PDA

View Full Version : Interesting 18-55mm IS review @ photozone



droopy1592
11-24-2007, 10:14 PM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556is/index.htm


Has resolution better than most L lenses. Build quality sucks (relatively speaking)... vignetting and CAs aren't the greatest but the resolution is unbelieveable. Even the bokeh is gorgeous.

I bought a 28-105mm 3.5/4.5 to use as a walk around instead of the kit, but hell, I might sell it and buy this baby.

davephoto
11-25-2007, 02:08 AM
thanks for posting the link. i too find the review interesting. i wonder if this newly released 'kit' lens will cannibalize the sales of canon's more expensive 2.8, especially given the smaller size which may be favored by many. the copy of the 2.8 i use also has some serious vignetting occurring, although CA seems pretty well controlled.







.

droopy1592
11-25-2007, 03:59 AM
thanks for posting the link. i too find the review interesting. i wonder if this will newly released 'kit' lens will cannibalize the sales of canon's more expensive 2.8, especially given the smaller size which may be favored by many. the copy of the 2.8 i use also has some serious vignetting occurring, although CA seems pretty well controlled.







.

At about 1/5th the street price, I think it will.

fractalgfx
11-25-2007, 06:39 AM
thanks for posting the link. i too find the review interesting. i wonder if this will newly released 'kit' lens will cannibalize the sales of canon's more expensive 2.8, especially given the smaller size which may be favored by many. the copy of the 2.8 i use also has some serious vignetting occurring, although CA seems pretty well controlled.

I doubt it. On a lens that wide, I find f/2.8 to be a much bigger selling point than IS.

droopy1592
11-25-2007, 06:43 AM
The 2.8 is not worth the additional $700-800 to some people. Folks that take mostly outside shots would probably settle for it and save a lot of dough rather than get the constant 2.8.

fractalgfx
11-25-2007, 08:34 AM
The 2.8 is not worth the additional $700-800 to some people. Folks that take mostly outside shots would probably settle for it and save a lot of dough rather than get the constant 2.8.

You make it sound as if IS is worth an additional $700-800 to some people. By your reasoning, there must be a lot of people who would have spent an extra $700-800 dollars for an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, if the 2.8 was not an option. I seriously doubt anyone would buy a slow lens in that price range, but a lot of photographers are willing to spend money for a non stabilized f/2.8 . The Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 is more expensive than the Canon f/2.8 and does not have stabilization. Both Tamron and Sigma have popular non stabilized lenses in this range.

I think the new lens is going to become a popular upgrade for the kit lens. But I can't imagine many people downgrading from the f/2.8.

droopy1592
11-25-2007, 10:10 AM
I didn't say anything about IS in my last post. They both have IS. The question is whether or not people will pay 700 or 800 more for a lens with better (arguable, with all the complaints about dust) build quality and a constant 2.8 aperture.

The other poster said he wondered if these units would cannabalize the 17-55mm 2.8, and I said I think it would because if you can get the same IQ for much less, forego the constant aperture and difference in build quality, then why not. I didn't imply people would pay 700-800 more for the 18-55mm, my statment focused on the fact that people may rather buy the 18-55mm IS INSTEAD of the 17-55mm IS and save that 700-800 bucks, possibly buying another lens instead of focusing on the 2.8 constant ap.

24Peter
11-25-2007, 10:47 AM
Hmmm... very impressive resolution for a kit lens. Which camera(s) does it come with? 400D?

coldrain
11-25-2007, 11:03 AM
Hmmm... very impressive resolution for a kit lens. Which camera(s) does it come with? 400D?
No camera yet, it was too late for the 40D which comes with the odd 28-135mm "kit" lens.

Probably the 450D in february?

michaelb
11-27-2007, 06:20 PM
Here it is on Amazon for $187 shipped!!

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1196216258&sr=8-1

I disagree with many of the above comments. For me, IS is more valuable than a fixed f/2.8 since I shoot primarily landscapes, often handheld with filters.

This lens will likely compete with the 17-85 IS. The 17-85 costs more ($500) and according to Photozone the IQ of the 18-55 IS is better.

"Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor!"

Many people want/need a fixed f/2.8 lens so I don't think it will compete with the 17-55 IS so much.

I saw this review yesterday and it has made me think. I don't really need a fixed f/2.8 lens, but I do want IS. I considered the 17-85 IS, but this lens has its issues. This build quality of this new 18-55 IS likely leaves much to be desired and I don't like the fact that the front element rotates while focusing, but for under $200 its really hard to beat.

cdr116
11-27-2007, 08:31 PM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556is/index.htm

I bought a 28-105mm 3.5/4.5 to use as a walk around instead of the kit, but hell, I might sell it and buy this baby.

Are you not very happy with that 28-105? Because I think i'm going to buy one real soon...

That is an interesting review, I was wondering about that lens for a while...

And I still hate the focus on the 18-55mm, is the new IS version supposed to have faster focus? I wish it was USM and not the tiny little ring...

Gintaras
11-28-2007, 02:27 AM
I would not rely on photozone.de review only, so I checked other sites and read the opinions. And it looks like this 18-55IS lens is a good lens. People seem to like it.

However I find the comparison against L lenses ridiculous. I cannot believe a cheapo lens would beat L lens unless you hear this from a complete newbie who has no idea how to use his L lens and then suddenly jumps up.

