Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Trevor, Jul 4, 2013.

  1. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Alex M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    > with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    > would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    > with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    > like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    > The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    >
    > Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    >
    > * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    > * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    > * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    >
    > Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?



    Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
    your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
    buy an SLR for.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 4, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trevor <> wrote:
    > "Alex M" <> wrote in message


    >> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    >> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    >> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    >> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    >> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    >> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.


    >> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.


    >> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    >> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    >> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400


    >> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?


    > Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
    > your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
    > buy an SLR for.


    Not necessarily.

    You can easily buy a small DSLR and a megazoom for convenience
    and weight, while still beating the megazoom compact camera.
    That's a very legitimate use.

    Additionally, it can then also be a backup body. (The 70D
    should also beat most compact camera video capabilities even if
    they have an AF-while-shooting (if the 70D works as advertized).
    This may be rather important to some people.)

    Oh, and in that vein: he can decide every time if weight and
    convenience will matter more than the best image quality and
    low light capability.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 4, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Trevor

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M <> wrote:

    >On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    >> "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    >>> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    >>> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    >>> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    >>> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    >>> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    >>>
    >>> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    >>>
    >>> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    >>> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    >>> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    >>>
    >>> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?

    >>
    >>
    >> Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
    >> your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
    >> buy an SLR for.

    >
    >I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    >This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    >is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    >to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.


    The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
    have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
    when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
    don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
    flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jul 4, 2013
    #3
  4. Trevor

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    > > "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    > >> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    > >> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    > >> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    > >> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    > >> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    > >>
    > >> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    > >>
    > >> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    > >> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    > >> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    > >>
    > >> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?

    > >
    > >
    > > Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
    > > your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
    > > buy an SLR for.

    >
    > I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    > This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    > is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    > to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.


    I believe that the Sigma is the only one of the bunch that has full-time
    manual focus override and that the rest require that one flip the
    autofocus off to do manual focus. I find lack of override to be enough
    of an annoyance that, barring some huge difference in performance that I
    do not believe is present among them, that would be the decisionmaker
    for me.

    Otherwise I'd go for the Tamron for the extra 20 on the long end.

    However I have not used a camera with Canon's new touchscreen focus-
    point selection--that might make the override less important to me and
    might not--I'd have to use it for a while to be sure.
    J. Clarke, Jul 4, 2013
    #4
  5. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M <> wrote:
    >>On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    >>> "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    >>>> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    >>>> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    >>>> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    >>>> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    >>>> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    >>>>
    >>>> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    >>>>
    >>>> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    >>>> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    >>>> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    >>>>
    >>>> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
    >>> with
    >>> your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
    >>> you
    >>> buy an SLR for.

    >>
    >>I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    >>This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    >>is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    >>to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.


    Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
    that is your main requirement.


    > The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
    > have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
    > when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
    > don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
    > flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.


    His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if necessary,
    and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.


    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 5, 2013
    #5
  6. Trevor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    :
    : "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    : news:eek:...
    : > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M <> wrote:
    : >>On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    : >>> "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    : >>> news:...
    : >>>> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    : >>>> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    : >>>> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    : >>>> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    : >>>> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    : >>>> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    : >>>> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    : >>>> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
    : >>> with
    : >>> your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
    : >>> you
    : >>> buy an SLR for.
    : >>
    : >>I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    : >>This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    : >>is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    : >>to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.
    :
    : Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
    : that is your main requirement.

    What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end DSLR?
    Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after only
    one release?

    :
    : > The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
    : > have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
    : > when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
    : > don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
    : > flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.
    :
    : His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if necessary,
    : and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.

