jake_izumi

I was out of my area and counld not be on line, so I am very sorry for those who sincerely responded to my old post .......... I will have my friend read all and I appreciate for all .

Thank you very much for your time and opinion.

PS . IF you ever go to Burma do not bring a white lens and a Laptop , I was interviewed and almost arrested there and so I was not able to use a computer there. They took all my CF cards and my HD since I shot some political stuff there.

Oh well , I guess , I will never go there again.

Life is tough some times.

Take care all.

I just got this lens from my brother in Japan , and I shot a couple of pictures out side of my yard, well , I am impressed , it is a sharp lens.

I think this one has even better IS than the IS in the new kit and the IS seems more effective than the IS in my EF70-300IS , the Af is faster than the AF of my EF70-300IS.

Of course it is not as sharp or as fast AFing as my EF70-200f4LIS or EF70-200f2.8IS, but who will expect it to be as good as these Ls.......

The EF-S55-250 cost me about 240 Us ,for the moeny I paid , it is an outstanding lens.

I think this lens and the new kit lens should be a great travel kit on my 40D.

I think next trip to Vietnam , I will bring my 40D with EF-S18-55IS , EF-S10-22, EF-S60 , eF-S55-250IS and EF300f4LIS.

I 've compared all EF-S lenses,and I am sure the eF-S60 is the sharpest of all and it can blow all of others out of the water.

The EF-S18-55IS is a sharp lens for sure , I recommend it to most of newbies but it is not comparable to the great EF-S17-55IS or EF-S60 ............................but for sure a bit sharper than the EF-S17-85IS, with a bit less accurate and annoying AF system.

So as a whole , the eF-S17-85IS is a bit better lens still, but as for the price , the new kit is a great lens.

The new kit lens is probably even shaprer than my Ef24-105L or Ef17-40L , though nothing close to my EF-S17-55IS and EF-S10-22.

Remember , most of EF-S lenses are MUCH sharper than these L or EF counterparts , since they are truly designed to be optimized for digital use.

Well , I've owned both , and I have to say the Nikon is the better one .

The Nikon has the ring type USM , they call it SWM , and the lens AF much faster than the Canon ............the Nikon has non-rotating front element.

Nikon lens in this price range is generally much better than Canon counterparts.

So I 'd say if you want to stick with consumer lenses , then go for a Nikon body.

it is a good lens as sharp as it gets but not so great in terms of AF and color.

however , think about the disposable price , it is unbeatable.

I bought it for my buddy from Bangkok who just started this hobby , for me it is not a hobby , so I use more durable lenses but for most of people who are financially challenged , this lens is a outstanding value.

I comapred it to my travel lens the EF-S17-85IS and my work lens EF-S17-55IS , the EF-S18-55IS comes in between them in terms of resolution , of course the sharpest one is the 17-55IS.

But it is so light with great 4 stop IS , the IS is more effective than the IS on my EF-S17-85 or EF70-200f2.8LIS but not as powerful as the IS on my EF70-200f4LIS , IMO.

If you get the lens , make sure to get it as a part of a 40D kit.

When you buy it as a part of a 40D kit , you will save 100 US.

I got it in Sigapore with a 40D(I paid for the kit about 1200US) and I kept my 40D and gave the lens to my Thai friend , and sold my EF-S17-85IS for about 400US , so I got my 40D for about 800US.

The new kit lens is at least as sharp as my EF17-40L.

But the color and contrast are not as good as that of the L lenses or Ef-S 17-55IS.

hope this helps.

dont get the L lens , it is even not a good lens , the EF-S in general is much better than its EF counterparts.

People worry about EF-S too much , the best you can do for your 40D or XTI is to get a lens designed for it.

The smaller the sensor based lenses the sharper they are , so new cheap EF-S 60 macro is much sharper than the old 100 macro.

And the 10-22 is much better lens than the 17-40L.

Do not be fooled by the name of L or Full frame , they are good for something like weddings or lo light portrait but not good for street photo or sports that requires speed and corner sharpness.

Get the EF-S17-55IS that is the sharpest Canon zoom , period.

And sharpest Canon prime is the EF-S60.

get the Canon no contest there , I have had both and only kept the Canon.

if I were you , I d get right at first attempt , never waste your money on a third party lens , they are not good at all.

that said the Tamorn is equally sharp at f4 and onward , though if you really care about wide open performance of these lenses, get the Canon , the Canon is significantly sharper wide open than the Tamorn and the Sigma 18-50 macro.

The Sigma is a 19-45 , not a 18-50, seriously.

I compared my 17-85 , 17-55IS ,sigma 18-50 macro, tamron 17-50 , and found out the Canon 17-85IS is the widest of all and the sigma is the shortest and narrowest of all.