I also cannot agree that old non-IS kit lens is a junk, at least I was able to take good pictures with it. So probably difference is not huge, but noticeable. The biggest selling point as it looks is image stabilizer, which is fair comparing price tags of 18-55 IS and older kit non-IS, you pay about 100$ difference for IS. Built quality seems nothing spectacular, same as the old cheapo.

One chap on the lens forum posted samples taken with new 18-55IS and I did not like them, most probably because this chap is a poor photographer, at least I am able to take better images with the old cheapo. So I would not accept his boasting about the new lens. There are other people also posting funny things. However I agree with some who say you cannot compare 18-55IS to 17-55IS or to 24-70L, completely agree.

So IMO the new 18-55IS is a good deal for entry level users and dummies like me. Those who have their old cheapo may like to think about the new lens if they need IS, otherwise the point of getting just another cheapo is not clear as optically the old cheapo is not that much worse IMO.

NB: photozone.de may be a good site but I would not trust one source.

coldrain
11-28-2007, 02:32 AM
Photozone.de tested a bad sample of the 18-55 kit lens, and that is why many people are also so negative about it (because they read that review only). For a kit lens the 18-55 is actually quite good.

And the new 18-55 IS is imporved... so it indeed it a bargain.

Gintaras
11-28-2007, 02:36 AM
I might sell my 28-105/3.5-4.5 II USM soon too (it’s only 5 months old!!!) BUT… for a different reason.

I like my 28-105 a lot for very nice images if you learn how to pull them. In any case there is no lens that would take nice images automatically, so photographer skills are most important.

Now why I would sell 28-105? BECAUSE of its range. This lens was a good learning tool for me concerning the range. And I found out that on 1.6x crop a 28 is tooooooo narrow for me, on the other hand 105 is tooooooo short for me. So its range for me became a serious obstacle. For exactly the same reason I will not get 24-105L IS, because of its similar range which is of little use for my purpose. My ideal range would be 10-22 and 70-300, and may be one universal fast standard zoom in between like 17-55IS.

However I must say from quality issue both the cheapo kit (non-IS) and 28-105 are darn good lenses, the 28-105 is nicer built and has a tad better optics, but do not expect it to be an L lens.

Gintaras
11-28-2007, 02:43 AM
coldy, fully agree with you. to me the new 18-55IS looks like an improvement over the old kit lens but this is not L lens (like some dummies claim) and this will not change anyone's images unless a photogrpaher is willing to learn.

personally for me the biggest selling point of new 18-55 is <IS>.

as for photozone.de one must be carefull. i read it somewhere on photo forum two guys talking bad about photozone.de saying this gives least professional and accurate lens reviews. i am not an expert on this so would not say anything.

coldrain
11-28-2007, 03:59 AM
I find photozone.de the most reliable test source on the internet, but you have to be careful anyway, and not take it as a single source that is always right.

And the testing is of course a bit limited too... for instance, you will not know about the contrast and colour of a lens.

fractalgfx
11-28-2007, 07:54 AM
From a statistics standpoint, using the test results from one lens is a bad idea. I think the photozone tests are the best available, but there is no substitute for testing multiple copies of the same lens.

I really don't want to get into statistics theory, but even though the test results from one lens review are statistically unreliable, the photozone site (as a whole) can still be a statistically reliable source of information.

Despite its flaws, photozone is the best resource for people interested in technical performance.

erichlund
11-28-2007, 09:28 AM
I know this is a Canon thread, but I'd still like to add my 2 cents. There's more to the quality of a well built lens than physical resolution or simple build quality. I can't say that this new lens doesn't have some exceptional qualities, but if you are comparing it to a lens that is $700-$800 more, you should look at overall image quality. How's the color reproduction and contrast? How does it handle subtle skin tones? How's the bokeh when you actually compare photos from both? The value in high priced lenses is in how they get the last little details better, and that is what the pros pay for.

I'm certain that the new 18-55 is a great little lens. I'm also certain that if I really wanted top quality, and I was told this would give it, I would be skeptical enough to test both for myself.

Oops, I see coldrain already covered some of that.

gilly
11-28-2007, 09:33 AM
well I think I'm going to go for it.

I've got that gap in my kit I've always wanted to fill as a general walk around lens: 10-22 / ... / 50 / 70-200

10-22 seems too wide at times, 50mm is great at what it does (especially for the bucks) but I like the flexibility of a zoom lens just as a general walk around, thing is - I'm not sure if I'd really get the use out of one if that makes sense? So I figure this is a cheap and cheerful lens to see if this range is the sweet spot I need to fill. I would have picked up an 18-55 by now if the optics were better, but I'm not wasting money on something 90% of users say is 'average'

IF the optics in the IS version aren't that great but I love the range of this lens, - I won't hesitate to upgrade to the likes of a 17-40L or a 17-55.
IF I don't get the use out of it I thought I would, I've only blown 85 which is peanuts in the world of glass as we all know.

Once it's landed, stay tuned for test shots vs 10-22 and 50mm 1.8 MK1 on the 30D.

Gintaras
11-28-2007, 10:13 AM
gilly, if money not an issue why not get 17-55IS, which is sharp, fast and gets excellent reviews/opinions. a 17-40L is a superb lowly priced L lens, but this is not fast (F4) and it lacks IS. 18-55IS looks very nice, but is not F2.8, plus rotating front element means problem with polarizer. anyway, this is a personal choice. 17-55 is also a tad longer than 17-40.

however if you need not wide angle then why not 24-105L or 24-70L? 24-105 has longer range to 55, is L lens and has IS. 24-70 is L lens without IS but offers f2.8 through the whole range. both would come approx in the same price league as 17-55IS, 24-70 probably would be most expensive, 24-105L would be very close to 17-55IS.

it all depends on the range and speed.