    Like the OP, I have the 24-105 and APS-C cameras. I think the 24-105 is too
    long to be a good walkaround lens on an APS-C body. I use it as a "street
    photography" lens, because there a longer lens tends to make you less
    conspicuous. IMO the correct APS-C walkaround lens is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.
    On a FF camera, OTOH, the 24-105 is a fine walkaround lens. I sometimes see
    myself as a FF wannabe, which is one reason I bought the 24-105.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 5, 2013
    #6
  7. Trevor

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > :
    > : "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > : news:eek:...
    > : > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M <> wrote:
    > : >>On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    > : >>> "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    > : >>> news:...
    > : >>>> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    > : >>>> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    > : >>>> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    > : >>>> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    > : >>>> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    > : >>>> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    > : >>>> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    > : >>>> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    > : >>>>
    > : >>>> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?
    > : >>>
    > : >>>
    > : >>> Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
    > : >>> with
    > : >>> your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
    > : >>> you
    > : >>> buy an SLR for.
    > : >>
    > : >>I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    > : >>This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    > : >>is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    > : >>to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.
    > :
    > : Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
    > : that is your main requirement.
    >
    > What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end DSLR?
    > Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after only
    > one release?


    The point is that they have a proven product line, the Digital Rebel
    series, that makes money for them, and an unproven product line, the
    mirrorless camera, that may or may not make money for them. You seem to
    want them to try to force consumers to buy the mirrorless by
    discontinuing the Rebel series. Personally that would not drive me to a
    mirrorless, it might drive me to a higher end Canon model or to a
    different brand.

    > : > The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
    > : > have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
    > : > when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
    > : > don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
    > : > flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.
    > :
    > : His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if necessary,
    > : and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.
    >
    > Like the OP, I have the 24-105 and APS-C cameras. I think the 24-105 is too
    > long to be a good walkaround lens on an APS-C body. I use it as a "street
    > photography" lens, because there a longer lens tends to make you less
    > conspicuous. IMO the correct APS-C walkaround lens is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.
    > On a FF camera, OTOH, the 24-105 is a fine walkaround lens. I sometimes see
    > myself as a FF wannabe, which is one reason I bought the 24-105.
    >
    > Bob
    J. Clarke, Jul 6, 2013
    #7
  8. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > : Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest
    > if
    > : that is your main requirement.
    >
    > What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end
    > DSLR?
    > Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after
    > only
    > one release?


    Er it's the smallest/lightest available proper DSLR, the M continues as a
    compact mirrorless alternative.
    Personally I think options are good, even though I am not in the market for
    either.


    > : > The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
    > : > have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
    > : > when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
    > : > don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
    > : > flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.
    > :
    > : His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if
    > necessary,
    > : and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.
    >
    > Like the OP, I have the 24-105 and APS-C cameras. I think the 24-105 is
    > too
    > long to be a good walkaround lens on an APS-C body. I use it as a "street
    > photography" lens, because there a longer lens tends to make you less
    > conspicuous. IMO the correct APS-C walkaround lens is the Canon 17-55mm
    > f/2.8.


    Or the 15-85 if you want more reach at the expense of a slower aperture.


    > On a FF camera, OTOH, the 24-105 is a fine walkaround lens. I sometimes
    > see
    > myself as a FF wannabe, which is one reason I bought the 24-105.


    It's fine on an APS-C too if you prefer slightly longer to slightly wider.
    And makes a good team with the 10-22mm on those cameras IMO.
    But I'm not so averse to changing lenses though.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 6, 2013
    #8
  9. Trevor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 23:29:19 -0400, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    : In article <>,
    : says...
    : >
    : > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    : > :
    : > : "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    : > : news:eek:...
    : > : > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M <> wrote:
    : > : >>On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    : > : >>> "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    : > : >>> news:...
    : > : >>>> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    : > : >>>> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    : > : >>>> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    : > : >>>> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    : > : >>>> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    : > : >>>> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    : > : >>>>
    : > : >>>> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    : > : >>>>
    : > : >>>> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    : > : >>>> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    : > : >>>> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    : > : >>>>
    : > : >>>> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
    : > : >>> with
    : > : >>> your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
    : > : >>> you
    : > : >>> buy an SLR for.
    : > : >>
    : > : >>I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    : > : >>This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    : > : >>is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    : > : >>to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.
    : > :
    : > : Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
    : > : that is your main requirement.
    : >
    : > What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end DSLR?
    : > Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after only
    : > one release?
    :
    : The point is that they have a proven product line, the Digital Rebel
    : series, that makes money for them, and an unproven product line, the
    : mirrorless camera, that may or may not make money for them. You seem to
    : want them to try to force consumers to buy the mirrorless by
    : discontinuing the Rebel series.

