dariusz calkowski

My 17-85 is all right, apart from IQ problems.

M Barbuphoto.net patron, Feb 07, 2008; 10:12 a.m.

 

How about a sensor that has the same dynamic range as my eyes?

 

 

That's good !

 

 

I'd add zoom 10-1000 f 1.0, light and cheap made from nanotechnologically adaptive nanoglass/metal - like Terminator T-1000 :-)

Inside 50mm f1.8.

Outside there's no such lens. I'm in too many subjects, but if i had 500f4...

Do not worry, just exchange it. You have a very small chance to get another lemon ;-)

I second. If AF is your problem upgrade to 1d if not stay with 30d and get better lens. Lens makes image, camera only converts and saves it.

YOU are the one who will use it, and YOU must go to shop and compare how YOU fill with both cameras in YOUR hand with YOUR eye next to the viewfinder. I have 20D from 2 years and it's very reliable camera, build to survive some abuse. But nowadays even plastic can be hard to destroy. I'm afraid only latest trends in industrial design that cheapest models may be build to last till warranty end and die later giving a reason to upgrade (and more money to manufacturer).

Sorry for my poor english.

It's like to ask what car to get, new BMW or used ford escort. Different beasts for different purposes. D40 is much better camera, but it's much more expensive. You will need to some quality-expensive lenses to get most of it.

My 20D have it too if pushed. I do not like it too, but it just happens at high ISO in underexposed areas.

EFS 17-85 IS sucks. Get sigma 30/1.4 or canon 35/2 or slower but wilder 28/2.8 or 24/2.8 + any of 70-200 or 70-300 IS. Or get 17-55 IS + any of 70-200 or 70-300 IS. Macro 100 is great but may be to short for sailing.

Glen Flower, Nov 04, 2007; 04:30 a.m.

 

For your crop sensor 20D, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm will give very good results, it will be a lot wider than the EF 16-35mm on your camera and I believe it is the best one compared to a number of similar lenses from other manufacturers (I own one and am happy with it.)

 

I second that. I have cheap but good 50mm f1.8 for low light/portraits as well. If i was you I'd consider adding fast prime like 50 1.8 to fill the gap.

Ronald-he's already got 70-210 and 50.

Manny I have 17-85 and it's good lens but far away from great, I hope you know that you can't get great zoom for few hundreds bucks. Your 50 is the way to go for IQ(image quality). 17-40 is to be believed better opticaly but not so much. On full frame it has big barrel distortions, comparable almost with 17-85 on cr@p 1.6 sensors ;-)

For versatility 17-85 but if you do a lot full frame work get 17-40, 17 on full frame is great, wide and challenging tool.

It may even push you in landscapes and architecture.

If I was you I'd give a try to tamron 17-50 f2.8, just make sure that you can give it back if you don't like it.

Looks like you don't need 2.8 for city&landscapes. I got canon (at that time there was not tamron yet) and it's good lense but...

It's hard to tell but it's not great. I can't tell about tamron but now i'd take it over canon which lets me use f8-16 with longer exposure times then the tamron but pictures are not as sharp as other lenses I have (70-300IS, 50 1.8, 100 macro, 10-22)

 

Biggest complain is very strong barrel distotion at the short end. And when I mean v. strong I really mean v. strong :-)

Almost all my pictures must be run through PTLens plugin.

I have not a 17-40 but I have 17-85.

 

1-I don't know

 

2-It depends on prioritization

 

3-It shows very low vignetting in normal shooting conditions(even sky)

 

4-I don't know, but in low light conditions IS may be winner.

 

What I have to say is that 17-85 is a good lens but not a WOW! lens.

Something to clean lenses and sensor will be usefull. Don't buy to many spare items, later your back will be more happy.

<div></div>

Mayby not enought Canon's adds ;-) They pointed that sony kit lens are "comparable to other, recent wide-angle kit zooms." It's not a great recommendation. About cmos vs ccd. Mayby sony is going to launch more pro camera with cmos sensor in future? Who knows (and who cares?).

I have 17-85IS and its cool but nothing more. No WOWs and a lot of PS work if used at the wide edge. I'd sell it but the price I can get isn't worth of it. Give a try to a new 17-50 tamron or a 17-70 sigma. Just buy in a shop with a good return policy. HTH.

Craig wrote; Shooting RAW, the settings will only affect the image on the camera LCD... If you are using Canon's software settings from the jpg will be default for raw convertion. You can change it of course but sometimes it can save some time.

Yakim wrote:

My guess is that these differences stem from two sources:

 

* Variability between different lenses in the same batch.

* Variability in the photographers' experience.

I would add:

 

*Variability in the expectations.

Firmware?

Becouse you do have 10-22 you don't need 17-85 (only plus of it is wide angle) and probably 17-55IS too. So it leaves you with 24-70 and 24-105. Take your camera with CF in to the shop, try both, look at home at the pictures and take any one and you'll be happy. It's so simple like that ;-)

Not all 2-3 gen have panning mode.

I don't need 50mp nor my computer needs. In fact I'd spending more time on postprocessing then on shooting. Second problem-storage. computers are getting cheaper but I dont need to print billboards and I don't want to replacing my computer every year. 50mp (aspecialy 1.6 crop)sensor would make best L primes looking soft as well.

Canon can't supply enought lenses to Europe. It's easy to laught when almost every shop has plenty in stock. If shops can't get lenses from canon is it shops fault? At the same time the same unaviable in Europe lenses are in US. And the prices are rip offs here. One day I'm going to move to US ;-)

Don't blow the higlights. Shoot as low iso as possible(less noise in shadows after boosting them). Then in raw convertion bring back the shadow details. Sometimes I make 2 convertions one for higtligths and the second for shadows then merged in PS.