Gintaras
11-28-2007, 10:21 AM
I find photozone.de the most reliable test source on the internet, but you have to be careful anyway, and not take it as a single source that is always right.

And the testing is of course a bit limited too... for instance, you will not know about the contrast and colour of a lens.

coldy, may be i used a wrong wording. i suggest photozone.de is a good source, otherwise i would not attach a link to this in my signature. what i meant is: a) i would use mutiple sources instead of using just a single source b) i read some guys are critical about photozone.de reviews PS: i just acted as a messanger in this case, so please do not kill the messanger. :rolleyes:

gilly
11-28-2007, 10:29 AM
gilly, if money not an issue why not get 17-55IS, which is sharp, fast and gets excellent reviews/opinions. a 17-40L is a superb lowly priced L lens, but this is not fast (F4) and it lacks IS. 18-55IS looks very nice, but is not F2.8, plus rotating front element means problem with polarizer. anyway, this is a personal choice. 17-55 is also a tad longer than 17-40.

however if you need not wide angle then why not 24-105L or 24-70L? 24-105 has longer range to 55, is L lens and has IS. 24-70 is L lens without IS but offers f2.8 through the whole range. both would come approx in the same price league as 17-55IS, 24-70 probably would be most expensive, 24-105L would be very close to 17-55IS.

it all depends on the range and speed.

Money is not an issue for something I'll use, money IS an issue for something that's possibly going to gather dust. This lens is a fraction of the cost of the other two I mentioned. If I like it, I'll upgrade to one of the other two. Until then I've got some cash to put towards other things like a good tripod and a speedlite.

In my case, money better spent.

Rhys
11-28-2007, 12:09 PM
It sounds an interesting lens BUT I would question whether one should rely solely upon reviews. I don't think a lens should ever be recommended by anybody unless they own that lens and have compared it to others in the same class.

DonSchap
11-28-2007, 12:32 PM
Let's look at the facts and just interpret from them:


It's relatively cheap (meaning ... it's no thousand doller piece of glass. Where else you going to get IS at this price, other than SONY, Pentax or Olympus?)
It covers the range you normally need (18-55mm pretty much gets it done)
How much do you lose by using it, if the images are decent? (This is always subjective, but hey ... it's under $200!)


I don't know how they are doing it , but the IS-difference in other lenses should drop like a rock in lieu of this. If not, something is definitely screwy.

Rhys
11-28-2007, 01:23 PM
Given that IS is now a well established mechanism which should be pretty similar for all lenses then I reckon the unit cost can only fall from here onwards. Remember how expensive aperture priority cameras were when they first came out, compared to the good old manual cameras? Same thing will happen here as happened with digital cameras - as soon as the development costs were recouped, prices plummeted. Who now would pay $1,000 for a VGA digital camera? Heck, they could be falling out of cereal boxes now, for all I know.

DonSchap
11-28-2007, 01:55 PM
Don't you remember when ... the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 came inside the cracker-jack box? I know I have that post around here, somewhere. LOL :D Heck, I tried giving mine away and "Ten-D" refused me, because it wouldn't mount on his camera. Then ... to beat it all ... the wife tosses it out as garbage. Geez ... that woman has an eye for glass. I had to hide the SAL 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 ... or it was going next!

31076

"Strike a pose" for what's in VOGUE, these days, I guess. :cool:

fractalgfx
11-28-2007, 06:24 PM
I don't know how they are doing it , but the IS-difference in other lenses should drop like a rock in lieu of this. If not, something is definitely screwy.

I wish this was true, I think we will see a lot of low end IS lenses, but I don't think that price drops are in store for the rest of Canon's lineup. Cheap IS lenses are more appealing to new users, that to serious amateurs who are heavily invested in the EOS system. I am not suggesting that these lenses will not appeal to serious amatuers, but new users are much more likely to buy into a brand offering cheaper IS.

Canon suffers from too much corporate elitism. With the attitude of "We are #1, everyone has to compete with us", they don't have much motivation to change until they see a sudden drop in sales.

This is one of the reasons I didn't buy a Sony A100. Sony is the snobbiest corporation around. Sony has a lot of amazing products, but with an attitude of "We are Sony, Everyone buys Sony, There is only Sony", Sony has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on products that nobody has any interest it. Look at how Sony marketed the A100, when it first came out. A100 doesn't come close to Canon and Nikon's pro models, but Sony came out with $2000+ lenses to legitimize the A100 as a pro camera.

I think a widespread drop in IS costs is in the distant future. Eventually Sigma and Tamron will have IS across their entire product ranges or Sony will gain enough market share that Canon will have to find a new way to keep people from 3rd parties.

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised when Nikon decides to add in body IS. That is a move Canon could not ignore.

I have no idea if it is remotely possible, but maybe someone will come out with a stabilizing teleconvertor.