    I don't know where I said that, but it's increasingly hard to see what Canon
    has planned for the future of the Rebel line. There always seem to be several
    Rebels, with only minor differences in features and price; and one would think
    that the line would be getting squeezed at the low end by the M and at the
    high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
    of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow). And who's going to buy enough SL1's
    for Canon to make money on it?

    : Personally that would not drive me to a mirrorless, it might drive me
    : to a higher end Canon model or to a different brand.

    I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
    understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
    understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
    avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 6, 2013
    #9
  10. Trevor

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 23:29:19 -0400, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > : In article <>,
    > : says...
    > : >
    > : > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > : > :
    > : > : "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > : > : news:eek:...
    > : > : > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M <> wrote:
    > : > : >>On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
    > : > : >>> "Alex M"<> wrote in message
    > : > : >>> news:...
    > : > : >>>> I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
    > : > : >>>> with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
    > : > : >>>> would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
    > : > : >>>> with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
    > : > : >>>> like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
    > : > : >>>> The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
    > : > : >>>>
    > : > : >>>> Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
    > : > : >>>>
    > : > : >>>> * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
    > : > : >>>> * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
    > : > : >>>> * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
    > : > : >>>>
    > : > : >>>> Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?
    > : > : >>>
    > : > : >>>
    > : > : >>> Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
    > : > : >>> with
    > : > : >>> your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
    > : > : >>> you
    > : > : >>> buy an SLR for.
    > : > : >>
    > : > : >>I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
    > : > : >>This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
    > : > : >>is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
    > : > : >>to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.
    > : > :
    > : > : Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
    > : > : that is your main requirement.
    > : >
    > : > What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end DSLR?
    > : > Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after only
    > : > one release?
    > :
    > : The point is that they have a proven product line, the Digital Rebel
    > : series, that makes money for them, and an unproven product line, the
    > : mirrorless camera, that may or may not make money for them. You seem to
    > : want them to try to force consumers to buy the mirrorless by
    > : discontinuing the Rebel series.
    >
    > I don't know where I said that, but it's increasingly hard to see what Canon
    > has planned for the future of the Rebel line. There always seem to be several
    > Rebels, with only minor differences in features and price; and one would think
    > that the line would be getting squeezed at the low end by the M and at the
    > high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
    > of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow). And who's going to buy enough SL1's
    > for Canon to make money on it?


    Canon has usually had a lower priced and a higher priced Rebel--for a
    while the major difference between them was that the lower-priced had
    crippled firmware, but the current strategy has real differences that
    make sense--the lower-priced version is physically smaller and had a
    fixed display for example--the latter is an obvious cost saving and
    using it to make the whole thing smaller is reasonable fallout from that
    decision.

    > : Personally that would not drive me to a mirrorless, it might drive me
    > : to a higher end Canon model or to a different brand.
    >
    > I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
    > understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
    > understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
    > avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)


    They basically have five lines, the entry-leven 3-digit line, the
    "prosumer" 2 digit line, the "pro" 1 digit APS-C line, and the full-
    frame "1D" and "5D" lines. The "M" line is a new addition, their first
    experiment with a mirrorless. It may or may not stick.
    J. Clarke, Jul 6, 2013
    #10
  11. Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
    > of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow).


    Price difference 40+% difference, from what I see.

    > And who's going to buy enough SL1's
    > for Canon to make money on it?


    People who want small cameras with large sensors and proper
    viewfinders. Some people need to travel light and small, for
    example and still not want a compact camera or an unnecessary
    EVIL.

