Canon SLR and Lens Reccommendations

[Aaron Kennedy]

My 17-40 is pretty sharp. The problem is distortion at 17mm that "masks" some of the sharpness. (Typical if wide angle lenses)

Aaron

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Full sized crop from top image. That is pretty normal for sharpness on my 17-40L. At full sized I wouldn't expect them much sharper. I guess a night shot like that might not be the best example for sharpness. That said then, that is pretty sharp for dark(tree) and moving objects(stars) at night. Add the normal sharpening in post-processing and it can be very sharp. If shooting in RAW it's a bit different than jpg since it isn't applying any sharpening to the image. It took me a bit to get used to that difference after switching from my Sony F707. That thing had a fair amount of oversharpening.

 

[Glen Romine]

I've seen lots of other great images attributed to the 17-40L, but I've had some trouble with the images being somewhat soft and unfocused.

Has anyone else had the same problem?

Rich T.
[/b]

I have, but I think I have more problems with the images being unfocused than soft with this lens. The AF with the XT doesn't seem to be very reliable - and this seems particularly true with the multi-point autofocus with a wide angle lens (I have much more reliable sharp images from the 70-200). Also, in manual focus the 'infinity' focus point on my lens seems to be closer than the indicator would suggest. This has made me wonder if I need to send in the lens for calibration. The 17-40L is also purported to be softer toward the 40 mm end, which I've not rigorously ever examined for myself. But, in general the lens seems to do better with close in focus points, and poor at distant objects with softness. My understanding is that within the 1 yr warranty period the lens can be returned to Canon service for a free calibration (outised of the cost of sening it to them insured). Maybe something worth considering if you think your lens may have quality issues.

Glen

 

[Tom Mitchell]

The XT's autofocus is not so hot compared to the 20/30D. That combined with a small viewfinder makes AF errors kind of high IMO. It is still a great camera, with IQ the same its big brother the 20/30D.

I have the same problem with the XT and a 24-105L. At close distances it is painfully sharp at all apertures. At farther distances, even crazy hyperfocals like f16-f22 it doesn't like to focus. I will focus on the horizon, and the AF will focus to 3 meters. I have another coworker that has the same problem with the new 17-55 efs, and another friend who has similar issues with the 17-40 as well. It seems to be a class problem, or at least common with XTs. I haven't calibrated mine yet, because I am finally starting to make money with it, but both of the above mentioned folks sent the lens and body to Canon and were very satisfied with the results.

I am saving saving saving for a 1D MkIIn. At the my current pace of savings, I will be able to afford one probably when the 1d mkXXII comes out, but hey, a photographer has to have dreams...

 

[Laura Duchesne]

I am thinking of getting the Sigma 18-200 67mm lens for my Canon Rebel... does anyone have any experience with this lens? From the reviews I have seen, it seems pretty sharp. There is a Tamron version of it as well, but from what I gather it isn't as good. I want a lens that offers telephoto and wide angle all in one as well as good sharpness.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I am thinking of getting the Sigma 18-200 67mm lens for my Canon Rebel... does anyone have any experience with this lens? From the reviews I have seen, it seems pretty sharp. There is a Tamron version of it as well, but from what I gather it isn't as good. I want a lens that offers telephoto and wide angle all in one as well as good sharpness.
[/b]

That's kinda like saying you want a car that goes 300mph, gets 60 miles per gallon, and can tow a boat. You gotta pick with lenses. There are lenses that go from almost normal to tele that are good for a whole lot of money (Canon 70-200 /4L, Canon 70-200 /2.8L, Sigma 70-200 /2.8EX), there are lenses that go from wide to almost normal that are good for a whole lot of money (Canon 17-40 /4L, Canon 16-35 /2.8L), there are primes that are the best quality of all and are cheaper or much more expensive, depending on how fast and well-built you need them. But there is no one lense that goes from wide to tele and is great in quality. Passable, sure -- but if you're talking about image quality, there's no magic-bullet lense that will do it all and still make good prints at 20x24. If you want 'good' lenses that cover wide to tele, plan to spent at least $1500 for the cheapest zoom solution.

Here's a review of that Sigma lense, BTW:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/si..._3563/index.htm

Honestly, if you're going to be doing weather photography, WIDE lenses make much more sense than tele lenses. I almost never use my telephoto lense when shooting weather. For most weather shots, if you're using a tele lense, you're so far away from what's happening that it's probably going to be a pretty bad picture, anyway. 50mm is about as long as I use for most weather photos. Sink your money into a 17-40 /4L -- that's a good weather-shooting lense! It's what most of Hollinghead's stuff is shot with, if that gives you an idea.