DonSchap
11-28-2007, 08:55 PM
The problem with your IS-equipped T/C, much like the extension tube ... that you are pushing the lens away from the camera body and affecting infinity focus. That is a major negative, when you cannot clearly focus on an object a mere 20-feet away! If you don't believe this, ask someone who uses a FD/EOS EF converter, to make use of old Canon glass. At 27 feet ... the image fades to fuzz. That's pretty annoying out of a nice FD 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Most long reach lenses are designed to work on their own and have no slop in focus at the far end. You add a T/C of any kind and you've ruined your distant focus ... until you remove it. It is what it is (believe me, I have had extensive experience with this problem and have the fuzzy aircraft images to prove it.). :rolleyes:

So anything that will change the distance in the camera's lens mount to the back of the lens will have to really be optically compensated for, with more than just a "shaker box." It would be tricky ... depending on the glass you hang on the front of it. EF-S lens rear element distances are far different than EF lenses elements. They would have to be conpensated for, also.

No, to be honest, only in-the-body is the most practical way to give IS to non-IS glass. It does a fair job on the SONY ... and while it may still not be as good as in-the-lens ... it is, at least, somewhat of an improvement over, say ... nothing at all? Well ... is it or is it not?

Okay, the argument stands: IS is better than no IS.

Gosh, that was simple.

31082

coldrain
11-29-2007, 02:05 AM
Many problems with in-body IS, and you know that Don... try to just be informative?

You can NOT use a teleconvertor with an in-body IS design, since the camera then does not know the correct focal length. And different focal lengths will need more or less correction... a TC is too close to the camera to be able to do its job with tele focal lengths.

And while we are on the subject of focal length... we also know some lenses have HUGE differences in focal length when focusing far away, and up close. Like the 18-200 and 18-250 super zooms. This WILL mean that the IS compensation with in-body IS will be a lot less accurate.

And then there is the problem that you can not have in-body IS with a full frame sensor. The sensor in your A100 and A700 already is able to move 5mm each side. That will mean that the full frame sensor would disappear out of the image circle.

And then the problem that with increasing focal length the in-body IS will get less efficient... a lot of technical reasons for Canon and Nikon to choose for in-lens IS, where you can design the IS "unit" specifically for the lens characteristics and focal lengths.

Anyway, this is now very off-topic...

The 18-55 IS seems to be a quite impressive lens for the price, and it is nice to see it performs a lot better than that 17-85 f4-5.6 IS lens that was the IS alternative in this focal range till now.

Rooz
11-29-2007, 02:29 AM
so let me get this straight....a new kit lens with IS that has eye popping sharpness and is gonna be around $200 and has IS...

what exactly is there to be skeptical about again ?? :confused:

coldrain
11-29-2007, 02:34 AM
so let me get this straight....a new kit lens with IS that has eye popping sharpness and is gonna be around $200 and has IS...

what exactly is there to be skeptical about again ?? :confused:
Maybe just that the new Nikon 18-55 VR may equal the sharpness and do even better in CA? :D
At least this Canon 18-55 incarnation seems to have improved a lot in contrast (where the Nikon was better).

cwphoto
11-29-2007, 06:30 AM
I didn't say anything about IS in my last post. They both have IS. The question is whether or not people will pay 700 or 800 more for a lens with better (arguable, with all the complaints about dust) build quality and a constant 2.8 aperture.

The other poster said he wondered if these units would cannabalize the 17-55mm 2.8, and I said I think it would because if you can get the same IQ for much less, forego the constant aperture and difference in build quality, then why not. I didn't imply people would pay 700-800 more for the 18-55mm, my statment focused on the fact that people may rather buy the 18-55mm IS INSTEAD of the 17-55mm IS and save that 700-800 bucks, possibly buying another lens instead of focusing on the 2.8 constant ap.

I can't see this new lens eating into sales of the 17-55/2.8 at all really. The lenses are pitched at two very different markets IMO.

cwphoto
11-29-2007, 06:35 AM
The problem with your IS-equipped T/C, much like the extension tube ... that you are pushing the lens away from the camera body and affecting infinity focus. That is a major negative, when you cannot clearly focus on an object a mere 20-feet away! If you don't believe this, ask someone who uses a FD/EOS EF converter, to make use of old Canon glass. At 27 feet ... the image fades to fuzz. That's pretty annoying out of a nice FD 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Most long reach lenses are designed to work on their own and have no slop in focus at the far end. You add a T/C of any kind and you've ruined your distant focus ... until you remove it. It is what it is (believe me, I have had extensive experience with this problem and have the fuzzy aircraft images to prove it.). :rolleyes:

So anything that will change the distance in the camera's lens mount to the back of the lens will have to really be optically compensated for, with more than just a "shaker box." It would be tricky ... depending on the glass you hang on the front of it. EF-S lens rear element distances are far different than EF lenses elements. They would have to be conpensated for, also.

No, to be honest, only in-the-body is the most practical way to give IS to non-IS glass. It does a fair job on the SONY ... and while it may still not be as good as in-the-lens ... it is, at least, somewhat of an improvement over, say ... nothing at all? Well ... is it or is it not?

Okay, the argument stands: IS is better than no IS.

Gosh, that was simple.

31082

Newsflash Don: TCs retain infinity focus.

Maybe it was your eyes. :cool:

Rhys
11-29-2007, 06:45 AM
What everybody forgets is that even the cheapest crappiest lens can be used to take phenomenal photos.

Now a note about build quality...

When AF lenses came in, in the 1990s, most of us in the SLR world were horrified at the appalling build quality - plastic lenses that wobbled and focussed past infinity. That quality has not changed much since then. The lenses are still plastic and flimsy. Flimsy like bugs in MS O/Ss has become the norm. Compare a good solid MF lens with a metal body against the plastic AF crap we have today and you'll see a huge difference.

