jakub_ozimek

Oh, I don't know, perhaps my hands are simply shaky. What exposure can you get away with with IS?

As for as Canon goes, well, all right - it's a more general attitude I have. Of course, when you scare people their 3rd-party lenses will explode and kill their children or not be compatible with hypothetical future cameras and the like, they will pay. [Mind you, I'm talking about Canon's policies, not your comment :)] How come Canon is able to make new bodies that are compatible with lenses designed when nobody knew how the new model would work? Because they have all the specifications of the system used. Why do 3rd-party lenses not always work? Because they had to guess the specifications, because Canon made them a secret in order to handicap the competition. You can, and probably will, say it's their right to do so but to me it's a monopolist practice. Wouldn't it be nice, if Canons had built-in image stabilization like Pentaxes and Sonies, so that you wouldn't have to pay a fortune to exchange all your lenses? But they preferred to put it in the lenses, you paid, they got the money. It's all legal but must I like it and praise it? Plus, couldn't I have an option of the same lens with or without IS, or - 50 f/1.8 made of metal or of plastic? When they started making plastic ones they discontinued the metal ones. Sigma, after all, also has a similar system - VR - and when a Sigma lens has it, it's also more expensive. OK, I'm through already :) As for value judgements - all are subjective and most are individual. Frankly, I'm surprised it bothers you that much - Jemy asked a question whether or not to buy the kit. I happen to have been in the very same situation some time ago, so I decided to share my experience, including what I did later and my advice. Of course, it's a value judgement, it's subjective, and it's individual - every human being's account of their experience will be all that. You did the very same when you wrote: 'Basically, in this case [the 17-55], you get what you pay for'. In other words I said the 17-85 is overpriced and you said the 17-55 is not overpriced - both were value judgements [individual and subjective] - one positive and one negative. Personally, that is precisely what I like about this site - people's experience and opinions. That's what reviews and forums are all about. And thank you for supporting my choice about 17-55! It doesn't have any influence on whether or not I will like the lens when it arrives but (in defiance of all logic) it reassures me anyway! :)

Wes,

Well, I have given Canon the USM :) And I remain not seduced by IS [perhaps it's

more visible on a 70-200]. The things You wrote about third-party lenses are

interesting and worth considering but it's not a good argument against my claim

that [this lens by] Canon is overpriced: they don't have compatibility issues

because it's the same company, it didn't cost them anything to avoid those

problems, so this shouldn't make the price higher. Perhaps IS and USM are

expensive to make and I was being unfair :) I know one thing - I wouldn't buy

this lens separately.

The level of satisfaction with sharpness is, of course, very subjective :)

Dear Robert, I come from the Northern half of Europe and I can assure You the daylight here is much different from daylight in, say, Turkey, or Iran, or - judging from what I saw only on TV [unfortunately :) ] - Australia. The 'day part' of daylight stays the same but the 'light part' changes considerably.

I bought this very kit and right now I'm in the process of changing the lens. I'm an amateur, and not a good one at that, so it would be difficult for me to argue if anyone said this was because of my lack of skills but I don't like the results I get from the 17-85. It's dark and my experience is - the IS gives you 'usable' images when the exposure time is longer but not as sharp as the ones with shorter times. At least not on my 19" LCD monitor [and you have to agree 19" is not a record-breaking size these days]. Plus it's not very contrasty, plus it's not all that sharp. It's not tragic but in my opinion it's too expensive too be that bad.

 

My main problem is, paradoxically, that the lens is too good value :) For instance, I shot with Sigma 17-70 f/2,8-4,5 and I liked the results more. So the Canon lens is simply overpriced, since it's almost 2 times more expensive than Sigma and gives comparable results. But then again, if you decide to buy just the body from Canon and the lens - from Sigma, you end up paying 50 euro more! Not to mention you lose not only image stabilization but also the USM motor which I agree is a nice thing to have. Plus your tele-side ends at 70 and I've read numerous opinion that 85mm is great for portraits on an APS-C sensor DSLR [like the 40D]. On the [yet an]other hand, although Canon aperture range is 4-5,6, you only get 4 from 17 to 24mm and 5,6 starts at around 45mm [!]

 

The decision I myself made was to sell the 17-85 and buy EFS 17-55 2.8 instead. My rationale was this: I paid a lot of money for a DSLR instead of a P&S to get great quality pictures. Everyone agrees most of the image quality comes from the lens so I decided to get a good one regardless of the price, especially that I already have a not-that-bad lens and it's no use changing it for another not-bad-but-not-breath-taking-either one. I was thinking about 24-105L but 24mm on a 40D 'equals' 38mm on a FF camera and that's just not wide enough for me. Then I read reviews saying image quality and contrast, and sharpness of 17-55 are as good as from an L lens and this was the deciding factor.

 

If I were you - that is, if I had a budget of 1000 euro - I'd get the body with the rebate and one of the 3 cheaper alternatives to the lens I chose: Tokina 16-50, Tamron 18-50 or Sigma 17-50, all f/2.8. It is admittedly a difficult decision, they all being so similar: you'd probably have to go to a store and test all 3. One easy point to consider is whether or not you are willing to pay a little more than the 1000 euro [say, 1050]. If 1000 is the final limit, this would rule out the Sigma and leave you with 2 options.

 

Good luck!

Jason and Michael, thank You very much, this is precisely what I was asking about! The funny thing is I did read the entire manual - while I was waiting for the parcel with the camera I downloaded the pdf and read it, just to ease the pain of waiting - and I must have not noticed or forgotten this piece of information. Once again, thanks!

 

And Matt, I didn't [obviously :)] know about the 'scenes' inside the camera. BTW, the 'perfect exposure every time' part is clearly taken from an ad brochure :)

 

All in all, it did turn out to be not so stupid of a question after all since some of the replies it got implied not everyone is aware of the 'Program Shift' feature

Told You all it was a stupid question :) No, I don't usually shoot P mode, but A mode, that's what my camera is set to 'when in the bag' - it's just a question out of pure curiosity. As for the 'database of scenes' - my 40d has it and, as far as I know, 5d doesn't. But these modes are mutations of the 'full auto' mode: you only handle your lens [if it's a zoom lens, that is] and the shutter button - everything is decided for you, you cannot even shoot RAW, or decide whether you want flash or not. In the P mode you can decide if you want flash, what quality of picture to save plus you can override the exposure with a dial on the back of the camera

Well, it makes perfect sense to me: your camera's built-in light meter got damaged and its readings are incorrect - but they are consisent: it thinks it's darker than it really is and does what it's made to do: in the M mode it tells you to make the image brighter and in the P mode it makes the image brighter for You [thus making it too bright]. Did I understand You correctly? Are You planning to switch completely to an external light meter instead of having Your camera repaired?

OK, here comes one of my stupid questions, hope I don't get banned or anything:

The way I see it, being a complete layman, in a given scene lit by a given

available light and shot at a given ISO speed there are a few possible

time/apperture settings that will result in correct exposure [that is, in my

layman language, the little arrow showing zero. [Not to mention that when you

change ISO to 'Auto' the possibilities expand, don't they?] How does the camera

decide which one of these to choose when I'm in the P mode? Is there a way [i'm

using Canon 40d] to discard a setting chosen by the P-mode and make it come up

with a different one? [i know there are still A and T modes if I'm after a

specific time or apperture setting, but can't I not be and still get a few

options with P?]