canon lenses follow up

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by andre, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. andre

    andre Guest

    Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
    for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
    Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
    looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.

    I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.

    Andre
    --
    ----------------------------------
    http://www.aguntherphotography.com
    andre, Mar 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. andre

    Lisa Horton Guest

    andre wrote:
    >
    > Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    > worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
    > for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
    > Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
    > looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >
    > I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    > are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    > what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >


    Generally, anything over about a 3x zoom range involves some pretty
    substantial compromise. Now some will say that all zooms represent a
    compromise between performance and convenience, compared to fixed focal
    length lenses, and they'd be right. To an extent. But the longer the
    zoom range, the more the compromise. The L ultrazoom maybe an L, but
    it's still an ultrazoom, and I think you'll find it's the weakest of the
    L's in performance. That said, I ran into a guy with one at an air
    show, and he thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He
    felt that the less than perfect performance was more than made up for by
    the convenience of only using one lens for everything. Note too that
    this is NOT a small or light lens by any stretch :)

    Canon makes a number of zooms in the wide to short tele range, several
    are very good. Any of the better ones, combined with the 70-200/4,
    would give you complete coverage of the basic range, with good quality.

    Lisa
    Lisa Horton, Mar 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. andre

    C Wright Guest

    On 3/19/05 12:49 PM, in article
    8v__d.20285$, "andre"
    <> wrote:

    > Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    > worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
    > for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
    > Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
    > looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >
    > I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    > are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    > what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >
    > Andre

    I am not aware of any current Canon lens with the specs that you outline
    above. However, IMO I would not expect to get acceptable quality out of
    *any* lens that zooms all the way from a true wide-angle to near super
    telephoto. That is asking for too much from any lens.
    Chuck
    C Wright, Mar 19, 2005
    #3
  4. andre

    Douglas Guest

    The lens is a Photojournalists tool. It may lack some image quality at some
    stages of it's zoom range but the fact is undisputable that compared to
    anything else in it's class, this lens out performs them. If you are
    shooting for magazine articles and Newspapers, this lens has to come close
    to being ideal.

    The 20D is not a forgiving camera when you hook up a low grade lens. If
    there are any flaws, a 20D will show them up. This lens is comparable to the
    Leica lens on Panasonic's FZ20 for image quality. You will get many really
    good photos from this lens but if you are aiming at the absolutely best
    quality images you can get and intend to enlarge them past about 12" x 8"
    (about A4) then some will not be good enough.

    On the subject of Sigma lenses... Have a look at the quality of this shot:
    http://www.tecphoto.com.au/pelican.htm and you might decide that what people
    have been saying about Sigma lenses is wrong. The difference between Sigma
    and Canon lenses is not immediately aparent in photos.

    The Sigma's focus slower, don't always grab the right focus point and
    generally are noiser focus motors and more 'gritty' in the zoom rings. This
    adds up to poor quality but as you can see from that photo, the glass is as
    good as Canon's is and most of the time the photos are as good as you will
    get with a Canon 'L' lens. For some people this is enough.

    Douglas
    -----------------------
    "andre" <> wrote in message
    news:8v__d.20285$...
    > Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    > worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    > that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    > is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    > two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >
    > I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    > are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    > what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >
    > Andre
    > --
    > ----------------------------------
    > http://www.aguntherphotography.com
    Douglas, Mar 19, 2005
    #4
  5. andre

    Skip M Guest

    "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > andre wrote:
    >>
    >> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    >> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice
    >> for that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm
    >> Sigma is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am
    >> looking for two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >>
    >> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    >> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    >> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >>

    >
    > Generally, anything over about a 3x zoom range involves some pretty
    > substantial compromise. Now some will say that all zooms represent a
    > compromise between performance and convenience, compared to fixed focal
    > length lenses, and they'd be right. To an extent. But the longer the
    > zoom range, the more the compromise. The L ultrazoom maybe an L, but
    > it's still an ultrazoom, and I think you'll find it's the weakest of the
    > L's in performance. That said, I ran into a guy with one at an air
    > show, and he thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He
    > felt that the less than perfect performance was more than made up for by
    > the convenience of only using one lens for everything. Note too that
    > this is NOT a small or light lens by any stretch :)
    >
    > Canon makes a number of zooms in the wide to short tele range, several
    > are very good. Any of the better ones, combined with the 70-200/4,
    > would give you complete coverage of the basic range, with good quality.
    >
    > Lisa


    My wife's cousin shoots with the 35-350L a lot, and loves is. But, again,
    to him the primary advantage is not changing lenses. He even shoots
    weddings with the thing...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Mar 19, 2005
    #5
  6. andre

    TAFKAB Guest

    Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
    the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the board.
    An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves a bigger
    gap (40-70).

    "andre" <> wrote in message
    news:8v__d.20285$...
    > Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    > worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    > that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    > is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    > two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >
    > I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    > are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    > what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >
    > Andre
    > --
    > ----------------------------------
    > http://www.aguntherphotography.com
    TAFKAB, Mar 19, 2005
    #6
  7. andre

    andre Guest

    Is the Sigma really that much better than the Kit Lens (except that it
    is faster, but is it sharper too?)
    What's wrong with the 18-125mm? Is it getting soft at the far end?
    Anyways, thanks for the advice. I will check out some reviews on that one.