As far as IS, AF, USM and fast glass are concerned, the more options the better.

I do find modern lenses can in many instances be sharper but then everybody demands pixel-perfection of digital images that we never used to demand of film images.

What we're paying for with faster glass, IS, USM and AF is more latitude. We have more room to make minor errors without them showing up badly. With IS we can now take hand-held photos at speeds that would have necessitated a tripod or some other support. With AF we can in many instances focus faster than manual although AF can fail on low-contrast subjects. With faster glass we have better quality glass. Better quality glass means better pictures. Nobody can tell me that the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 is as good as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or even the 70-200 f4 when it's wide open. When they're all stopped down to f8 or f11 the results should be about the same. What we pay for with faster glass is better images when the lens is wide open. We also pay for a wider aperture but here's the rub - depth of field reduces and that means that for close-up portraits it might not be exactly what's needed.

As far as the new IS kit lens is concerned, I would not be surprised to find it is of better quality but the main problem with the old kit lens was mostly that it was so slow that it needed to be on a tripod to get really sharp results. IS gives you a tripod on every lens up to a point.

coldrain
11-29-2007, 07:02 AM
Nobody can tell me that the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 is as good as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or even the 70-200 f4 when it's wide open.
Ok, if nobody can tell you, I will not tell you that. (Even though the 70-300 IS is sharper wide open than the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4.)

And what all this has to do with the 18-55 f3.5-4.5 IS? I have no clue.
It just is a better lens than that disappointing 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, and for less than half the money!

It is a very good lens for the price... simple.

DonSchap
11-29-2007, 07:08 AM
Newsflash Don: TCs retain infinity focus.

Maybe it was your eyes. :cool:

(Shielding eyes from NewsFLASH burns ...)

Don't make me come down there, CW, and miss all this "single-digit" cold & snow (oh, I have a particular digit for the snow, believe me) ... I can ship the T/Cs involved and the matching lenses it is happening on, so you can fall off your chair when you prove it to yourself, as long as you pop for the shipping IF I am correct.

No ... it's not much fun to be shooting your 200-500mm f/5-6.3 ... and throw on a 2x TC, to get a 400-1000mm shot and find yourself unable to clearly focus after a subject-distance of only 27 feet, due to the mechanical stops of the lens ... it just ... can't ... quite ... twist ... to the right focal length to correct for the T/C.

Or ... to try the same stunt with a 200-500mm f/6.9 Adaptall2 lens ... throw on the special Adaptall2 2x T/C and wham ... the very same problem ... loss of infinity focus. I mean, c'mon ... the Adaptall2 product was designed for use on Adaptall2 lenses. Really surprised me, too. Extending the focal length of that particular lens was the whole reason I purchased the Adaptall2 T/C and subsequently spent $45 to get it cleaned and ready for use.

Just for some real fun, I had some particularly brilliant light, one day, across the river from my favorite eagle perch, and tried stacking my Canon-mount T/Cs (1.4x + 2.0x) on the 200mm-500mm f/5-6.3 Superzoom ... and lined up the shot ... attempted to focus ... (yes, I know we're effectively at a base aperture of f/11 ... but if anything, that should have helped sharpen the image) got to the mechanical stops of the lens and ... wouldn't you know it, still out of focus. It would have been one heck of a tripod shot at ... let's do the math ... 2 x 1.4 x 500mm = 1400mm. Well, it turned out to be only "fuzzy" math. :rolleyes:

Hey, it may not happen on all lenses, but on the ones (zooms) I'd really like to extend, to grab some real reach ... for which I do not want to have to buy a telescope, it's just not possible. The T/Cs are usless.

It's a difficult argument, to be sure ... and, of course - as always - YMMV. A real bowl of gumbo and not what I had anticipated, to be sure. :confused:

On of the aspects of the higher-end Canon lenses is that all the mechanical focus takes place INSIDE the lens. THe focus ring break free when you get to the end of the line ... the TAMRON lens does not. The mechanical stops may not apply, whereas with the TAMRON ... the manual lens stops are really where it stops and it physically can go no further. The lens actually changes its outer physical length as this happens and that may be the very restriction I am fighting, here. It is designed to just go so far and no further, despite the focus need. The Canon lenses have apparently accounted for this need when using a T/C and have allowed the lens to exceed the normal focus restriction of just using the lens alone. Kind of makes you woinder, if you added enough T/Cs to the lens, the focus adjustment would wind itself right off the end of the screw.

You know what, forget I said anything ... and let the buffalo chips fall where they may. :cool:

cwphoto
11-29-2007, 07:17 AM
Don't make me come down there, CW, and miss all this "single-digit" cold & snow (oh, I have a particular digit for the snow, believe me) ... I can ship the T/Cs involved and the matching lenses it is happening on, so you can fall off your chair when you prove it to yourself, as long as you pop for the shipping IF I am correct.

No ... it's not much fun to be shooting your 200-500mm f/5-6.3 ... and throw on a 2x TC, to get a 400-1000mm shot and find yourself unable to clearly focus after a subject-distance of only 27 feet, due to the mechanical stops of the lens ... it just ... can't ... quite ... twist ... to the right focal length to correct for the T/C.

