|
|
Re: canon 17-85 IS alternatives
Colin D wrote:
>
> s wrote:
>> I currently have a 17-85 (for my 300D) and use it most of the time. It's
>> a convenient lens (IS, modest zoom range) but image quality is starting
>> to bug me. Vignetting and distortion are very obvious at the wide end
>> and if you use a polariser + UV filter at the same time, the vignetting
>> gets worse (the corners of the image are black!). At the long end it's fine.
>>
>> So what are the alternatives ? A 17-40 would be nice, but the zoom range
>> is a bit short, and it doesn't have IS (which is proving to be useful).
>> The 17-55 IS is out of my budget.
>>
>> Alternative might be a 10-22 + 24-something or 28-something lens. For a
>> while i only had a 28-105 on the 300d and found that it wasn't often
>> wide enough to take everything in.
>>
>> Any suggestions ? What do you guys use to cover the wide-end ?
>
> Stay with the lens and buy DxO Optics, a program that automatically
> corrects for vignetting, barrel/pincushion, Ca, and purple fringing all
> in one pass.
> Not cheap, but very good.
At $149 US it's not cheap, but still much cheaper than a lens! I think
i'll seriously consider that it i can't find a lens ..
Are there other packages that include lens-correction ?
>
> Most zoom lenses have this sort of distortion to some degree, and most
> w/a lenses don't like two filters stacked on the front. An L-quality
I was thinking that something like a 17-40 with it's larger image circle
might not suffer when stacking filters on an APS-C sized sensor camera.
> lens will be better, but you will sacrifice zoom range, and the price
> difference will buy DxO for you with some left over.
>
> http://www.dxo.com/en/photo/home/default.php
>
> Colin D.
|
|
|
| |
"Noons" wrote in message
news:1126539208.986739.80290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/dsc-r1.htm
>
> This type of camera to me makes a LOT of sense. It seems to
> have a good wide range zoom lens, has a movable screen so we
> don't have to crouch to the same height as mr.Puffles the cat,
> it has what looks like a good handle, the zoom is not one of
> those silly motorized ones, it has a REASONABLE wideangle (not
> all of us are sports photographers!...), etcetc.
>
> I'm curious as to how much this thing will cost in Australia,
> but I'm seriously tempted to bury the Cooolpix950 and give this one
> a try. Will keep the rest of my SLR stuff while film lasts.
>
> Call me crazy, but I never understood the need for a D-SLR.
> Why go digital and keep that silly mirror thumping away?
> The only reason for it in the first palce was to see through
> the lens without exposing film: not an issue with digital.
> Why expose the sensor to dust and humidity everytime we change
> lenses? And those prices!??...
>
> SLRs make a lot of sense for film. For digital, IMO they
> make none. At least in their current format. Now, if someone
> took the idea forward and evolved it, fine. But all the makers
> are doing is just re-hashing old designs with a d-sensor
> bunged-in instead of film. At a premium price. On top of
> that, they gave up on lens compatibility with film SLRs.
> Which makes a D-SLR useless for anyone with a non-digital
> system.
>
> Of course, usual disclaimers: YMMV, IMHO, etcetc.
> Comments?
>
To be honest, the reason I hesitate to buy another non-SLR digital is that
they are all a compromise on what they can do. Even this (very nice) effort
from Sony has some quite large compromises. The lens size is a bit of a
let-down, the fact that they dont reccommend it for moving or fast shots,
and it is going to have problems putting flash onto macro subjects. An SLR
digital allows you to mix&match to suit your requirements. Changing
filters, lenses and flash will dramatically change what an SLR digital is
able to produce. To be fair, this Sony unit has a dedicated flash shoe (Big
plus) and a filter thread(another plus), but the slow lens and the fact you
cannot change the lens is going to stop me buying it.
As stated by a previous reply, the interchangeable lens option is my biggest
drawcard for an SLR. I couldnt really give a rats arse if the damn thing
has a mirror or not; provided it has the resolution and ability to change
lenses.
Further to this issue of lens changeability, I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ-20.
A great camera, with a larger lens than this unit(36-432mm in 35mm equiv.),
but half the pixel resolution. When I try to take very close-up macro shots
in low light, I am limited by how the lens barrel casts a shadow in the
flash output. This prevents me from getting really close-up images, despite
the camera being capable of taking them. I can install an external flash,
but the Panasonic interface is a simple flash only, and this prevents the
camera from being able to control flash output. So, I go from a pic with a
whacking great shadow over it, to a pic that is whited out from too much
flash. Unfortunately, it's not that easy to arrange perfect lighting when
taking closeups of wildlife... If I was using an SLR, I'd get myself a
proper macro lens to overcome this problem. I do note the Sony would greatly
reduce this by the dedicated flash.
My other bugbear with the FZ-20 is when I reach the limit of its zoom. A
12x zoom is great, and the lens is quite fast. However, I get greatly
frustrated with the fact that I cannot swap that lens out for something
larger or smaller. If I was using an SLR, it would be a case of getting a
larger lens for the distance stuff. And perhaps a good macro lens for the
closeups. Not because an SLR is better at these shots, but because very few
non-SLR cameras are produced that can do this. And the manual focus option
on the FZ-20 sucks big-time!
I also find that your average SLR has the option of filters, a huge
selection of lenses, and any number of dedicated flashes. All of these
allow the user to mix & match to suit the job.
I also note the review states the sensor is 'full-size'; I think that
depends on what you call full-size. Certainly not full sized if we are
comparing to a Hasselblad, nor even to the sensors that the professional SLR
digitals use (about the size of 135mm negative??).
I also find it amusing the review states the camera has a 'real direct
mechanical zoom ring'. Rather sad that you dont actually get to see the
benefit of this on a real, direct viewfinder, isnt it!
My (nearly)perfect digital camera would be something based on the Panasonic
FZ-20, with interchangeable lenses and a dedicated external flash. About
8-10mp resolution, and I'd be in heaven. Mind you, for availability of
lenses, I'd probably go with something based on either a Canon or Nikon Lens
mount.
Until a non-SLR digital appears on the scene that isnt a whole range of
compromises, then I will stick to my dream of owning an SLR digital.
My thoughts...
Cheers,
Rod.......Out Back
|
|