I think the 17-85Is is more like a 16-90 lens than a 17-85.

I am in Thailand now and my friend wants to get either a 40D or a new rebel

line ,which , I guess , will be announced in a few weeks.

Do you guys think the new XTI(XTI replacement )will have the same feature set

as the 40D or will it be badly crippled?

I would like to know if it will have the same AF system as the 40D has ?

Or will the 40D price significantly drop as the XTI replacement comes in the

market?

I myself have a 40D and the 40D price is the same as it was introduced in Sep

here .

So I think it is naive of him to expect the 40D will become much cheaper as the

rumored 450D comes out.

And also , it is very naive of him to expect the 450D will be as pro like

camera as the 40D............what do you guys think ?

And if he can only afford to buy either a 40D or an EF70-200f4LIS ,which one he

should get a 40D or a L lens?

he now has an XTI , which I gave him as I got a 40D and 2 XTIs,with a few

lenses:

1 EF-S17-85IS.

2 EF 50 f1.4

3 EF-S60 macro.

4 sigma 70-300APO and he hates it.

I personally suggested him to get the excellent 10-22 and 135L , though he can

not afford both at once so he needs to buy a either a body (40D or next rebel)

or 70-200f4LIS to replace the crappy Sigma APO.

Thanks in advance.

Jake.

Not much differnce in prices betwen these 2 cameras right now.

And , I think the 40D price will drop in a few months as the Nikon 300D becomes available.

So wait till Nov and buy the 40D , not the obsolete 8mp 30D.

Or if you can wait , wait until the 500D comes out in March or Feb 2008, it will be 12mp and shares the same AF mechnism and sesnor with the 40D.

I had to buy a 40D last week since I had a work to do in dusty india(so needed a durable camera ), other wise , I would have liked to wait a few more months.

The 40D is a great camera , with super fast AF , I am very happy with its performance , my rebel XTI is now a back up or second camera used with my 10-22.

I mainly use my 40D with my 17-55IS or 17-50 Tamorn and some times with EF70-200F4L IS or 70-300DO IS.

I've also had a 30D but now selling it for about 800US here in Thailand.

I wished I had been in San Diego , I could sell it easier there than in Thailand.

Take care and trust me the 40D is a stellar.

On my 40D,all lenses focuses noticeably faster and more accurately than when they are on my XTI.

one more thing, you better stick with a 1.6 crop camera , it is better than so-called full frame that is an idiotic out dated film format.

it is now digital era , so we need a digital dedicated system.

all full frame lenses are not sharp , especially at edges and corners.

Better than all Ls.

I promise it , there is no better lens than this EF-S, especially in low light.

I have a 40D with my 17-55IS on and XTI with my EF-S10-22 on ,there is no other combo beat them.

Seriously highly recommended.

I also have the excellent Tamorn 17-50 and use it alot in day time , but when the light gets down , I only use the EF-S, this lens is 100 times better than the EF24-105L or 17-40L , I have all of them so I'm confirmed it.

This lens is a cheap lens considering what will you gain with it.

Well they do pay.

In Japan, every body knows it.

sorry , colin but I have to tell you , you can not believe what Canon people say in public press.

the president of Tamron and tokina revealed how much they have been asked to pay to Canon and Nikon in a Japanese news paper.

so I believe they pay some significant amount of money , other wise , how could you explain these Tmaorn Tokinas all work fine with new EOS bodies but Sigma most of time does not.

when the 20D came out , my old sigmas all stopped working but all my Tammie lenses were just fine with any of my new body including the 20D , 400D and 30D.

They must have paid some ,Canon /Nikon are both hating Sigma lenses and obviously attacking to eradicate them ,see the D40 and 40x ,which I recently bought does not accept most of third party lenses.

I think Nikon killed some part of Sigma business or Tokina but not Tamorn.

Personally, I will never buy a Sigma and I do NOT think the 17-70 is optically a better lens than my 17-85IS as I had tested both and I hated the Sigma funny nasty paint that got old very fast.

even if the Sigm is a bit faster than the 17-85IS optically, since it can not focus in low light accurately , what is the point?

the IS, the color , the USM , the FTM and future compatibility are all very important and no a bit faster optic in the Sigma make it better than the Canon...of course , if you compare the 17-85IS against the 17-55IS , well the 17-55 is better but it is bulkier and heavier so I go out more often with my 17-85IS than with my 17-55 unless I do know I use the 17-24 range more often than the 35-85 mm range.

Just be honest ,the USM / Full time manual and future compatibility are all very important , so I think unless a Sigma is priced much lower than an equivalnet Canon or even Tamorn , there is no way to even consider a Sigma.

