[Towert7]

This thread was an interesting read....... well the first 20 or so pages until I started to see too many patterns repeating.

I wanted to see what the Canon kit has to offer. It seems Canon's biggest plus, is also it's biggest negative: their lenses. It seems they make some nice lenses, but boy...... they are expensive (and very specific)! It would be interesting to see if Canon put out a few cheaper lenses targeted to the budget DSLR audience. Nikon makes a whole slew of budget lenses which are quite nice..... but aside from the 18-55 kit lens, Canon has very few cheap lenses with zoom (not including 3'rd party brands), if any at all. That's gotta be rough for those buying into the Canon kit on a budget. I know I would be pulling my hair out! ^_^

The one thing that does interest me is the Canon 5D, though I assume that will be superseded by another rather soon. That seems to be where the magic of Canon lies, full frame. Boy does that thing take some nice pictures! I'm going to keep my eyes posted to see how Canon deals with Full Frame Digital, though it would be nice to see them put out some new glass with more flexibility since they already have enough specific glass, if you know what I mean.
Too bad I'm dirt poor.

 

[Dork Knight]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems they make some nice lenses, but boy...... they are expensive (and very specific)!

Like this beast

Look at the size of it;
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dork Knight /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like this beast Look at the size of it; Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

Haha, nice find.
I meant lenses like this: Canon | Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2520A004

 

[lan]

I think Nikon lenses are more expensive when it comes to their professional primes and zooms.

They do have cheaper primes but is that because they don't have motors?

Doesn't Nikon have a few more DX lenses since they were really into DX format? These lenses require less materials and should be cheaper but 17-55 2.8 is still expensive compared to the Canon one and the Canon one has IS.

The other Canon zooms have IS and are full frame thus making them expensive ~$500.

You're right though there is no cheap good zoom lens from Canon. I tried 18-55IS. It sucked.

 

[Dork Knight]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wanted to see what the Canon kit has to offer.

I received the EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi for Christmas, the kit lens included was the EF-S 18-55.

I've just uploaded four samples which were taken on Christmas Day with the 18-55 if you're interested, by the way, I've not done anything (post processing wise) with these images;

Sample 1,
Sample 2,
Sample 3,
Sample 4

 

[Towert7]

I know there are a lot of canon lenses that fall in the range of 70-200+, and a lot that fall in the range of ~25-100. If you expected to take pictures within both, you would want 2 lenses. I know the main reason I wanted to upgrade over my basic 18-55mm kit lens was for (1), longer zoom and (2) IS. I was lucky that the nikon had the 18-200VR (albeit a DX). Canon could do well to create a nice zoom that covered both of these ranges, ~20-200mm (other than their Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-200mm | 6470A006 | B&H. ) For most people with a budget DSLR this is plenty enough coverage so that changing the lens is reduced to a minimum (well, until they get the urge to try primes). I expect they are working on one now, just not released yet.

Thanks Dork Knight. Yea, there's no question in my mind that the Canon's take beautiful pictures. They do.

 

[Dork Knight]

I know Canon do a 28-300 L, I've not investigate to see what the quality, cost, weight etc are like but you're right - Looking at the line up a 20-200 L IS USM would be nice.

I just looked at the 28-300 on B&H which is $2,099.95, the same lens would cost $3,000 if bought from a UK retailer;
http://www.jessops.com/Store/s28768/...index=1&comp=n

A $1,000 difference - That's bloody bonkers.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know there are a lot of canon lenses that fall in the range of 70-200+, and a lot that fall in the range of ~25-100. If you expected to shoot within both, you would want 2 lenses. I know the main reason I wanted to upgrade over my basic 18-55mm kit lens was for (1), longer zoom and (2) IS. I was lucky that the nikon had the 18-200VR (albeit a DX). Canon could do well to create a nice zoom that covered both of these ranges, ~20-200mm (other than their Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-200mm | 6470A006 | B&H. ) For most people with a budget DSLR this is plenty enough coverage so that changing the lens is reduced to a minimum (well, until they get the urge to try primes). I expect they are working on one now, just not released yet. .

I wouldn't think that Canon is taking a lot of stock in lenses that are 20-200mm. They could market it towards hobbyists, but all zooms are hampered by sharpness....and there's lot of potential problems having a zoom that goes from wide to telephoto. You'll see the longest popular L is 24-105mm, but most are smaller for better optics. The 28-200mm is popular because it's an EF-S that's light. The L version would be very heavy and not quite as high quality as a prime or zoom that's smaller (ie just like the 28-300L).

Canon Zoom Lens Reviews

RE: 5D.....yep, I enjoy mine! It was the best transition from 35mm film. The 35L, 50mm, 85L, and 135L look very good on it to boot too.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Canon could do well to create a nice zoom that covered both of these ranges, ~20-200mm

Such a lens isn't really budget though. 18-200VR is nearly 800 which costs more than the camera. It's just more about convenience. If you never change lenses it would be great though!

 

[Towert7]

It retails for about 700$us... and if you divide that up into 2 lenses it's about 350$ per lens. You're right Ian, it is more costly than 2 budget lenses, but for some people buying the XT and XTi the convenience is worth the extra price.

The sharpness concern is as always, too. It's been a popular option for nikon owners though, even with this concern. I think with the people with the Rebel XT and XTi would be the target audience for an all purpose lens (those that fit in between P&S, and full blown photographers). Someone looking for a balance, that can sacrifice sharpness for convenience.

Should be interesting to see if Canon does introduce a step up from their 28-200mm, but lower than that 2100$ one, with IS to compete with the nikon 18-200mm within the next year.

