nilangsu mahanty

I have used my 350D at minus 5 degrees Celsius with zero problems.

The numbers ARE conservative.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

One poster above, Tapas Maiti, made an interesting observation that the 5D user is limited more by Canon wide angle lenses than by the camera itself.

 

I have seen people bemoaning the same fact in many forums, and the more fastidious among them have been trying Zuiko, Zeiss and Leica primes (and even a Nikon zoom) with various adapters.

 

In my opinion, Canon need to make WA glass that is fit for the 5D, more than they need cosmetic changes to the camera itself.

 

Cheers,

Nilangsu

You can find a reasonably objective review at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm and have received wide appreciation here at pn.

 

The IQ is comparable to the L lens, if not better, but the same, as the poster above says, cannot be said about the build which is still pretty good for the price.

 

The one concern that sometimes worries me is QC with Tamron lenses. However that should not bother you, if you are patient enough to change to a better copy of the lens, if the need arises.

 

Excellent value for money, and good warranty program. Then again, the 17-40 is becoming something of a legend among users.

In our enthusiasm, we have perhaps lost sight of the fact that everybody starts with a budget in mind, and so does Javed.

 

I do not know what your budget is, but the newer 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM lens is one of the best value-for-money lenses in the EOS line. It has been hailed by Photozone.de as "almost a hidden L lens". It has also been widely praised by users here and at Fred Miranda's website.

 

I feel that since you are starting out, you can give this lens a try. If budget isn't a constraint, you can always go for the L primes that people have written about.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu.

The Tokina has exceptional build, but it's heavy. Users have rated it very highly.See

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%2 .

However it's only 20 mm on the wider end.

 

The Sigma on the other hand has had mixed reviews and isn't constructed as nicely as the Tokina. See

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22 .

 

Hope that helps.

The real fun will start when Nikon announce a FF body in the 5D class. Canon haven't had real competition for some time now, and as Canon users, we'd love some action from Nikon.

Sorry, I do not have a reply to your query, nor, for that matter, to Patrick's, but it's uncanny how two people have been writing about the same thing at the same time. I'm sure, Adam, that you were writing while Patrick was posting.

Yes, Dave, I will indeed take the laptop with me. Otherwise the whole exercise, as you said, will be pointless.

 

Thanks, Nilangsu

Thanks, Glenn, for your elaborate post. I understood the importance of shooting a grid-patterned subject, and that of being careful to note down the serial number(s) of the lens(es) that I'll test.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

That'd have been the best thing to do, Jon. But I'm afraid that's not possible as the store is 400 km away ( I'm from India) and there's no return policy.

Thank you, James Colwell. The checklist should be useful for a new lens also (for many, if not most parameters).

Thanks for the link, Lester. It seems quite comprehensive. Yes, I'll check at 2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8 (if I can get away with it).

 

I hope, Juergen, that your words actually become true. It's one of the best 2.8 standard zooms in the market, but it's plagued by poor QC. That, I thought, called for an in-store purchase.

 

The only doubt that remains is with the 50/1.8 itself. After I switched to digital, I haven't used it much and so,I need to benchmark it as well.

 

Thanks again, Nilangsu.

Right, Lester, I've got your point. I'll take my tripod and the 50/1.8 with me, so that I can compare without extraneous variables cropping up.

 

I will focus on something parallel to the sensor plane to eliminate depth-of-field issues, and I will activate the self-timer and the MLU to be perfectly sure.

 

Is that right?

I am planning to buy the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for my 350 D . While it is reputed

to have tremendous optics ( good copies optically equal the 24-70 /2.8 L ),

there is also significant copy-to-copy variation to contend with.

 

I will be visiting a camera store this weekend, and will check this lens out.

I'll be taking my laptop with me. What do you think is the best way to check

the lens optics inside the store ?

 

Any suggestions will be welcome.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Perhaps it was intended to work like one.

 

Try this link, but it's for the 350D:

 

http://lifepixel.com/ir-tutorials/canon-rebel-xt-300d-digital-infrared-conversion-instructions.htm

Thank you, Änder Brepsom.

