in fact, it's quite good. The bottom line is, that the vast majority of people over there who have used this lens are happy with it...and felt it performed within expectations. And I would say that FM has a very high percentage of critical, finicky, picky people...
Everyone can feel free to read for themselves...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
There's a gigantic gulf between not being perfect and being "bad".
coldrain
06-29-2006, 04:25 PM
Not many lenses score LESS than 7.6 on fredmiranda. And if you ever see unpostprocessed pics on the 17-85 you will KNOW why it is such an unloved lens. Many real tests (not the (mostly silly) fredmiranda user "reviews") also show this lens is not that great. CA, no contrast due to that lovely haze, not overly sharp and yet quite expensive. Oh, and almost Nikon like distortion (as bad as that weird 18-70 kit from the D70(s) and 18-200 VR).
I recall Jeff Keller posting photos of the 30D, and someone complained how bad the 30D performed. I said it was performing fine, the culprit was the 17-85, and the photos were very consistent with that 17-85 (quite unimpressive, not to say quite crap).
Jeff then also tested with another lens. And the complainers were happy after that.
Most people here who actually have used that 17-85 will also tell you that it is quite a let down. It just is one of Canon's weakest lenses, and that is a shame.
No... not really a lens to recommend. The kit lens is preferable to get the wide end, and then for instance get that 28-105 f3.5-4.5.
Better in colour.
Better in contrast. (YAY, not that "haze" of the 17-85).
Better sharpness.
A LOT less distortion.
A LOT less money. In fact, the 28-105 + 18-55 leave you money to spend.
Just to keep you honest...;)
From the Photozone site (you do respect them, don't you?)
----------
"So at the end of the day the lens is a tad better than the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 but it can't really compete with the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L which offers a superior (corner) performance as well as build quality (for a few bucks more). The key feature of the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS remains in versatility. While this may sound a little sceptical I should note that I preferred the lens compared to other higher quality options during testing - it is simply a darn convenient lens and despite the flaws it can produce very decent images as you can see from the samples - at least with a little tool support."
----------
Like all super-geeks, he just couldn't keep himself from making an un-fair comparison to an "L" lens...only a complete MORON would expect a consumer lens to compete with an "L" lens.
And, BTW, who says this lens is expensive? Since when is $500.00 expensive for a lens?
coldrain
06-29-2006, 04:45 PM
Yes, i forgot photozone is the end all of all lens opinions. :rolleyes:
Lend that lens from a shop, make comparison pics with your Sigma. You will see what it does. Or just look critically at the pics posted by Jeff Keller. Or read other tests. Or as the people who had to dump it for even the 220$ EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5.
And the 17-85 is not a 500$ lens. Maybe some shop offers it that cheaply, but it is a more expensive lens.
And... 17-85mm f4-5.6
Compared to
28-105mm f3.5-4.5
What does that 28-105 cost again? Yes... the 17-85 is expensive.
Oh... and then I did not even mention the horrid vignetting wide open over the whole zoom range (and that is not very wide open with this lens), and still bad vignetting at 17mm when stopped down. Even the Tamron 18-200 does not vignet that crap. And that lens is about half the price, and about double the focal range.
aparmley
06-29-2006, 06:08 PM
I know what lens I'm buying coldy for X-mas! :D
Yes, i forgot photozone is the end all of all lens opinions. :rolleyes:
Lend that lens from a shop, make comparison pics with your Sigma. You will see what it does. Or just look critically at the pics posted by Jeff Keller. Or read other tests. Or as the people who had to dump it for even the 220$ EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5.
And the 17-85 is not a 500$ lens. Maybe some shop offers it that cheaply, but it is a more expensive lens.
And... 17-85mm f4-5.6
Compared to
28-105mm f3.5-4.5
What does that 28-105 cost again? Yes... the 17-85 is expensive.