I strongly think the 17-70 and 18-50EX are worthless unless they are priced under 200US.

Note : the HSM is not the same as the Canon ring USM , it is slower and less accurate.

Well, the Sigma is even worse , the Tmaorn is actually pretty good , as for a third party lens , of course , though.

I think you should get the Canon EF-S17-85IS, instead.

I still have the Tmaorn with my Canon EF-S17-55IS and 17-85IS and use all of them , but I think the Tmaorn is basically a day-light lens.

The Canon 17-55Is is a great lens , just outstanding , extremely sharp , not just sharper than most of zooms but even sharper than most of primes.

BTW,I tried 7 Tmaorns at diffrent stores randomly selected , all of them focused well, at least in day light and I did not think the Tamron had any kind of Af accuracy problem , though it was so noisy while focusing close.

My reason why I bought the 17-55IS is to get IS with FTM and less distorted images at 17mm produced by the EF-S17-55IS.

Also, the Canon is much sharper at border and edges wide open.

The Tamorn is not really a f2.8 zoom since it is useless wideopen....so I take it as a f4 zoom as my 17-40L.

ther is a good test comparison among these 17-xx lenses for 1.6x bodies by William Castleman.

you should read his wonderfully detailed review , it is much better than the photozone review,phototzone seems to have done no Af related tests at all(juat the MTF stuff) with the lens, while the-digital-picture and William Castleman's test focused alot on it.

I know the photozone is a good site and you can trust but the site did not focus on the Af accuracy of a third party lens.

so I dont know in this particular case , how meaningful or significant the photozone test is.

Yeah , the Tamorn is sharp (not as sharp as the 17-55IS), when it stopped down to f4 or 5.6 , though is that much useful when it can not focus well in low light or with AF servo, the 17-85Is is maybe a slow lens , but at least produces very very constant result and the aF is fast and accurate , so your keeper rate with this lens is better than with the Tamron.

in real life use, the slightly sharper optics of the tmaorn is not enough advantage over the Canon's cheapo like 18-55 , and much less practical choice than the excellent 17-85IS......no Ring USM, no FTM , no IS , it is almost useless in low light despite of its faster f matter than most of zooms.

unless you use it only in bright day light condition, you'd better get a Canon lens.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

See this is the best unbaised test ever done ........

I really like his test and I can relate to what he has found here, my experience with the Tamron is completely in line with his and I do not use it in low light, candid stuff because of the AF issue in low light.

And After testing it against my 17-55IS for a few more days , I will ditch it without any hesitation, and there will be no more third party lens for me.

Well , the EF-S60 is probably the sharpest lens Canon ever designed , much sharper than the EF100 f 2.8 USM or EF85 f1.8.

So it is a good lens , I use it for landscapes , flowers , cityscapes etc.

But when you want to be kind to your human subject , you should avoid using it.

I use it for some kind of street photo or candid type of work and some times use it for portrait work(only baby or kids) as well. But to be honest , I think this lens is too sharp for it does not hide any blemish on any face.

Dont get me wrong, I love this lens , but not want to shoot an adult face with it............ some people get angry because they have to realize that how many acenes or blemishes they've got on their faces...

the Sigma 17-70 is a horribly distorted lens at 17mm and its 17mm mark is not as wide as 17 marks of others.

and the 18-50 is as I said actually a 19.5 -46 zoom or like that and its true widest AV is about 3.2.

so Sigma is cheating and I think unless you are ready to shoot 100 percent RAW , you are better off looking at something else.

Get the 17-55IS or 17-40L , all these fake f2.8 lenses are horrible at edge and focus so slowly.

The Sigma 17-70 is NOT a f2.8 lens , and will most likely not peform well wide open , and so at the long end of it , it is actually a f 7.1 lens without IS.

So if you want to save some money, better get the 17-85IS , other wise , the excellent 17-55 Is or 17-40L.

According to Pop photo, the Sigma 18-50 is like 19.3 -44 mm lens with f 3.1 AV , so forget about it.

The Tamron is a true constant f2.8 lens but it does not peform well wide open like the Canon 17-55IS.

Get the 10-22 , you won't regret it.

Sigma has bad track record of compatibility to EOS and Nikon DX bodies because the company refuse to pay license fee to Canon and Nikon, so these comanies become more vindictive and try to hurt Sigma by releasing a mode like the D40 or EOS20D that does not support some Sigma toys.

Tamron and tokina pay the license fee to each brand.

Oh forgot , never buy a Sigma , all Sigmas are bad IMO with horrible color urine cast.

the Tamron 17-50 is ok but slow to focus so miss a shot or 2 all the time.

Keep your excellent 17-85IS ,even if you decide to get the excellent 17-55IS or 10-22.

the Sigma 10-20 is really lousy and color is diry not pure , you know what I mena?