 

[Laura Duchesne]

Thanks Ryan.. yeah you're probably right about the wide angle. The 17-40 does appeal to me as well... I like taking flower pics as well and that review site shows some nice sharp flower images. I guess I don't really need the Sigma 18-200 and it would be nice to do wide angle with shelf clouds, etc. I'm kinda new to this whole digital SLR lens thing, so please bare with me :lol:

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Thanks Ryan.. yeah you're probably right about the wide angle. The 17-40 does appeal to me as well... I like taking flower pics as well and that review site shows some nice sharp flower images. I guess I don't really need the Sigma 18-200 and it would be nice to do wide angle with shelf clouds, etc. I'm kinda new to this whole digital SLR lens thing, so please bare with me :lol:
[/b]

Oh, no prob at all -- all this techno-stuff can be daunting when you first get a camera. I think the 17-40 should be able to take some nice flower pics, too. If you ever want a nice portrait lense for not a lot of money, the Canon 50 /1.8 is great. It's poorly built and fragile as all heck, but it takes great pictures, and is effectively an 80mm lense on a digital body. Personally, I find that telephoto lenses are really only useful if you plan to take photos of sports, portraits, distant events, or mountain landscapes. I think I've only used my telephoto lense twice while storm chasing, and I didn't like any of the pictures I took with it. Your shooting style may be different, though, and you may be able to pull off some awesome telephoto shots. The other question you have to ask it what you're primarily going to use the camera for. If you're going to be taking lotos of photos of your kids playing football or something, then telephoto makes sense over the wide angle. If you're going to mainly shoot weather, wideangle makes sense. If you're never going to enlarge beyond 8x10, then that Sigma 18-200 actually is probably a good buy for you, as you probably won't notice much difference between it and a higher-end lense and it will capture everything, from wide to telephoto.

 

[Tom Mitchell]

Ryan said it very well! I second that opinion!

 

[Laura Duchesne]

Well now I just don't know what to get. The 17-55 mm just caught my eye and I wonder if it's a better alternative to the 17-40 as far as image quality goes, however the price tag almost makes me want to consider something else ($1500 CDN).

Canon EF-S 17-55 mm F2.8 IS lens specs

Review of 17-55 mm with pics

There is even the Canon 70-200 mm lens that caught my eye. What I really should be doing is checking all these lenses out in person and trying them on my camera. If I don't invest in a telephoto lens, then I'd like to grab one of those tele converters for sunset pics, just something I can use once in a while. But buying a zoom lens and tele converter would probably cost just as much, if not more, as a telephoto lens that does all zoom ranges. I think the reason I am having such a difficult time trying to find a right lens for my camera is because my photos are quite a range of stuff, from my dog to weather and skies to scenic landscapes to flowers to people.

I've got so many question marks over my head it ain't funny lol.

Edit: I think I am gonna check out the Sigma 18-200 instead. Given I take quite a range of photos, that could be the best option for me... buying a full range telephoto could be a cheaper option. I didn't fusy some of the reviews of the Canon zoom lenses, some mentioned vignetting with the 17-55 plus that lens was awfully expensive, before buying a tele converter on top of that.

Sigma 18-200 mm
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021402sigma18-200dc.asp

 

[Jason Boggs]

Happy to say that I just bought the Canon 400/D with the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. I bought it from the B&H website. I'm broke for real now!!! Better go and stand on the corner with a sign that reads: Will do anything for money...Well almost anything!

 

[Chris Allington]

For those above saying only on rare occasions youll use your telephoto I can vouche for... I have a 75-300 usm canon on my Rebel. We haven't had any storms since I got the lense but even in just doing other photography I've only used it a couple times. I use my kit lense way more then I use the telephoto, and I do think my next investment is going to be a wide angle or fisheye because I love the effects they produce.

 

[Darren Addy]

People need to remember that the more the magnification, the greater the "shake" of the image and so the shorter the shutter speed needed to freeze the image without blurring. In other words, if you can't shoot at that fast of a shutter speed, you MUST tripod it.

If you've used higher powered binoculars before, you understand this. Yes a 20x binocular magnifies more than a 8x, but you can hand-hold an 8x, but anything over 10x is very annoying to look through. You just can't hold it still enough (unless perhaps you are an Olympic Biathlon competitor). Tripod mount the binoculars and you are OK.

For photography, the "old" rule was to take the reciprocal of the focal length. Therefore a 200mm lens could be handheld down to 1/200th of a second. (1/250th functionally). You might get a 1/125th of a second exposure to turn out, if you are very steady or bracing on something.

Remember that most digital cameras have that 1.6x multiplier. Thus a 100mm focal length is effectively 160mm on most DSLRs. That means the hand-holdable shutter speed for that focal length is 1/160 (even though the lens says 100mm).

Cameras are coming out with anti-shake built into either the lens or the body. (The Pentax K100D is one reasonably priced example that is getting good reviews). The performance of some of these is impressive, and they allow you to handhold shots at much slower shutter speeds, but since the technology is so new, I wonder if that will be one of the first things "to go" on these new digital cams (like the electric windows on old Cadillacs).

So don't get carried away on the telephoto end, unless you are planning on tripod-ing the camera for most shots. This is especially true if you are shooting a low light situation.

 

[Dick McGowan]

You can always bump up the ISO to increase your shutter speed. I can't tell the difference in noise between 100 and 400 (unless you pixel peep). I just purchased the Sigma 10-20 EX 4.5-5.6 and the Sigma 17-70 f 2.8 macro, and I am very impressed with the sharpness and colors. I know some chasers have the Canon 17-40L, but I sent mine back, and am glad I picked up the Sigmas.

Some test shots of the 10-20:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/building1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/test17.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/test15.jpg

 

[Dan Cook]

Anyone have experience with this rebel?

http://buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNDRXT1855B