    > I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
    > understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
    > understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
    > avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)


    Canon's lines are quite easy to understand, if one looks at
    them. They're differenciating lately towards more choice
    in small DSLR/cheaper DSLR, because there choice is king as
    more players are on the market.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 6, 2013
    #11
  12. Trevor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:51:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : > high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
    : > of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow).
    :
    : Price difference 40+% difference, from what I see.
    :
    : > And who's going to buy enough SL1's
    : > for Canon to make money on it?
    :
    : People who want small cameras with large sensors and proper
    : viewfinders. Some people need to travel light and small, for
    : example and still not want a compact camera or an unnecessary
    : EVIL.
    :
    : > I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
    : > understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
    : > understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
    : > avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)
    :
    : Canon's lines are quite easy to understand, if one looks at
    : them. They're differenciating lately towards more choice
    : in small DSLR/cheaper DSLR, because there choice is king as
    : more players are on the market.

    Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
    50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras, but it would be
    intended mainly for the 7D. I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
    it's very heavy and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
    usually do. Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
    cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 7, 2013
    #12
  13. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:51:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >: Robert Coe <> wrote:


    >: > high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
    >: > of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow).


    >: Price difference 40+% difference, from what I see.


    >: > And who's going to buy enough SL1's
    >: > for Canon to make money on it?


    >: People who want small cameras with large sensors and proper
    >: viewfinders. Some people need to travel light and small, for
    >: example and still not want a compact camera or an unnecessary
    >: EVIL.


    >: > I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
    >: > understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
    >: > understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
    >: > avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)


    >: Canon's lines are quite easy to understand, if one looks at
    >: them. They're differenciating lately towards more choice
    >: in small DSLR/cheaper DSLR, because there choice is king as
    >: more players are on the market.


    > Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
    > 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,


    What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
    And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
    they're much faster than f/2.8.


    > but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.


    That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
    a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
    and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
    than f/2.8.


    > I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
    > it's very heavy


    A 50-150 would be much the same.

    > and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
    > usually do.


    In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
    not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
    Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.

    Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
    the 24-105 or even the 24-70 f/2.8, and switch to the 70-200
    only when needed.

    Alternatively, put a 50mm on your 7D and have a 85 or 100 or 135
    in the bag. (as well as e.g. the 10-22mm and/or the 17-40mm)
    Then you have much better than f/2.8, too.

    > Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
    > cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.


    As you point out, there's the 70-200. A 50-150 only add 20mm
    downwards. Just use a 50mm already ...


    I can see many things that could be done for high end crop
    cameras, but a 50-150 doesn't appear there. A 60-200 may
    happen some day, though --- back then they were 80-200mm.


    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 7, 2013
    #13
  14. Trevor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : > Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
    : > 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,
    :
    : What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
    : And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
    : they're much faster than f/2.8.

    Not much for FF, but that's not the point. A FF 50-150 is well within Canon's
    design capability, so why not? Then at least the lens is still available if I
    buy it for my 7D's but decide later to go FF. As a potential FF wannabe, I
    made a conscious decision to stop buying APS-C lenses, and I doubt that I'm
    alone in that.

    : > but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.
    :
    : That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
    : a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
    : and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
    : than f/2.8.

    And they're not constant-aperture zooms. One can usually live with that for
    landscape and architecture photography, but for indoor event photography it's
    a deal breaker.

    : > I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
    : > it's very heavy
    :
    : A 50-150 would be much the same.

    It could (and should) be noticeably lighter.

    : > and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
    : > usually do.

    Which is the real reason I'd like a 50-150. It wouldn't leave a gap above my
    17-55 (Canon's standard APS-C walkaround lens), like the 70-200 does.

    : In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
    : not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
    : Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.

    Besides not being a CA lens, it has a bit longer range than I prefer a zoom to
    have. I'm already resigned to carrying two cameras at events (I've been doing
    it for several years), and ideally the two lenses should overlap, but only by
    a little.

    : Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
    : the 24-105

    I've thought about it, but I need the extra stop.

    : or even the 24-70 f/2.8,

    If I could afford it. But anyway, neither of those lenses is wide enough on a
    7D. At the events I do, there's always a group picture to be taken, and that
    means going below 24mm.

    : and switch to the 70-200 only when needed.

    My events (awards ceremonies and the like) usually don't offer many
    opportunities to change lenses.

