Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon 24-70, 24-105, or 18-55?

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon 24-70, 24-105, or 18-55?

 
 
George Deliz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
Julie Meikle wrote:
> Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
>
> I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
>
> 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is lighter.
> 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
> 24-105L for a bit more reach.
>
>SNIP

I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
something wrong with it that keeps people away?

George Deliz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006

"George Deliz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
> decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
> something wrong with it that keeps people away?


The Tamron 28-75/2.8 gets slightly better reviews (in the Japanese reviews
at hand), and there are some AF sensors that are more sensitive/accurate at
f/2.8 (although the USM Canon should focus a lot faster than the slow
Tamron).

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/24-85

Here's some folks agonizing about vignetting.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=003vP2

FWIW, the Tamron does vignette somewhat at f/2.8 and f/4.0. I haven't
noticed it at f/5.6. (All on FF.) IMHO, essentially all lenses vignette wide
open on FF.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
George Deliz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "George Deliz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
>>decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
>>something wrong with it that keeps people away?

>
>
> The Tamron 28-75/2.8 gets slightly better reviews (in the Japanese reviews
> at hand), and there are some AF sensors that are more sensitive/accurate at
> f/2.8 (although the USM Canon should focus a lot faster than the slow
> Tamron).
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/24-85
>
> Here's some folks agonizing about vignetting.
>
> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=003vP2
>
> FWIW, the Tamron does vignette somewhat at f/2.8 and f/4.0. I haven't
> noticed it at f/5.6. (All on FF.) IMHO, essentially all lenses vignette wide
> open on FF.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

I like the 24mm bottom end as opposed to 28mm as I would rather not buy
an additional wide lens. The 24-85 is much easier on the budget than the
24-105. Question is how much difference does it make on a sparsely
arrayed sensor like the one in the 5D.

George Deliz
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006

"George Deliz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I like the 24mm bottom end as opposed to 28mm as I would rather not buy an
> additional wide lens. The 24-85 is much easier on the budget than the
> 24-105. Question is how much difference does it make on a sparsely arrayed
> sensor like the one in the 5D.


I'm of two minds about the "sparsely arrayed sensor" argument.

In the extreme, at f/4.0 or faster (in a FF lens) you are going to be a lot
happier with the 5D than with a D2x. Probably even at f/5.6. With any FF
lens.

On the other hand, the 5D sensor resolves over 40 lp/mm, so a better lens
will have better contrast at 40 lp/mm, and you will notice the difference.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "George Deliz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I like the 24mm bottom end as opposed to 28mm as I would rather not
>> buy an additional wide lens. The 24-85 is much easier on the budget
>> than the 24-105. Question is how much difference does it make on a
>> sparsely arrayed sensor like the one in the 5D.

>
> I'm of two minds about the "sparsely arrayed sensor" argument.
>
> In the extreme, at f/4.0 or faster (in a FF lens) you are going to be
> a lot happier with the 5D than with a D2x. Probably even at f/5.6.
> With any FF lens.
>
> On the other hand, the 5D sensor resolves over 40 lp/mm, so a better
> lens will have better contrast at 40 lp/mm, and you will notice the
> difference.
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


Hi David,

Speaking of the 5D...
....My first few snaps with this new body (which arrived this morning) have
left me very very impressed.

On the other hand...some of them have also reminded me of what you CAN'T get
away with on a FF sensor (flash coverage, distortion, etc.). It's a nice
feeling though, as I also recognise my new possibilities with digital.
Even though I occasionally pull out the EOS 3...it was still an amazing
sight to see my 16-35 actually look like a 16mm. Yipeeeee!

-Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
In article <paPag.1656$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
George Deliz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Julie Meikle wrote:
> > Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
> >
> > I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
> >
> > 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is lighter.
> > 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
> > 24-105L for a bit more reach.
> >
> >SNIP

> I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
> decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
> something wrong with it that keeps people away?
>
> George Deliz


The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more useful
in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I don't use the
lens much.
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <paPag.1656$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
> George Deliz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Julie Meikle wrote:
>>> Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
>>>
>>> I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
>>>
>>> 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is
>>> lighter. 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
>>> 24-105L for a bit more reach.
>>>
>> >SNIP

>> I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
>> decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
>> something wrong with it that keeps people away?
>>
>> George Deliz

>
> The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more
> useful in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I
> don't use the lens much.


