robert_thommes1

<p>Rob,<br>

I would have to agree with your "best solution". Yet I'd like to get just a little longer on some rare occasions.<br>

If I were to elect the 1.7X options, this would give me a max zoom length of 238mm...correct? But, will the first 140mm (1X-5X)still be rendered in optical zoom quality? And will the 1.7X zoom be of any better quality than the 2.2X or "standard"(20X) zoom?</p>

<p>A couple of folks recommended that I resort to using the Digital Zoom when needing more extention and zoom length, over the use of conversion lenses. Makes sense to me, and will save me a few $$ as well.<br>

But, this brings up a few questions. Can DZ(Digital Zoom)be engaged when the camera is set for it's highest resolution(14 mpxls)? Which DZ setting is best to use. There are 3: standard, 1.7X, 2.3X. <br>

I understand that if I lower the resolution (to 9mpxls, then 5mpxls, etc.), it may help to cature better IQ while in the DZ mode. But I'm more interested in knowing just how much of a zoom length increase that I can get in the "FINE" setting, and still retain the BEST quality possible. I do understand that using DZ will help to deteriorate the quality. I'm looking to increase the length with the littlest deteriorating possible, that's all. Thanks.</p>

<p>I actually had a Olympus PEN camera for a couple of months. And it did deliver good results. But, as I still had to have and use my DSLR for certain applications, I simply felt that a second Interchangable lens camera, like the Pen, was not in my best interest. Hence my interest in one of the more recent Canon G-series cameras.<br>

I hate to admit this right now, but........I made a typo in the title of this thread. I really wanted to know the differences between the G10 and G12(not G11). </p>

<p>I've have an opportunity to purchase either of these Canon G-series cameras. I have done my homework, and feel that both are excellent, and with relatively few differences. So I feel the next step is to ask actual users of either or both. Which would you recommend, and why? For the sake of keeping this thread on track, PLEASE limit your comments to these two specific cameras. Thanks much.</p>

<p>Bueh,<br>

No I need to ask these questions BEFORE spending money for them. I am not one of those folks who buy something with a 50/50 chance of returning it. I work in retail, and see way too much of that going on. As a seller, it's not that appreciated. Further, there are no camera stores anywhere near here, where one could simply go and try them out in the actual store.</p>

 

<p>Tuan,<br>

Your suggested 17-40 sounds like a dandy lens. However, the longer end 40mm, doesn't seem long enough for when used as a general walkaround lens. I'm a guy who has thought 28mm was wide enough for years(on a 1.6 crop sensor). But I need to get to atleast 50mm to feel good about the lens for that use. Also, $500 is my absolute TOP limit...not a penny more--and I'm not sure this lens, even used, could be had for that amount.<br>

Thanks for the suggestion, however.</p>

<p>I'm looking for a decent wide angle zoom lens for under $500. Something in the 17/18mm-ish to 50/75mm-ish range. A faster fixed aperture(ie. f2.8) would be nice, too. Two lenses that have caught my ealry interest are the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Sigma 17-7- 2.8/4.5 OS lenses. Of course there's the Canon 18-55IS lens to consider as well. And if nothing in the slightly-under-$500 range can do much better than the "kit" lens, then I'll settle for the "kit" lens.<br>

I have a trip to a few National Parks planned for the fall, and need something to accompany my 70-200/4 IS lens as an efficient 2-lens combo(3 lenses with my 50 1.8).<br>

Thanks for your opinions.</p>

<p>Well Rob, I wouldn't say that the past post answers my specific issue here. But in your defense, it's close. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I did recall asking that question, but it did not surface when I searched BEFORE asking this one. Guess I didn't use the appropriate key words for that to happen. </p>

<p>Sounds to me like the majority feel that the 17-85 is OK; especially if you are aware of it's couple of shortcomings, and can work around, or deal with them. So, I'm not turned off from this lens as a result of these comments. Now.....is the 18-135IS lens preferred? That's my next question. But, assuming that both of these lenses are not perfect(which lens is?), the spectacular IS and FTM of the 17-85 is in it's favor right now. Then, if you can convince me that one of these lenses has an obvious upper hand over the other where general IQ is concerned, that'll be the lens for me.<br>

I REALLY have appreciated the comments to this points. Thanks for taking the time.</p>

<p>Though I am somewhat concerned with the aperture that I use, I seldom get hung up on blurring backgrounds. In fact, if it wasn't for the lack of good sports capabilities, I could probably exist just fine with a good super-zoom bridge camera. So I guess that would say that I'm rather fond of the entire image being in sharp focus. That is, "most" of the time.</p>

<p>I don't wish to complicate this question, but would like to know your thoughts on the Canon 18-135IS lens in comparison to the 17-85IS. Is the longer zoom any better in IQ at the wide end than that of the 17-85?</p>

<p>This lens offers an excellent range for my needs. However, I seem to be hearing as many "cons" as pros about it. I would like to hear from actual users or past users; as I know what the reviewers have said about it, and this is not always the way REAL users feel. <br>

Sample images in places like pBase show the lens off as "decent" from what I can see.<br>

So just how good or bad is it? Is this a lens that one should avoid like the plague?</p>

<p>Thanks, Mike. Those LIGHTRULES tests were most interesting. Tamron seems to stand up well to the competition. And for a lower cost as well. </p>