 

So the 24-85 is unusable on the 5D, and possibly on future FF bodies.

That means, if I get the lens now to use it with my 350D for the next two years ( supposing it's good on 1.6 croppers), the lens still cannot be persisted with when the future FF camera is used. That drastically reduces the utility of the lens.

 

So, I'll need a rethink .

 

Thanks, Nilangsu

Yes, Daniel, in fact, I have. This is what Klaus Schroiff of Photozone.de has to say:

 

"..The Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite mixed performance. On the upside the lens is very sharp with very little vignetting throughout the range. Unfortunately distortions at 24mm are pretty hefty as are chromatic aberrations. The build quality is pretty decent and the AF performace is a joy. All-in-all the lens is capable to beat the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm as well as the EF-S 17-85mm IS and regarding sharpness it can even rival the the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L (on APS-C). If the focal length range was more attractive here the lens would have been a killer but as such it is just a good compromise..."

 

Sounds good, doesn't it? But what about actual users? See, perhaps, I could have got myself the increasingly respected Tamron 17-50/2.8 , but I've handled the 24-85 when shooting film. It's fantastic, with very nice build and USM. All at $300. Please understand that when I will be able to afford a FF DSLR, there could be more efficient alternatives to the 24-105/ 4L which now costs $750 more. It's way above my budget,despite all the good (and true) things Mr. Barbu has to say about it. Also, for me, the focal length compromise talked about in Photozone isn't an issue, because I have the Sigma 10-20/3.5-4.5 EX DG HSM to cover that.

 

I don't want support for a buying decision. But it would be good to know from actual users of this lens (with 1.6 crop systems) that it is just not good enough.

 

Thanks again, Nilangsu.

Dear Daniel and others,

 

If I were to buy the 24-85 to bridge the gap between the UWA and a future 70-200/4 L, would I be compromising quality now and in the future when I do graduate to FF ?

 

Thanks,

Nilangsu

Why does the 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens seem to be out of favor with FF users? It used

to be such a hot lens in the film days. I was recommended to buy this lens or

the other favorite, 28-135 IS when I bought my Rebel 2000 in ,well, 2000. Of

course, I'd managed with 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 till 2005, when I made the jump

with the 350D.

 

I can understand that it doesn't have the most convenient of focal lengths for

cropped sensors. But with the 5D, is it unusable because of IQ?

 

It'd be interesting to know, as I have half a mind to buy it now ( I mostly

shoot WAs and have a Sigma 10-20/3.5-5.6 EX DG HSM ). I am concerned about

quality, but price matters as well.

 

Thanks, Nilangsu

I shoot with one. I've bought it from Amazon for $450 ( with 4 years USA warranty). My decision was based on a lot of glowing reviews. Of course, there aren't any compatibility issues with my 350D. It's way above the 18-55 lens in terms of IQ.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

I shoot with a 350D (XT). I want to print a photo at as high a resolution as

possible. What is a good printing dpi for viewing the photo from a distance of

more than 15 inches (it will be hung from a wall)? My present photo is 19 inch

by 12.5 inch at 180 dpi. Can I go down to 150 dpi, as I want to print at 24

inch by 16 inch, or will the quality be visibly affected? Is resampling a

better option than printing at a lower dpi?

 

I am new to post processing, so any help will sincerely appreciated.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Thanks, Mark and Pico. My kit lens and the 50/1.8 have both been slightly affected by fungus. Should I not use these lenses?

 

No, Pico, the body is still with Canon. They've mailed me the photos.

 

Nilangsu

The link to the previous post is:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg? msg_id=00JTcO&tag=

This was taken after the cleanup.

I had a big problem when fungus developed between the low pass filter and the

CMOS of my XT. See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00JTcO&tag=.

 

However finally I could get CanonCare India to open the LP filter and do the

cleaning.The photos below show the difference. But now CanonCare India is

saying there is dust trapped between the LP filter and the CMOS, which they

can't do anything about. So I'll have to live with it. Then again, I was

almost writing the body off.

 

Thanks again to all the respondents of my previous post, particularly to

Robert Gulotta for his wonderfully descriptive link.

 

Nilangsu