Or ... to try the same stunt with a 200-500mm f/6.9 Adaptall2 lens ... throw on the special Adaptall2 2x T/C and wham ... the very same problem ... loss of infinity focus. I mean, c'mon ... the Adaptall2 product was designed for use on Adaptall2 lenses. Really surprised me, too. Extending the focal length of that particular lens was the whole reason I purchased the Adaptall2 T/C and subsequently spent $45 to get it cleaned and ready for use.

Just for some real fun, I had some particularly brilliant light, one day, across the river from my favorite eagle perch, and tried stacking my Canon-mount T/Cs (1.4x + 2.0x) on the 200mm-500mm f/5-6.3 Superzoom ... and lined up the shot ... attempted to focus ... (yes, I know we're effectively at a base aperture of f/11 ... but if anything, that should have helped sharpen the image) got to the mechanical stops of the lens and ... wouldn't you know it, still out of focus. It would have been one heck of a tripod shot at ... let's do the math ... 2 x 1.4 x 500mm = 1400mm. Well, it turned out to be only "fuzzy" math. :rolleyes:

Hey, it may not happen on all lenses, but on the ones (zooms) I'd really like to extend, to grab some real reach ... for which I do not want to have to buy a telescope, it's just not possible.

It's a difficult argument, to be sure ... and, of course - as always - YMMV. A real bowl of gumbo and not what I had anticipated, to be sure. :confused:

You know what, forget I said anything ... and let the buffalo chips fall where they may. :cool:

Well I can't speak for that cheap-shit gear. Buy something that is designed properly and you'll see.

cwphoto
11-29-2007, 07:18 AM
(Even though the 70-300 IS is sharper wide open than the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4.)

Not in my experience.

coldrain
11-29-2007, 07:30 AM
Not in my experience.
You "experienced" the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM?
I did (my sister has it), and at f4/5.6 it is a bit sharper than my 70-200 f4 L USM at f4. (Not the 70-200 f4 L IS version :p)
And also sharper than the f2.8 wide open.

Also according to tests... so yes, I do think wide open the 70-300 is as sharp or even sharper wide open.
(for instance ColorFoto resolution/contrast test results)

Rhys
11-29-2007, 07:32 AM
the 70-300 IS is sharper wide open than the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4.

I would like to see proof of this!

cwphoto
11-29-2007, 07:37 AM
You "experienced" the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM?
I did (my sister has it), and at f4/5.6 it is a bit sharper than my 70-200 f4 L USM at f4. (Not the 70-200 f4 L IS version :p)
And also sharper than the f2.8 wide open.

Also according to tests... so yes, I do think wide open the 70-300 is as sharp or even sharper wide open.
(for instance ColorFoto resolution/contrast test results)

My Mother has this lens. It's surprisingly sharp, and maybe in some test somewhere it has done alright - but reality is that the pictures look better from the Ls.

DonSchap
11-29-2007, 07:37 AM
Well I can't speak for that cheap-shit gear. Buy something that is designed properly and you'll see.

Uh ... don't you think that is kind of an elitest viewpoint to be taking? Obviously not.

Okay ... everybody pony up the thousands of dollars to invest in high-end long-range glass. Heck, most of the people on this forum are scraping to buy a simple DSLR and one of the cheapest lenses out there. (shaking head)

My photography may be using middle-of-the-road elements, but I am keeping it REAL. I'm not about tossing the $50,000 that you have, at it. We need to rachet that down a tad. That can make a tremendous difference in not only your experience with the gear (because most luxury car drivers don't change their own tires).

Whatever ... this infinity focus loss happens and people who consider these lenses should know about it.

coldrain
11-29-2007, 07:38 AM
I would like to see proof of this!
I would like to see a good wedding photo from you too.

If you want to know how sharp the different lenses are and "want proof of that", why do you not use the medium of internet to find out?

Anyway... you won't let anyone tell you, so I was not telling you. So why ask for proof of something never told?;)

coldrain
11-29-2007, 07:41 AM
My Mother has this lens. It's surprisingly sharp, and maybe in some test somewhere it has done alright - but reality is that the pictures look better from the Ls.
The bokeh of my 70-200 f4 is better, for sure. And that certain L-ness that is hard to grasp too. But it was about sharpness wide open, though.
The 70-300 IS is a very good lens optically anyway, as you have noticed.

michaelb
11-29-2007, 07:41 AM
With IS we can now take hand-held photos at speeds that would have necessitated a tripod or some other support...IS gives you a tripod on every lens up to a point.

IS for me is a crucial component of my next lens purchase. IS and excellent sharpness for < $200; very tempting. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens, but most of the time I shoot at f/8 for landscapes, so the f/2.8 would be unused much of the time.

coldrain
11-29-2007, 07:43 AM
Don, just because you have bought some verrrry weird and wrong tele convertor does not mean that TCs lose you infinity focus.
I have a very cheap (or rather, affordable) 1.7x TC, and it works fine... no "infinity focus loss". Or is having a $100 TC also "elitist"?

That is the same as me saying AF lenses do not work on a Canon EOS camera, just because I have an old broken 75-300 lens from Sigma that does not AF on my Canon EOS cameras....

Why did TCs pop up in this thread anyway??

cwphoto
11-29-2007, 07:44 AM
Uh ... don't you think that is kind of an elitest viewpoint to be taking? Obviously not.

Okay ... everybody pony up the thousands of dollars to invest in high-end long-range glass. Heck, most of the people on this forum are scraping to buy a simple DSLR and one of the cheapest lenses out there. (shaking head)

My photography may be using middle-of-the-road elements, but I am keeping it REAL. I'm not about tossing the $50,000 that you have, at it. We need to rachet that down a tad. That can make a tremendous difference in not only your experience with the gear (because most luxury car drivers don't change their own tires).

