File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi fellow /p/ers.
I need recommendations for Canon lens.
Should fit a Canon 40D (so crop factor and sharp enough for a 10MP sensor).
I know nothing of Canon lenses so it would be great to start with a list here that I can check on other sites (MTF charts and reviews where I find them).
1. I love super zooms but not if the distortions are high and sharpness low on the tele side. is there a magic lens like the Nikon 18-200?
2. I also love 2.8 glas so maybe something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for Nikon? whats the best alternative for Canon?
3. I love my money so lets keep it under say 500USD unless there is just a must have for a little more that is just perfect.
4. I assume Canon makes fine 'normal' primes cheap, do they also have a cheap tele-lens to suplement a 18-50/2.8? or maybe they have something that covers 18-150 or so which is not bad?

help me out guys!
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
1. I love super zooms but not if the distortions are high and sharpness low on the tele side. is there a magic lens like the Nikon 18-200?

not gonna happen for your price range and the quality your expecting. i wouldnt call the nikon a magic lens by any measure either btw.

2. I also love 2.8 glas so maybe something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for Nikon? whats the best alternative for Canon?

errrr, the tamron 17-50 for canon mount?

3. I love my money so lets keep it under say 500USD unless there is just a must have for a little more that is just perfect.

uhhh, the tamron 17-50 in canon mount >_<?

4. I assume Canon makes fine 'normal' primes cheap, do they also have a cheap tele-lens to suplement a 18-50/2.8? or maybe they have something that covers 18-150 or so which is not bad?

what about the new 55-200 IS from canon to supplement the above?

either that, or try the sigma, possibly the tokina if its out where you are(and in price range)
>> OP
thanks, I will start my readings when I get home. On first look the photozone.de review of the (canon mount) tamron 17-50 is not as great as the one for Nikon. But I guess they are all pretty close, I found out the Canon alternative is just as expensive as the Nikon 2.8 :-(.
Tamron (I think) are making a 18-250 lens but I have no idea if it is any good. obviously it is not a f/2.8 either but the zoom range is just amaaazing!
The hunt goes on.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>100753

the canon alternative? the canon 17-55 IS 2.8?
or the Canon mount of the Tamron?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Get the 18-55 IS for Canon if you are on a budget. It's cheap and performs a lot better than the old non IS.
>> OP
>>100757
I was refering to the Canon 17-55/f2.8 which is over 1000USD (just like the similar Nikon) and only offers a superior build quality over 3rd party lenses (and not really any advantage in either distortion or sharpness)
The Canon mount Tamron costs around 400USD which personally I believe is very acceptable for what it offers. I would have paid 300 more for something like the NIkon 18-200VR. It is a bit slower but has the VR which is a nice feature. The difference in speed is not THAT important now with the excellent high-ISO capability of the 40D. (I think it is safe to use ISO 800, probably also 1600 with some noise ninja afterwards when you have to). and of course the added tele is very useful for me and most people.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>100772

Most newer cameras these days have great HIGH ISO, i have a friend who constantly shoots with 1600 on her XTi... in day light... why is beyond me...

The Canon 17-55mm isn't as good as the nikon in terms of Internal focus or build quality or weather sealing, the Canon isn't a professional lens, but with the IS is a nice consumer lens.

The Tamron is great, i advocate that to friends with smaller budgets all the time. You just have to make sure you ge ta good one.

The 18-200 VR nikkor is a great consumer lens, but if you want better aperture control and overall image quality, it's better off getting different lenses to cover that focal length.

Is the 18-250 Tamron available for Canons?
>> OP
just finished reading about the Tamron 18-250. It looks like an imporvement on the Tamron 18-200.
If you just zoom in abit (lets say from 300mm and up) it is basically distortion free!
at 50mm it is more or less as sharp as the Canon 50mm/1.8 and it holds pretty decent sharpness all the way up to 250mm (but then you need to stop the aparture down to 8 or so). it only weighs 420grams and with a Canon mount it costs 450USD!
negative sides:
build quality is on the low side
autofocus can take about 1 second from infinity-short
you have to learn the soft spots on the zoom range and remember to stop it down
It is very slow aperature-wise (6.3 at 250mm, and should be stopped down even more for decent sharp results)
For this price it looks like a great lens. anyone has any experience with it? From what I can read of user reviews of the Sigma 18-200/28-300 and the like - they are crap.
>> Anonymous
>>100772I was refering to the Canon 17-55/f2.8 which is over 1000USD (just like the similar Nikon) and only offers a superior build quality over 3rd party lenses (and not really any advantage in either distortion or sharpness)

You really are uninformed but that's quite alright.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is one of the sharpest lens around, bar none. Superior to many L lens, including a few primes.

