Best zoom lens (moderate price) in 28-200 range for Canon 7D?
edi...@netpath.net
Canon 7D?
Paul Furman
> Best moderately-priced (not white "L" series) walking-around zoom for
> Canon 7D?
I don't know Canon gear but that's a spec for a film lens, full format.
On a cropped camera, that will give zero wide angle, just normal view to
actually very long tele. You probably want something like a 18-135 to
match the 28-200 film lens spec. The 18-200 'digital' lenses are
generally not that good at 18 or 200.
John McWilliams
I really like my 24-105 ƒ4.0 L lens. It's black, and has IS. I tend to
keep it on my 5D, though I've also used it on my 20D.
--
John McWilliams
Peter
news:hknmg3$hit$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I use my Nikon 18 - 200 G strictly as a light weight walk around lens. It
has lots of faults: the zoom creeps, it is not really sharp, nor is it a
real 200. But it is fairly free of chromatic aberrations and I have done
reasonably well in CC competitions with it.
--
Peter
Ghett Rheel
wrote:
>Paul Furman wrote:
>> On 2/7/2010 3:07 PM, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>> Best moderately-priced (not white "L" series) walking-around zoom for
>>> Canon 7D?
>>
>> I don't know Canon gear but that's a spec for a film lens, full format.
>> On a cropped camera, that will give zero wide angle, just normal view to
>> actually very long tele. You probably want something like a 18-135 to
>> match the 28-200 film lens spec. The 18-200 'digital' lenses are
>> generally not that good at 18 or 200.
>
>I really like my 24-105 �4.0 L lens. It's black, and has IS. I tend to
>keep it on my 5D, though I've also used it on my 20D.
After reading this
<http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>, where it
proves that two P&S cameras out-class the image quality from the 7D, you'd
be better off buying a whole new camera. A Canon G11 with a 28-140mm EFL @
f2.8-4.5, providing a whole extra stop in aperture compared to similar DSLR
lenses. Rather than wasting the same price or more on just a lens alone
which won't even provide equivalent image quality nor aperture. This time
you'll be able to fit it all in your pocket and not worry about sensor
dust, or annoying the crap out of anyone with the noise your camera makes.
J�rgen Exner
[whatever]
You really never run out of fake names, do you?
*PLONK* again
jue
Wally
wrote:
What he said. Amazing how many people still live in a 35mm world.
Hence also expressions like "full frame", like 35mm is a standard size
and the implication that everything else sub-standard.
But if you really want 28-200mm, it will work...
The 18-55mm IS kit lens works great for many, but others malign it for
being a mere kit lens. The more expensive 17-85mm attracts much less
criticism but is no better optically than the kit.
There's also the 18-135mm, which is closer to the range of the 28-200
when put on the smaller frame cameras, and is also in the same price
range. I have not tried either one, but have heard they are in the
consumer quality range -- same as the 17-85.
By the way, the 7D sucks for landscape photography. Check out Darwin
Wiggett's review.
Wally.
Ray Fischer
>Best moderately-priced (not white "L" series) walking-around zoom for
>Canon 7D?
"Best"?
The kit lens, the 28mm-135 is a fine lens, and about half the usual
price if you buy it with the camera. But it's a bit long.
The 15-85 is similar except wider and more expensive. Both have ]image stabilization.
You can see all of Canon's lenses (and cameras) here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ofnuts
> The 18-55mm IS kit lens works great for many, but others malign it for
> being a mere kit lens. The more expensive 17-85mm attracts much less
> criticism but is no better optically than the kit.
I do have the 18-55 IS and while it is on the whole a very fine lens for
the price, I recently found that its distortion at 18mm is quite visible
and too complex to correct by software (it's not a plain
barrel/pincushion distortion). OTOH Canon announced a "new" 17-85 with
the 7D, that is said to be better that the previous one.
--
Bertrand
DanP
> By the way, the 7D sucks for landscape photography. Check out Darwin
> Wiggett's review.
>
> Wally.
That site maintains 1000D is better than 7D with the same TS lens.
I cannot undestand why he did not use a standar kit lens.
And then goes on to compare the 7D with a G11 and say IQ is the same.
DanP
Ofnuts
You are one of these DSLRs minions and the P&S Troll will be there
shortly to demonstrates the falsehood of these measures that are
obviously made by pretend photographers(*) who have never used any camera.
(*) who also happen to be cheese-eating surrendering monkeys, and so
cannot be trusted with such important work.
--
Bertrand
Savageduck
The interesting thing with the Darwin Wiggett 7D review "he who shall
reman nameless" keeps citing as a definitive P&S vs. DSLR comparison,
is the final result in favor of the D300, not the G11 or 7D.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris Malcolm
You mean it's too complex to correct with simple generic correction
software. It should be easily correctable by software which has a
database of the specific aberrations of each camera and lens
combination, and corrects complex types of distortion, such as PTLens
and I believe DXO.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> On 2010-02-08 04:56:03 -0800, DanP <dan....@hotmail.com> said:
>> On Feb 8, 3:38am, Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, the 7D sucks for landscape photography. Check out Darwin
>>> Wiggett's review.
>>>
>>> Wally.
>>
>> That site maintains 1000D is better than 7D with the same TS lens.
>> I cannot undestand why he did not use a standar kit lens.
>> And then goes on to compare the 7D with a G11 and say IQ is the same.
>>
>> See this
>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras
>> /(appareil1)/329%7C0/(appareil2)/268%7C0/(appareil3)/334%7C0/(onglet)/0/(br
>> and)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon
>>
>> DanP
> The interesting thing with the Darwin Wiggett 7D review "he who shall
> reman nameless" keeps citing as a definitive P&S vs. DSLR comparison,
> is the final result in favor of the D300, not the G11 or 7D.
None of the trolls much cited reviews actually support the troll's
views, they contradict them. So either the troll hasn't read them, or
can't find anything which does support its views, and hopes you won't
read them. Since this has been pointed out many time to the troll, and
the troll hasn't changed its citations, I incline to the latter view.
--
Chris Malcolm
rwalker
Of course his real name is Dumb Ass/Arse (depending on which side of
the pond he's on).
SneakyP
news:lksum5hqofeejfun9...@4ax.com:
Here's a simple fix for future reference : filter out headers with posting
path ending with easynews feeds, that also have a Forte agent posting
stamp.
POOF! no more dingbat.
Hamster does kill-file wonders for such trolltards.