    Andre
    > Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
    > the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the board.
    > An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves a bigger
    > gap (40-70).
    >
    > "andre" <> wrote in message
    > news:8v__d.20285$...
    >
    >>Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    >>worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    >>that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    >>is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    >>two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >>
    >>I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    >>are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    >>what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >>
    >>Andre
    >>--
    >>----------------------------------
    >>http://www.aguntherphotography.com

    >
    >
    >



    --
    ----------------------------------
    http://www.aguntherphotography.com
    andre, Mar 20, 2005
    #7
  8. andre

    Don Guest

    Although the 17 to 40 might leave a gap, it is a great lens for the money.
    I have 4 L series lenses and the 17 to 40 is by far my favourite using the
    yardstick of its overall quality across its range. The next in line is the
    70 to 200 F4 L. Once again it does all it is supposed to do exceptionally
    well and its autofocus with a 20D is just mind boggling.

    regards

    Don from Down Under
    "TAFKAB" <> wrote in message
    news:423ca2ee$0$19536$...
    > Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
    > the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the
    > board. An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves
    > a bigger gap (40-70).
    >
    > "andre" <> wrote in message
    > news:8v__d.20285$...
    >> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    >> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    >> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    >> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    >> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >>
    >> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    >> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    >> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >>
    >> Andre
    >> --
    >> ----------------------------------
    >> http://www.aguntherphotography.com

    >
    >
    Don, Mar 20, 2005
    #8
  9. andre

    TAFKAB Guest

    "andre" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is the Sigma really that much better than the Kit Lens (except that it is
    > faster, but is it sharper too?)


    Yes, but quite a bit.

    > What's wrong with the 18-125mm? Is it getting soft at the far end?
    > Anyways, thanks for the advice. I will check out some reviews on that one.


    Haven't used one, but it is getting good write-ups.

    >
    > Andre
    >> Take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. Covers
    >> the range with a small gap, and provides excellent quality across the
    >> board. An alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, but it leaves
    >> a bigger gap (40-70).
    >>
    >> "andre" <> wrote in message
    >> news:8v__d.20285$...
    >>
    >>>Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    >>>worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    >>>that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    >>>is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    >>>two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >>>
    >>>I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    >>>are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    >>>what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >>>
    >>>Andre
    >>>--
    >>>----------------------------------
    >>>http://www.aguntherphotography.com

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > ----------------------------------
    > http://www.aguntherphotography.com
    TAFKAB, Mar 20, 2005
    #9
  10. andre

    Alex Guest

    On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:50:11 GMT, andre <>
    wrote:

    >Is the Sigma really that much better than the Kit Lens (except that it
    >is faster, but is it sharper too?)


    Here's a good place to start when you want to know which lens is best:
    http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22



    --
    Alex
    atheist #2007
    Alex, Mar 20, 2005
    #10
  11. andre

    Bmrdude Guest

    On my 20D, my everyday on the camera lens is the 24-70 2.8 L, outstanding
    performance. Other lenses I have that cover about everything I have needed
    to shoot are the 100 2.8 Macro, and the 70-200 2.8 L.

    You can't go wrong with those lenses!




    "andre" <> wrote in message
    news:8v__d.20285$...
    > Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    > worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    > that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    > is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    > two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >
    > I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    > are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    > what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >
    > Andre
    > --
    > ----------------------------------
    > http://www.aguntherphotography.com
    Bmrdude, Mar 20, 2005
    #11
  12. andre

    Skip M Guest

    "Bmrdude" <> wrote in message
    news:Brj%d.4118$...
    > On my 20D, my everyday on the camera lens is the 24-70 2.8 L, outstanding
    > performance. Other lenses I have that cover about everything I have
    > needed to shoot are the 100 2.8 Macro, and the 70-200 2.8 L.
    >
    > You can't go wrong with those lenses!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "andre" <> wrote in message
    > news:8v__d.20285$...
    >> Two days ago i asked the question about if the 70-200mm f/4 L lens is
    >> worth its money. It seems everyone agrees it would be the best choice for
    >> that range. Most of you were telling me that my choice for 18-125mm Sigma
    >> is not so good. I am planning on getting a Canon 20D and I am looking for
    >> two lenses to cover the range from 18-200mm or more.
    >>
    >> I stumbled across the 25-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens. Although the reviews
    >> are not as good as for the 70-200mm on fredmiranda.com I was wondering
    >> what you guys think about this lens. It covers an outstanding range.
    >>
    >> Andre
    >> --
    >> ----------------------------------
    >> http://www.aguntherphotography.com

    >
    >


    You shouldn't be able to go wrong with lenses that cost over $1000, now,
    should you?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Mar 21, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PTRAVEL

    Canon i9100 follow up

    PTRAVEL, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    487
    Stephen Smith
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. John Faughnan

    Canon G2 and auto-ISO setting -- what rules does it follow?

    John Faughnan, Apr 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    512
    John Faughnan
    Apr 11, 2004
  3. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    677
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. Won Dampchin

    Canon i550 printer follow-on model

    Won Dampchin, Jan 4, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    469
    Oldus Fartus
    Jan 4, 2006
  5. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    486
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page