Whatever ... this infinity focus loss happens and people who consider these lenses should know about it.

Gees Don, you can get into the game with any mid-range non-zoom and decent TC at under USD1k: eg; 200/2.8 II and 1.4x II.

And that combo will really sing - guaranteed.

Strapping a 2x onto an f/6.3 super-zoom is asking for trouble.

Rhys
11-29-2007, 07:44 AM
I would like to see a good wedding photo from you too.

If you want to know how sharp the different lenses are and "want proof of that", why do you not use the medium of internet to find out?

Anyway... you won't let anyone tell you, so I was not telling you. So why ask for proof of something never told?;)

I challenged you to produce proof for your statement. I did not ask to be insulted about something that's none of your business.

I produce proof of the 70-200 being better than the 70-300

70-200 F4 L (non IS)

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photogr...00_F4L_Top.htm

Canon 70-300 IS

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photogr...300_IS_Top.htm

Rhys
11-29-2007, 07:47 AM
IS for me is a crucial component of my next lens purchase. IS and excellent sharpness for < $200; very tempting. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens, but most of the time I shoot at f/8 for landscapes, so the f/2.8 would be unused much of the time.

I'm not that keen on very fast lenses myself as they're hardly ever used wide open. Myself, I'd rather get a good lens that produces excellent images at f5.6-f8 and save the money that I'd otherwise spend on fast glass. For people and portraits there's no getting away from f2.8 though.

DonSchap
11-29-2007, 09:25 AM
Look, just buy the $200 IS-equipped "kit" toy and be done with it. I don't rightly recall the T/C issue, but regardless ... there are problems in places.

This almost seems annoying to be debating such a low-cost lens solution. If it works -> fine ... if it doesn't -> the nearest refuse receptical. You just might find my old one in there. :eek:

Moving on ... :rolleyes:

chardog
11-29-2007, 11:51 AM
IS for me is a crucial component of my next lens purchase. IS and excellent sharpness for < $200; very tempting. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens, but most of the time I shoot at f/8 for landscapes, so the f/2.8 would be unused much of the time.

you dont need IS, you need a tripod ;)

Personally, I only see any type of IS useful over 80mm range. Anything under that is just a waste of time.

coldrain
11-29-2007, 12:08 PM
you dont need IS, you need a tripod ;)

Personally, I only see any type of IS useful over 80mm range. Anything under that is just a waste of time.
Why? You never ever need longer exposure times at shorter focal lengths?

Maybe you think museums are a waste of time too ;)

chardog
11-29-2007, 12:14 PM
I just dont get much shake @ 50 and below.... then again, I'm not doing handheld 1/8's.

I'm sure the 18-55 IS is good for some folks, but I'd tell them to save up for a faster lens and/or flash.

adam75south
11-29-2007, 12:34 PM
now this is what i need to take to the grand canyon with me. just cheap enough where i wouldn't CRY if i broke it!!!!! and sharp too! now i just need to find a used xt.

DonSchap
11-29-2007, 12:48 PM
You know how I can tell I have shake? You look through the viewfinder ... and there is that little center rectangle, which I put right on a contrasty spot on my subject ... and if it is still sitting there, after I press the shutter release ... I've got me one fine photo. If not ... shot #2 ... #3 ... okay, get me a prop. :cool:

I know I've posted 1/15ths ... using IS at 200mm ... that still have motion in them. It's a pain ... not every shot will stabilize. That's why I suggest you don't count on it. It's nice when it works ... but, when it doesn't ... a lot of time and images go away.

Novices tend to not do this ... because they are not conditioned to, but USE that built in LCD magnifier button

31099
31100

and save yourself some reshoots. ;)

Rooz
11-29-2007, 12:53 PM
I just dont get much shake @ 50 and below.... then again, I'm not doing handheld 1/8's.

I'm sure the 18-55 IS is good for some folks, but I'd tell them to save up for a faster lens and/or flash.

is it as useful as on a telephoto ? no. is it needed at shorter focal lengths ? probably not needed no. is it a cool feaure to have though ? of course. at $200 even if you only shoot one shot at 1/15s a year well thats one shot you wouldn;t have been able to get without it.

there are lots of things that aren't needed but are nice to have.

Gintaras
11-30-2007, 01:04 PM
holy crap, i see of recent Nikon introduced a 18-55 VR kit lens too!!! apparently Nikon responds very quick to Canon challenge. Now both are even on this. :eek:

michaelb
12-01-2007, 07:15 AM
you dont need IS, you need a tripod ;)

Personally, I only see any type of IS useful over 80mm range. Anything under that is just a waste of time.



I agree with your first satement; a tripod would be ideal, but many times I photograph while hiking or on my way to work and I don't have time to set up a tripod.

I completely disagree with your second statement. There are many times when I want to shoot at a very low SS at less than 80mm; I don't even own a lens that goes over 70mm!!!





Here's an example. I shot this on my way to work. 60mm, 1/60 sec., f/4., handheld. If I had IS I could have shot this with a smaller aperature for greater DOF. Would a tripod have been better? - of course, but I had only a few minutes to take this shot.

http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/210652409-L.jpg

droopy1592
12-01-2007, 03:40 PM
holy crap, i see of recent Nikon introduced a 18-55 VR kit lens too!!! apparently Nikon responds very quick to Canon challenge. Now both are even on this. :eek:

Didn't the Nikon version come out first? Ack, can't remember.

droopy1592
12-01-2007, 03:42 PM
I challenged you to produce proof for your statement. I did not ask to be insulted about something that's none of your business.