Isn't that an EF-S lens?
If so, then FF is locked out of the future for him.
He may not care...
-I carefully avoided buying EF-S, and now that I finally have my full-frame
digital (two days ago), I'm glad of that.

-MarkČ


 
Reply With Quote
 
George Deliz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
>>In article <paPag.1656$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
>>George Deliz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Julie Meikle wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
>>>>
>>>>I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
>>>>
>>>>17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is
>>>>lighter. 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
>>>>24-105L for a bit more reach.
>>>>
>>>
>>> >SNIP
>>>I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
>>>decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
>>>something wrong with it that keeps people away?
>>>
>>>George Deliz

>>
>>The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more
>>useful in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I
>>don't use the lens much.

>
>
> Isn't that an EF-S lens?
> If so, then FF is locked out of the future for him.
> He may not care...
> -I carefully avoided buying EF-S, and now that I finally have my full-frame
> digital (two days ago), I'm glad of that.
>
> -MarkČ
>
>

I am going to buy a full frame DSLR, probably the 5D but I'm not buying
anything until Photokina. I now have a Rebel XT which I've had for about
a year, and I wouldn't want a 24-anything zoom for use with it. The
24-85 has a range comparable to the 24-105 and I thought it was peculiar
that the 24-105 somehow became the must have lens for the 5D while the
24-85, although of similar range and speed was never mentioned. If the
24-105 makes noticeably better images then that's the one I'll buy. I
already have the 50/1.8 and the new 70-300 IS so a 24-something zoom
would be the only lens I would need to buy for the full frame camera.
Although I used to carry around a bag full of lenses (6) for my old FD
bodies, I no longer wish to go that route.

George Deliz
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2006
George Deliz wrote:
> MarkČ wrote:
>> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>
>>> In article <paPag.1656$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
>>> George Deliz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Julie Meikle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is
>>>>> lighter. 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
>>>>> 24-105L for a bit more reach.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> SNIP
>>>> I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets
>>>> a decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is
>>>> there something wrong with it that keeps people away?
>>>>
>>>> George Deliz
>>>
>>> The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more
>>> useful in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I
>>> don't use the lens much.

>>
>>
>> Isn't that an EF-S lens?
>> If so, then FF is locked out of the future for him.
>> He may not care...
>> -I carefully avoided buying EF-S, and now that I finally have my
>> full-frame digital (two days ago), I'm glad of that.
>>
>> -MarkČ
>>
>>

> I am going to buy a full frame DSLR, probably the 5D but I'm not
> buying anything until Photokina. I now have a Rebel XT which I've had
> for about a year, and I wouldn't want a 24-anything zoom for use with
> it. The 24-85 has a range comparable to the 24-105 and I thought it
> was peculiar that the 24-105 somehow became the must have lens for
> the 5D while the 24-85, although of similar range and speed was never
> mentioned. If the 24-105 makes noticeably better images then that's
> the one I'll buy. I already have the 50/1.8 and the new 70-300 IS so
> a 24-something zoom would be the only lens I would need to buy for
> the full frame camera. Although I used to carry around a bag full of
> lenses (6) for my old FD bodies, I no longer wish to go that route.
>
> George Deliz


The 24-85 and the 24-105 f4 IS L lenses are in entirely different leagues.
The latter is an L class lens with a constant f4 aperture...has image
stabilization, and special lens elements. It's also built like a tank. The
full-frame sensor of the 5D (and other Canon full-frames) really exposes ANY
flaw in a lens because of its large sensor and quality rendition. I
wouldn't encourage anyone to buy a 5D who wasn't going to invest in serious
lenses. The 24-105 also costs about $1300.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b Mike Henley Digital Photography 43 12-15-2004 05:21 PM
Difference between Canon G5 and Canon S50 zxcvar Digital Photography 6 07-23-2003 09:47 AM
APS Canon IXUS versus digital Canon IXUS ( a question for the pros ) Davidgilmour2003@hotmail.com Digital Photography 4 07-20-2003 05:48 AM
Canon ixus 400 or canon ixus 2 ? David J. Gilmour Digital Photography 7 07-20-2003 12:00 AM
reading compact flash on different camera than used to take photos (canon to canon) Jim Digital Photography 0 07-15-2003 08:13 PM



Advertisments