Oh... and then I did not even mention the horrid vignetting wide open over the whole zoom range (and that is not very wide open with this lens), and still bad vignetting at 17mm when stopped down. Even the Tamron 18-200 does not vignet that crap. And that lens is about half the price, and about double the focal range.So let me make sure I understand this correctly...people who actually own and use the lens...their opinions don't count. Photozone, who actually bench tested the lens...their opinions don't count. O.K. So, whose opinion counts then? Oh, I'm terribly sorry, please forgive me, I forgot...yours does! :D
Hey, I know it's not a great lens. But for people looking for an alternative to a third party lens, it's the only one covering that range at an affordable price. Some people just getting started with this hobby don't have bags of money to throw around and, quite frankly, aren't at the stage where an "L" would make a hoot of difference in their results. For those people, there exists such a concept as "good enough". Judging from all of the photos I've seen posted on the net over the past couple of years...believe me...the lens is "good enough" for most of the people doing most of the posting!
And yes...the 28-105 crushes it into the ground...but 28mm is not wide at all on a 1.6x camera. But, ah you say...that's why they should get and keep the kit lens. But let's face it, are those same masses who will never (or should never) be a candidate for a $1000-plus lens ever going to be comfortable swapping lenses...even a bargin priced one? How many people (by people, I mean consumers ;) ) have you seen who NEVER buy any lens beside a kit lens...a heck of a lot of them, that's how many. The 17-85 is just a "super" kit lens. Nothing more. And nothing more is what the vast majority of people will ever need (heck, some of them probably should have never bought an SLR to begin with). That's all. It is a viable alternative for some. Maybe not for anyone here...but for some people good enough is good enough...
Hey...it's just another point-of-view...however invalid you may find it...
aparmley
06-29-2006, 07:10 PM
I'll stir a little - JTL style.
In My Opinion:
The 17-85IS joins the pot of lenses like the 50 1.8. . . and I'm sure there are others - maybe the Sigma 30 1.4 - This pot is for lenses where you either love the lens or you hate the lens. There are plenty of believers who use the 17-85 IS lens and love it - just as many have used it, returned it, sold it, and or burned it and will always recommend this lens be passed up. Its a controversial lens - hack off 30mm on the long end - make it a 17-55 3.5-4.5 IS lens - would it sell as good? nevermind the new to the market 17-55 2.8 IS. Probably not. This lens sells and attracts consumers because of its very useful range and its IS capabilities and to some that allows them to turn a blind eye to variable sub par image performance.
I will say this - 7.6 is a very low rating on FM. From my experience anything about 8.2 or so and above is worth looking at - Generally speaking.
i had this lens, and it was very poor optically. images looked hazy in contrast and unsharp. anybody remember when i posted a sample of the 28-135 and it looked fuzzy? well that 28-135 killed the 17-85 side by side. those fredmiranda reviews, well who knows what's going through the individual reviewers mind. just remember that this is a kit lens and therefore it will probably be reviewed by a lot of beginners who might not qualify/have enough experience to tell good from bad. as for the cost, well considering that it's EF-S and is worse optically than the $400 28-135 IS that that it is supposed to be based off of, yeah, it costs too much. i also found the comparison to the 17-40 valid enough. why? it's a canon USM lens with 17mm coverage and is close in price, at least at the time when that review was written. when i had the 17-85 and found it unsatisfactory, i was thinking, why do i have this thing when i can have an L for tiny bit more $$$? actually, when i bought the 17-40 it came with rebates and was exactly the same cost as the 17-85.
also don't forget that jamie, one of our newer members, and myself all dumped this lens very soon after purchase. IS IMO is pretty much a gimmick when the lens is this soft.
i still think 28-105 + kit lens is better than 17-85, not to mention being cheaper. better IQ from 28mm and a bit more reach. but hey, if switching between two lenses is too much for the user/buyer to handle then get whatever suits your needs.
to sum it all up, it's a softie, with low contrast. there are cheaper lenses with better optics and USM, but in a different range.
that's my opinion on the 17-85. if you don't like it, that's fine. but i have no interest in getting into an argument about it. it's my opinion and experiences after all. if i stated incorrect facts then that's a different story. other people's uses for this lens? i don't care - ain't gonna make me like this lens more if someone finds it to be a convenient range. if you don't or haven't owned the 17-85 then by all means get it and see for yourself if you want.
Whose arguing? 'm just representing an underpresented point of view...some of you guys seems to think that having another point of view means it's a fight! Jeeeezzzzzzz...stop taking yourselves so seriously...:D Excuse me but...remember...cameras...lenses...you know...you don't have to defend your "hills" with your lives...but the way some of you carry on...it's embarrassing!