<p>Matthijs,<br>

I guess I juwas just feeling that I should try and retain the FL that I had with my 70-300IS USM lens. I sold it to obtain my 70-200/4 IS lens. But maybe you're right. Cropping could/should be the solution.<br>

No one has yet said much about the Kenko 1.4X Pro 300 DG TC. Til posting here, which is all for the Canon II TC, the Kenko was getting some good reviews.</p>

<p>From what someone else has said, the only real downside to the Canon TC is that it can only be used on Canon lenses; due to some protruding element? The Kenko counterpart can be used on most any lens. Does this sound right to you folks?</p>

<p>Thanks, Dan. Specifically which Canon 1.4X TC is yours? I think there are maybe 3 varieties of this particular 1.4X TC. (the original, II, and III)</p>

<p>Rob. What ARE you talking about? I have NO 4/3rds gear.<br>

Many folks have acquired a TC for their Canon 70-200 lenses. In fact several lens tests and reviews often include TC use in summaries of these lenses. I'm in the process of trying to sell my Canon 70-300 IS USM lens; as it's been replaced with a recently acquired 70-200/4 IS USM "L" lens(which I actually have in my possession, Rob). The 1.4X TC is an effort to get me back to close to that 300mm distance that I am losing with this shorter, but better, zoom.<br>

((As an aside....why must I feel that I'm being attacked by Rob. This is not the first time....and I'm not aware of doing anything of an offensive nature to him.)) </p>

<p>What's considered the best 1.4X teleconverter to be coupled to my Canon T1i camera and Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM lens? Sounds like maybe Kenko and Canon lead the pack. But specifically which one? Are there any sample images anywhere, taken with this lens AND some 1.4X TC? Thanks</p>

<p>Rob. B. where do you get that sort of comment? Maybe I don't simply take someone's advice and run to a local store and buy. I spend lots of time gathering info. I'm sure your file of my "poster's history" will also tell you that.<br>

Hernan. My non SLRs also seem to get more business than the others. That's why I have had frequent posts hinting at the thought of retiring the DSLR gear altogether in favor of the more managable/lighter, and quite decent in IQ, non-DSLR gear. I'm very close to actually doing this. But I have grandkids in youth hockey, and so far at least, the non-DSLRs can't deal with that. Most everything else, they can come pretty close.<br>

I happen to be on the info search of the Olympus Pen E-PL1.</p>

<p>The Panny FZ30/50 is a nice camera, but I've since settled in a bit with the SX20IS. <br>

It's my walkaround camera, but also a great nature/wildlife outdoor camera as well. So bascially I shoot most everything with it except my grandkids sporting events. Even those are very possible in outdoor daylight. That extra long zoom of the SX30 would be a nice feature to have. I've seen some impressive shots with it, but they are mostly smaller objects shot relatively close(birds etc.). Not sure just how the SX30 would do at long zoom of objects well in the distance, however.</p>

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>You said that "It's my secondary camera, after my DSLR but I use it most of the time." I just found that interesting. So, then, wouldn't the SX30 really be your main camera, and the DSLR the secondary one? I understand what you're saying, however. Nevertheless, I tend to sometimes think the same way. The DSLR gets the "big important" jobs, and the SX?? becomes the true workhorse; getting everything else, and the greater percentage of all shots taken. I like my SX20, as I liked my couple of FZ30s before it. And I use mine, or certainly could use my SX20, for 80% or more of everything I shoot. But try youth hockey just once, and you'll quickly know the SX can't even come close. Right?<br>

But that's not the issue here. Is the SX20 worth giving up for the SX30? (I wouldn't keep both.) I can get one (SX30) for a good discount. But is it even worth changing to it?<br>

Thanks to both of you for your comments.<br>

Bob</p>

<p>Both of these cameras are getting decent reviews lately. However, the SX30IS, due to it's enormous 35X zoom, seems to be well in the spotlight; while the SX20IS is starting to drift into the sunset. I have the SX20, but have been bitten by that tremendous 35X zoom. I've been tempted by some of those fine image samples. My question: aside from the zoom, how do these cameras stack up/compare?</p>

<p>Not to confuse, but the one lens solution was and is my intent here. I was just asking about the possibility of a simple 2 lens prime combo to do the same sort of thing. But I see that the zoom is still in "my" best interest. And right now, the Canon 17-85 lens looks like my best choice.</p>

<p>I'm not adverse to prime lenses per se. However, the expense will kill the deal; as there is no single prime lens that can cover the duties here, and more than one would likely break the bank at this point and into the forseeable future. I do have a 50 1.8 and a Sigma 50 2.8 macro, however. And if I could consider the 50 1.8 as one of my prime walkaround lenses, what might you advise for another(and only one other) prime to cover the territory? <br>

Though I doubt this would solve my problem, might be a good time to at least check out the field on the topic of a 2-prime lens walkaround combo. Thanks for your continued advice. Bob</p>

<p>So, what might your feelings be if the Canon 18-135IS lens was considered as the combination solution? Any better or worse than the 17-85? I'm totally unfamiliar with both lenses to know myself.</p>

<p>Then, no one has suggested to NOT try and combine my current two lenses into one different one. So I'm guessing that the IQ between any/all of the lenses being discussed here is too close to similar to call? </p>