Yea, I noticed you had the 5D Davesrose. Glad to hear you are liking it! If I had more money to spend in this hobby, I think I would get the 5D with a few nice lenses. Doesn't even look like the D3 can compete with it in terms of image sharpness, which is saying a lot.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This thread was an interesting read....... well the first 20 or so pages until I started to see too many patterns repeating. I wanted to see what the Canon kit has to offer. It seems Canon's biggest plus, is also it's biggest negative: their lenses. It seems they make some nice lenses, but boy...... they are expensive (and very specific)! It would be interesting to see if Canon put out a few cheaper lenses targeted to the budget DSLR audience. Nikon makes a whole slew of budget lenses which are quite nice..... but aside from the 18-55 kit lens, Canon has very few cheap lenses with zoom (not including 3'rd party brands), if any at all. That's gotta be rough for those buying into the Canon kit on a budget. I know I would be pulling my hair out! ^_^ The one thing that does interest me is the Canon 5D, though I assume that will be superseded by another rather soon. That seems to be where the magic of Canon lies, full frame. Boy does that thing take some nice pictures! I'm going to keep my eyes posted to see how Canon deals with Full Frame Digital, though it would be nice to see them put out some new glass with more flexibility since they already have enough specific glass, if you know what I mean. Too bad I'm dirt poor.

I had a look at both Nikons and Canons offerings and I've got to ask, what exactly do you think that Nikon has but Canon doesn't?


Don't know what you'd call a slew, but... basically, 3 lenses, 2 of them with VR option.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-55/3,5-5,6G ED II
Nikon AF-S DX 18-55/3,5-5,6G ED II VR
Nikon AF-S DX 18-70/3,5-4,5G IF-ED
Nikon AF-S DX 55-200/4-5,6G ED
Nikon AF-S DX 55-200/4-5,6G ED VR


While Canon has these:

Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF-S 18-55/3,5-5,6 IS
Canon EF 28-90/4-5,6 DC III
Canon EF 28-105/4-5,6 USM
Canon EF 28-105/3,5-4,5 II USM
Canon EF 55-200/4,5-5,6 II USM
Canon EF-S 55-250/4-5,6 IS
Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 III DC
Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 III USM
Canon EF 100-300/4,5-5,6 USM


I guess they should make a version of the Canon EF-S 17-85mm without the IS to match the 18-70DX, but that's pretty much it?







Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It retails for about 700$us... and if you divide that up into 2 lenses it's about 350$ per lens. You're right Ian, it is more costly than 2 budget lenses, but for some people buying the XT and XTi the convenience is worth the extra price. The sharpness concern is as always, too. It's been a popular option for nikon owners though, even with this concern. I think with the people with the Rebel XT and XTi would be the target audience for an all purpose lens (those that fit in between P&S, and full blown photographers). Someone looking for a balance, that can sacrifice sharpness for convenience. Should be interesting to see if Canon does introduce a step up from their 28-200mm, but lower than that 2100$ one, with IS to compete with the nikon 18-200mm within the next year.

Let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if Canon starts selling a 18-200 IS some time,
but it's not like this is a problem, the Sigma 18-200 OS is cheaper then the Nikon version,
and not too much worse.

Personally though, I think that most people that wants a 18-200mm lens should stick to
P&S super zoom cameras, you get good enough picture quality, for a lot less money.
The point of having a DSLR is to be able to use different lenses for different needs, so
why only have a pretty "bad" one?

 

[lan]

Let's not forget Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM also

But look it's another EF lens not EF-S. It's just more expensive to make since it's bigger.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally though, I think that most people that wants a 18-200mm lens should stick to P&S super zoom cameras, you get good enough picture quality, for a lot less money. The point of having a DSLR is to be able to use different lenses for different needs, so why only have a pretty "bad" one?

That's awful! I'm offended........

I have a 18-200mm, love it..... and so I should have stuck to a super zoom P&S?

That makes me soo sad martook.

 

[lan]

Naaah! DSLR still have lower noise than P&S, autofocus is faster, and continuous shooting rate is better.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's awful! I'm offended........ I have a 18-200mm, love it..... and so I should have stuck to a super zoom P&S? That makes me soo sad martook.

Uh... are you serious? If you're that easily offended, it's probably a good idea for you to stay off Internet altogether, there's a lot of mean ol' people like me out there...

If you really are offended, please accept my apologies, that was not at all my intention of course.


I did say "most people", not everyone. What I mean with this statement is that a lot of the people that gets a DSLR and a super zoom wont have much use for the extra features they are paying for, and actually end up getting worse pictures while paying a lot more. I'm not saying that a DSLR doesn't have a lot of things going for it compared to the P&S super zooms, but there's also good reasons to stay with a P&S instead. It all depends on the person buying it.

Example: My boss wanted to buy a DSLR to his son and needed recommendations. Reason? "He had played around with one and it was big and cool". Uhm, ok. Since I want to keep my job I didn't say anything, but I really wanted to tell him that it was a really stupid idea
Since he had no real interest in learning photography, he would have been better off with a P&S and my boss would have saved money but that's not my problem. I told him to get a Nikon D40 and keep it on automatic.

This is a good listing of good / bad with both sort of setup:
Should you buy a DSLR or Point and Shoot Digital Camera?


Also, read this:
Canon XT and Sony H2 - Newbie Help - Digicam Help - Steves-digicams.com Forums
especially what peripatetic and JohnG wrote. I think they make good points.


If you're never going to use manual controls, if you don't want to do post processing, if you only want one super zoom lens, if you have no interest in learning more about photography than just point, zoom and click, if you want to be able to bring it with you as much as possible (a bad camera in the pocket takes a lot better pictures then the good one in your closet), and you want to save money. Then, you should stay with P&S. In my opinion.