And you somehow forget to mention the Canon has IS. There are no L lenses with this combination of fast aperture and image stabilization.
>> Anonymous
The Tamron also makes an annoying buzzing sound when focusing.
>> Anonymous
Also, ring USM and FTM with IS.
>> Anonymous
>>100821

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0
&APIComp=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=396&Lens=455

18-55IS looks better.
>> Anonymous
>>100935

Yes, we've all read about how the 18-55 IS is the new 'best bang for the buck' and 'plastic wonder'. I might get one myself just for the simple fact it's 174$.

However, keep in mind that the almight 17-55 already has mediocre color, contrast and saturation compared to the 24-70 or 17-40. The 18-55 is even worse than it. Sharpenss isn't everything

The 17-55 also has a constant 2.8 and is actually usable. You'll be stopping down considerably on the 18-55 to achieve similar results.

In any case, for 174$, you can't go wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>100939

Did you actually look at the charts and compare through the focal lengths and apertures? The 17-55 beats the 17-40 and the 18-55 beats them both in tests. It's going to take over from the nifty fifty as the bargain lens.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>100948
I have to assume Canon will go that direction eventually. If nothing else, pressure from the 4/3, Sony, and Pentax sensor-shift everything-has-stabilization, combined with a desire to get a leg up on Nikon would make it a damn smart idea.
>> Anonymous
>>100948
>We really do need primes with IS.

Fix'd. Not that serious photographers don't have a use for something like an 18-55 zoom (as a backup, as a lens when one doesn't want to expose the sensor, etc.) but it's a consumer lens.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>100952
yeah must suck not having IS on everything.
>> Anonymous
>>100953

What do you mean "fix'd"? How does your version help? I've no idea what you are talking about or what you mean. I never mentioned the 18-55 there or zooms.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>100960
I think he got confused and thought you were talking about IS on things other than zooms rather than IS on primes other than the long telephotos.

(I made the same mistake at first, but then I reread it and got it. Your wording was a little clunky)
>> Anonymous
>>100962

English is my second language,sorry. I do my best.

In b4 the usual harassment for being foreign.
>> Anonymous
>>100962
Yeah, I thought the meaning was "telephoto primes that aren't long," like a 50mm on an APS-C sized sensor. I thought "non long" modified "telephoto primes" and instead of "non long telephoto" modifying "primes."

It's fine, though. You write English much better than I write whatever your language is.
>> Anonymous
>>100954
It does. As far as I'm concerned, at the very least pro bodies on all lines ought to have sensor stabilization, to accomadate older lenses. Preferably everything, but I'm not expecting much. We only just got one non-professional model with full viewfinder coverage.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>100978
I was wondering, would sensor-shift stabilization work on a full-frame body? Since it works by moving the sensor, it seems like it would rely on the projected image circle encompassing the full range of sensor movement. Which would be easy to do on a crop sensor, but would mean potential vignetting on a full-frame body.

Thoughts?
>> Anonymous
>>100984

It works fine on crop sensors with lenses made for crop sensors. I don't see it being a problem.
>> Anonymous
>>100984
Pentax and the various four-thirds makers make several crop-only lenses and so I assume that it does. It doesn't wildly move around, or else it would totally alter the optical properties of the lenses it was used with... for a 1/10th of a second exposure, you'd have the image formed by the edges of the imaging circle for 1/5th of it and the image formed by the center for the other 1/5th. (A simplification, but you get my point.) It wouldn't be practical.

And it'd still be good to have on crop pro bodies.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>100984
sensor shift does not actually move the sensor phyiscally. It senses the movement of the sensor and then shifts the image recived on the sensor according to where it moved, the sensor itself needs to be slightly bigger than the projected image size not the other way round.
>> OP
thanks for your suggestions guys. and for the link to the site that compares different lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&F
LIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=396&FLI=0&API=0
the Tamron 17-50/2.8 actaully looks nicer than the Canon 18-55/2.8 especially wide open. Shame they didn't review the Tamron 18-250 which start to look more and more atractive to me as a walk-around solution