    : Alternatively, put a 50mm on your 7D and have a 85 or 100 or 135
    : in the bag. (as well as e.g. the 10-22mm and/or the 17-40mm)
    : Then you have much better than f/2.8, too.
    :
    : > Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
    : > cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.
    :
    : As you point out, there's the 70-200. A 50-150 only add 20mm
    : downwards. Just use a 50mm already ...

    I already use a 17-55. The issue is what do I carry that's longer.

    : I can see many things that could be done for high end crop
    : cameras, but a 50-150 doesn't appear there. A 60-200 may
    : happen some day, though --- back then they were 80-200mm.

    Let's face it: I don't expect Canon to pay much attention to my argument for
    the 50-150 (and certainly not as a FF lens). But I thought I might as well
    throw the idea out there.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 7, 2013
    #14
  15. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >: Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >: > Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
    >: > 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,


    >: What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
    >: And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
    >: they're much faster than f/2.8.


    > Not much for FF, but that's not the point.


    So a 50-150 FF lens doesn't make much sense. QED.

    > A FF 50-150 is well within Canon's
    > design capability, so why not?


    Does it sell?

    > Then at least the lens is still available if I
    > buy it for my 7D's but decide later to go FF. As a potential FF wannabe, I
    > made a conscious decision to stop buying APS-C lenses, and I doubt that I'm
    > alone in that.


    You could as well have bought a 70-200mm and a 50mm prime.
    Or upgrade to FF right now and buy a 70-200mm anyways.


    >: > but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.


    >: That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
    >: a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
    >: and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
    >: than f/2.8.


    > And they're not constant-aperture zooms. One can usually live with that for
    > landscape and architecture photography, but for indoor event photography it's
    > a deal breaker.


    Nope. The deal breaker is that the long end may be dark.

    But then --- a 20D went to ISO 1600. From f/2.8 to f/5.6 means
    you need ISO 6400, which is well inside the capabilities of
    more modern cameras.


    >: > I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
    >: > it's very heavy


    >: A 50-150 would be much the same.


    > It could (and should) be noticeably lighter.


    Not as a FF f/2.8 "L" lens.
    Try f/4.


    >: > and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
    >: > usually do.


    > Which is the real reason I'd like a 50-150. It wouldn't leave a gap above my
    > 17-55 (Canon's standard APS-C walkaround lens), like the 70-200 does.


    The gap between 55 and 70 is quite small. The usual steps
    are ..., 35, 50, 85, 100, ...


    >: In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
    >: not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
    >: Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.


    > Besides not being a CA lens, it has a bit longer range than I prefer a zoom to
    > have.


    That only matters if it impacts your images.

    > I'm already resigned to carrying two cameras at events (I've been doing
    > it for several years), and ideally the two lenses should overlap, but only by
    > a little.


    Ideally you'd use a really fast lightfield camera.


    >: Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
    >: the 24-105


    > I've thought about it, but I need the extra stop.


    At ISO 12,800?


    >: or even the 24-70 f/2.8,


    > If I could afford it. But anyway, neither of those lenses is wide enough on a
    > 7D. At the events I do, there's always a group picture to be taken, and that
    > means going below 24mm.


    So you maybe really need a FF camera to put the 70-200 on,
    and keep your 17-55 on the crop camera.


    >: and switch to the 70-200 only when needed.


    > My events (awards ceremonies and the like) usually don't offer many
    > opportunities to change lenses.


    Preplan.


    > Let's face it: I don't expect Canon to pay much attention to my argument for
    > the 50-150 (and certainly not as a FF lens). But I thought I might as well
    > throw the idea out there.


    Ah, trolling for comments ...

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 10, 2013
    #15
    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. David Taylor

    Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

    David Taylor, Jul 3, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    132
    David Taylor
    Jul 3, 2013
  2. RichA

    Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

    RichA, Jul 3, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    124
    RichA
    Jul 3, 2013
  3. PeterN

    Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

    PeterN, Jul 3, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    110
    PeterN
    Jul 3, 2013
  4. Joe Kotroczo

    Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

    Joe Kotroczo, Jul 3, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    115
    Joe Kotroczo
    Jul 3, 2013
  5. J. Clarke

    Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

    J. Clarke, Jul 3, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    129
    J. Clarke
    Jul 3, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page