Whose arguing? 'm just representing an underpresented point of view...some of you guys seems to think that having another point of view means it's a fight! Jeeeezzzzzzz
you and coldy were just having some very pleasant chit-chat. i see...
stop taking yourselves so seriously...:D Excuse me but...remember...cameras...lenses...you know...you don't have to defend your "hills" with your livesBbut the way some of you carry on...it's embarrassing!
you of all people are accusing others of taking themselves too seriously, defending posts like it's their lives and carrying on and on in a embarrassing way?????????? this is some kind of joke right?
you and coldy were just having some very pleasant chit-chat. i see...
you of all people are accusing others of taking themselves too seriously, defending posts like it's their lives and carrying on and on in a embarrassing way?????????? this is some kind of joke right?Cool down, Jackson! And try to remember that little line about "respect" in your signature line...
Once again, my point is that there are other opinions out there...but those get crapped on as if they don't count.
--------------------
For instance, Phil Askey over at dpreiveiw had this to say about the EF-S 17-85 "My personal favorite lens to use with the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) would be the very good EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS which provides big five times wide angle zoom and image stabilization"
I think it's important that if someone new at this hears opinions, than they ought to be hearing all opinions and that people shouldn't be attacking other opinions that ARE JUST AS VALID AS THEIRS....dare I say, even more so. No one says we have to agree. But, am I wrong to think we should, at the very least, attempt to acknowedge that there are other opinions?
I don't care squat about the lens. But someone looking for a lens in that range has a right to know about it and know that some people like it. Is that so hard to comprehend? Or are we suffereing from some form of I-know-more-than-you facisim here? In the end, it's not about the lens...it's about what kind of community this really is...
Cool down, Jackson! And try to remember that little line about "respect" in your signature line...
Once again, my point is that there are other opinions out there...but those get crapped on as if they don't count.
dude, i really hate when people get all worked up and then tell others to cool down. what kind of thinking is that? and that line in my sig about respect, that's as in don't disrespect other people for no good reason. if someone's gonna show disrespect, they shouldn't expected to get any.
you want to talk about everyone being able to give opinions? let's look back and see who started tossing insults around. well who is it? seriously, answer that. did i say anything insulting in my post or say anyone couldn't have their opinions? so why is the guy who's complaining about peoples' post being crapped on doing the same to my posts? this certainly isn't looking like a "let everyone talk" enviroment. JTL, i addressed what you said in your earlier posts, but when i gave my opinion did i address you directly at all? that would be NO. so what's this really all about?
and i don't get what's up when one does nonsense and then critisizes other people of doing the same.
well, unless something constructive comes results from this, i'm out. i'll leave the last word for whoever wants it.
Wow...BTW, it's called Zloft...
Wow...BTW, it's called Zloft...
I gave you the last word not expecting but hoping for more. But seeing how this was a debate of sorts I’ll have to take that insult of a reply you resorted to as you throwing in the towel. And don’t bother replying to that pm I sent you as I can imagine what it would say. After something like this, please don’t ever ask anyone for respect or site a lack of it.
Jeff Keller
07-02-2006, 09:40 AM
Can we stop arguing please? We're all adults here, right?
cdifoto
07-02-2006, 10:17 AM
We're all adults here, right?
Only in terms of staying out past midnight. :rolleyes: ;)
aparmley
07-02-2006, 10:27 AM
Only in terms of staying out past midnight. :rolleyes: ;)
uhhhhhh I can vote too. . . . Does that count? :p
24Peter
07-02-2006, 11:12 AM
uhhhhhh I can vote too. . . . Does that count? :p
I have a driver's license... umh but can't buy beer...:(
(Now Jeff's gonna tell us idiots to calm down too. :o )
aparmley
07-02-2006, 03:03 PM
I have a driver's license... umh but can't buy beer...:(
(Now Jeff's gonna tell us idiots to calm down too. :o )
LOL - Moms making stovetop tonight!
Ya you are probably right Pete - Sorry Jeff, its all in good fun.
Sorry to cause you concern, Jeff. Go enjoy the holiday...
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.