Also, the 17-70DC is a junk.

Go get the 10-22 or 17-55IS depends on what you shoot more.

Unless you go to a shop and compare many lenses to be able to choose the best focusing lens , you better not get any third party, especially , Sigmas...............they reverse engineering.

Note: Tamorn and Tokina pay license fee.

Well , it depends on what focsl length you like to use most often.

If you love to shoot around 10-22 range get the 10-22.

the 10-22 is distortion free at 17mm, so that automaticaly improve your building shots or like that kind.

if you like to get an outstanding walk around lens for low light and use 50mm area more often than 17mm area get the 17-55IS.

Both are L level lenses , but I think you better go for the 10-22 since you already have the 17-85IS and you seem to it , the 17-85IS is a sharp lens from 24-85, if you compare the 24-55 range of these 2 lenses 17-55IS and 17-85IS , there is not much difference there , actually the 17-85IS is very sharp at 55mm any way.

The 17-55IS is an amazing low light lens but if you are not into low light photography or candid photography , it is a over kill.......... and you won't justify the price.

The 10-22 just covers up the weakest link of the excellent 17-85IS , so I think you better go for it and save a bit.

Even after I got my 17-55IS , I use my 17-85IS very often since I need a very sharp zoom around day time without the famous flare issue of the 17-55IS.

For me , the 17-55IS is a great night candid ,street photography kind of lens, seldom use it day time due to the flare issue.

It is nto just an f2.8 , but combined the f2.8 with the IS.

That is much much better lens than old 24-somehting stuff , seriously.

It is actually cheap for what it is , you will get it any way if you compromise a bit to get an EF-S17-85IS or Tamron 17-50, I had both of them and replaced both with the EF-S17-55IS , the lens is much better than all other lens on my 30D, period.

The IS unit on this lens is better ,newer verison than that on the 17-85IS, so it is much better .

I kept the Tamorn as a back up lens and sold the EF-S17-85IS. I do not feel missing the 17-85Is at all , it is a good lens maybe,though not so versatile as you say it is.

And , I do think the 17-40L is an obsolete lens now , esp for a crop body; it is so slow , much less sharp , much less contrasty , even compared to the Tamorn.

So I can say generally you can think the newer designed lenses , the better lenses or sharper they are.

You dont need 35f2 , it is a obsolete lens with old-fashioned slow AF.

Get the best first , then you will no longer obsessed with lenses or lens selection, and save money and time (returing , calibration etc).

the IS is much more of use in low light than f1.4 primes because most of times we need decent DOF at least more DOF than the f1.4 provides.

Forget about full frame for now , buy a lens for what you use now.

Think of full frame lenses when you go up there , that 's when there will be much better lenses out there even for full frame bodies.

Take care.

Well, you better keep it since you can not sell it.

Even if you can , it would be 20 USD ..........

I think F2.8 is not fast enough to stop action in low light , so you better keep it in case you need very shallow DOF for portrait works or low light moving thing.

But if you can , I suggest you to upgrade the Nifty to the f1.4.

And get EF85 f1.8 as a set.

That said , after I got my Canon 17-55IS , I never touch the 50s, since I need more DOF than f1.8 ever provides all the time for my style of photography, and I know only with the IS , I can manage to do it in low light.

I like to shoot at around f5.6 with IS on in lwo light.

Hey , dont believe that the EF-S17-85IS is an OK kinda lens for a small prints as above said.

It is a sharp lens , most of them say bad thing about it or all convenient zooms are just prejudiced and do not want to see that there is only a teeny bit of IQ differnece between the EF-S17-85IS or Sigma 18-200OS and their Ls.

I had experienced both side and I can tell you the 17-85IS is a SHARP lens , especially from 24 -85mm , and in low light you need the IS.

Not the F2.8 , which just makes DOF too shallow, unless you are only shooting portrait.

Here is a great review showing the greatness of the 17-85IS and he , MR. Castleman himself uses it.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

So please not degrade it without you actually use it for a long time.

That said , now I like the Sigma OS better and it is an amzing value , I use it with a few primes(EF85F1.8, EF35f2, EF-S60 and EF100f2) and EF-S10-22.

it is just a very common Sigma QC issue , called de-centering on right side , usually most of Sigma lenses have the same problems , and I found my 18-50 macro and 18-200OS both had the same decentering problem on the Left.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx

In this review , the reviewer is talking about the issue of the Sigma.

I think you should get EF-S10-22 if you dont mind exchanging it, it is just 100 US more expensive than the Sigma and is a much better lens , without severe distortion or CA of the Sigma.

I had both and tested against each other and found the Canon is a much better lens.