I produce proof of the 70-200 being better than the 70-300

70-200 F4 L (non IS)

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photogr...00_F4L_Top.htm

Canon 70-300 IS

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photogr...300_IS_Top.htm

Too bad those links dont' work.

Without a mono/tripod I'm positive the 70-300 IS is sharper... It's a great lens actually. I rented both before deciding, and I found the non-L to be just as sharp, sharper in some cases.

droopy1592
12-01-2007, 03:46 PM
Are you not very happy with that 28-105? Because I think i'm going to buy one real soon...

That is an interesting review, I was wondering about that lens for a while...

And I still hate the focus on the 18-55mm, is the new IS version supposed to have faster focus? I wish it was USM and not the tiny little ring...

I just find that I like taking shots WITHOUT a flash as the look is much more natural and less washed out. With the 28-105mm, seems that it's soft until f/5-6 or so, and since I don't like flashes, I find I'm taking many shots around 1/4 sec- 1/20th of a second. I've got a prime to take shots less at than f/4
but I need some IS action. I quit my job to go back to school so I don't have L glass money. The 18-55mm has stupid crazy resolution and IS. My 28-105mm looks softer every day.

coldrain
12-01-2007, 03:48 PM
Didn't the Nikon version come out first? Ack, can't remember.
No, the Nikon 18-55 VR is only announced, not available yet.
Canon was first with the 18-55 IS.
Nikon was first with the 55-200 VR, Canon following with the 55-250 IS.

24Peter
12-01-2007, 03:53 PM
...Canon following with the 55-250 IS.

Do you know when (if) we see this in the US?

coldrain
12-01-2007, 04:07 PM
The 55-250 IS is already available in Europe (and Asia I am sure?), and will get to be available in the USA in the beginning of 2008 somewhere when production volumes are up to speed. My guess is that it will be widely available when the 400D successor will be introduced at the PMA (is that february?)?

It should be a nice lens for the price, with good contrast, good sharpness, and pleasant bokeh (and 4 stops IS).
MTF for the 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS:
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-s/ef-s55-250-f4-56is/mtf.html

MTF for the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM:
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-300-f4-56/mtf.html

MTF for the EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM (resolution amazing):
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f4l-is/mtf.html

droopy1592
12-01-2007, 04:26 PM
I've heard rumors that early users and MTRs for the 55-250mm EFS says it's on par with the 70-300mm IS and 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. I kind of like bazooka. Don't think I'll get it but I might get the 18-55mm IS to replace my 28-105mm... it's sharper, has IS, and is wider, but I don't want to let go of my USM.

coldrain
12-01-2007, 04:34 PM
I've heard rumors that early users and MTRs for the 55-250mm EFS says it's on par with the 70-300mm IS and 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. I kind of like bazooka. Don't think I'll get it but I might get the 18-55mm IS to replace my 28-105mm... it's sharper, has IS, and is wider, but I don't want to let go of my USM.
Why not keep your 28-105 too? They are quiet different lenses... and it is not like the 18-55 IS will add a lot of bulk and weight.

I would not mind having both lenses in my bad for different circumstances and uses.

droopy1592
12-01-2007, 05:16 PM
Why not keep your 28-105 too? They are quiet different lenses... and it is not like the 18-55 IS will add a lot of bulk and weight.

I would not mind having both lenses in my bad for different circumstances and uses.

Selling one on ebay costs the same as buying the other. I'm in college now trying to change careers and that extra 200 may be needed? I don't know, I'm giving it thought. But that 18-55mm IS sure is tempting.

Rhys
12-01-2007, 07:26 PM
Too bad those links dont' work.

Without a mono/tripod I'm positive the 70-300 IS is sharper... It's a great lens actually. I rented both before deciding, and I found the non-L to be just as sharp, sharper in some cases.

OK. Try these
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/70_200_F4L/Canon70_200_F4L_Top.htm
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/Canon_70-300IS/Canon70-300_IS_Top.htm

coldrain
12-02-2007, 03:23 AM
OK. Try these
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/70_200_F4L/Canon70_200_F4L_Top.htm
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/Canon_70-300IS/Canon70-300_IS_Top.htm

Haha... ok I tried those.
A few remarks about them:

1. The subject shot with one lens is TOTALLY incomparable to the other. very handy for comparing :rolleyes::cool: (not...)
2. One could NOT select a worse subject to test sharpness than the subject from the 70-200 f4 L USM lens "test". It is all soft straight lines, no structure, no texture, one even bland colour.
3. The 70-300 IS looks plenty sharp at f5.6 and 300mm in those "examples"!

So, not sure why you feel these "samples" show which lens is "sharper", nor am I sure why we actually are comparing tele zooms in a thread about the 18-55 IS... and I do not want to read the whole thread to find out why you actually brought it up.
The 70-300 is as sharp or sharper wide open than the 70-200 f4 L (depending on the copies of course). A good copy of the 70-300 beats the 70-200 for sure. If sharpness is very important to one, the 70-200 f4 L IS USM can't be beat, but it is quite a bit more expensive.

Now, back to the 18-55 IS :D.