Is the Canon 22-55 USM good?
Doug Krause
I currently take most of my pictures with the Canon 50mm f1.8
USM lens which I'm pretty happy with. Now I find that for
some shots I really need something wider. I am wondering if
the 22-55mm f4-5.6 USM is good. I would like a faster lens,
but my budget is a bit tight. Thanks.
--
Doug Krause
dkr...@cdb.com
William Sit
is slow and the long end is too short esp. compare with your excellent 50mm
F1.8.
Quality is up to OK if you shoot at F8, should use as a outdoor scenery
lens. By the way, it is light.
So my comment is much depend on how many lens you plan to buy, and how is
the combination. You should consider buying the 24-85 if you want a bit wide
and zoom to mid Tele.
Bottom line, I own the line and it worth the penny you spend, only problem
is when I get the 28-135IS, I seldom use that again.
William
"Doug Krause" <dkr...@cdb.com> wrote in message
news:3b8d87b5$0$99832$45be...@newscene.com...
Bill Jameson
Some sample photos with the 22-55 at
http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality.html
Allan Engelhardt's site. Discusses the pros (cheap) and cons of the lens
tested against Canon's manual focus TS-E 24mm f/3.5. A tough test, given
that the tilt-shift TS-E costs over $1,000 U.S.
Hope this helps,
Bill Jameson
(I've never used the 22-55; I've got the EF 24 f/2.8 and EF 24-85 USM,
among others)
Daniel ROCHA
camera.
On a 35mm camera it's more a 28-70mm !
--
<°+°> PhOTo <°+°> GrAPhiSMe <°+°>
Portail : http://perso.magic.fr/drocha
Groupe français Canon EOS :
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/canoneos_fr
Bill Jameson
Daniel,
You are wrong. It is a 22-55mm zoom. It's a 22-55mm zoom when used on a
35mm camera body, and it's also a 22-55mm zoom when used on an APS body.
When used on an APS body, because of the smaller imaging area of APS film,
the angle of view of this 22-55mm lens will look like photos taken with a
zoom of 27.5mm-58.75mm on a 35mm body.
Bill Jameson
Bill Jameson
Daniel,
You are wrong. It is a 22-55mm zoom. It's a 22-55mm zoom when used on a
35mm camera body, and it's also a 22-55mm zoom when used on an APS body.
When used on an APS body, because of the smaller imaging area of APS film,
the angle of view of this 22-55mm lens will look like photos taken with a
zoom of 27.5mm-68.75mm on a 35mm body.
Bill Jameson
Godfrey DiGiorgi
The lens is 22-55mm focal length. It will give you coverages of 22 to 55mm
focal lengths on 35mm.
On APS format, full frame (H print option), the focal length coverage
equivalents to 35mm are 1.25x greater, so the lens when used with an EOS
IX or EOS IX Lite is equivalent to about 28-70. If you shoot with the APS
C print option (format proportions very close to 35mm full frame), the
factor is 1.45x so the lens becomes equivalent to about 32 to 80mm.
I bought one of these lenses used for $40. It is a surprisingly good
performer for the money, but you can easily see the difference between it
and higher quality, single focal length lenses. I find it adequate for
casual picture taking and portraiture but it's neither fast enough for the
kind of available light work I like nor is it sharp enough for very large
enlargements with APS (adequate for medium enlargements with 35mm, I would
imagine but I don't have a 35mm Canon body to test it with). I'm
considering supplementing it with the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 for better quality
and improved speed. I'm also considering replacing it with the 17-35/2.8L.
Godfrey
In article <9mlrkf$2vqst$1...@ID-82323.news.dfncis.de>, "Daniel ROCHA"
Bill Jameson
[correction to Daniel Rocha about the angle of view of 22-55 on APS and
35mm bodies snipped]
> I'm
> considering supplementing it with the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 for better quality
> and improved speed. I'm also considering replacing it with the 17-35/2.8L.
>
> Godfrey
Godfrey,
You might want to look into reviews and test results of the Sigma 17-35 mm
f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM. It's about 1/3 the cost of the Canon L and optically
very, very close.
I've got one and Daniel Rocha's got one. I like mine very much and the last
I heard, Daniel was happy with his.
Bill Jameson
Daniel ROCHA
> When used on an APS body, because of the smaller imaging area of APS film,
> the angle of view of this 22-55mm lens will look like photos taken with a
> zoom of 27.5mm-68.75mm on a 35mm body.
Yes :(
Daniel ROCHA
last
> I heard, Daniel was happy with his.
Right !
Bill Tuthill
>
> You might want to look into reviews and test results of the Sigma 17-35 mm
> f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM. It's about 1/3 the cost of the Canon L and optically
> very, very close.
Another possibility would be the (relatively new) Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 "193"
which costs almost as little as the Canon 22-55. Extrapolated Photodo score
is higher for the Tokina than for the Sigma, and I've never understood why
anybody would need a fast wide angle lens.
The Canon 22-55 USM has the best Photodo-score-to-weight ratio of any lens
(that's been tested by Photodo, obviously). Actually the also-APS-designed
Canon 55-200/4.5-5.6 USM seems like a more interesting lens, and scores
slightly better in optical tests, but has been discontinued.
--
Boycott talking smegheads, get your daily spin from http://bartcop.com !
Godfrey DiGiorgi
<ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another possibility would be the (relatively new) Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 "193"
> which costs almost as little as the Canon 22-55. Extrapolated Photodo score
> is higher for the Tokina than for the Sigma, and I've never understood why
> anybody would need a fast wide angle lens.
For available light shooting?
The Tokina presents one with a 35mm f/4.5 lens. That's awfully slow for a
normal lens and an SLR. The Canon 22-55 is not much better, if at all. I
don't know much from photodo ratings ... all I can tell you is that I want
a faster, sharper lens between about 24mm and 35mm in order to be able to
shoot effectively in limited light sans flash and make reasonably large
enlargements. I'm leaning towards the 28/1.8 for that reason, rather than
the zooms.
Godfrey
Larry Sprigg
(that's been tested by Photodo, obviously).>>
Who gives a crap about score-to-weight. The 22-55 lens is a poor performer to
begin with. It is one of the very worse of all Canon lenses.
To reply via E-Mail, please remove the "nojunk" from my address
Skip
>
> Godfrey,
>
> You might want to look into reviews and test results of the Sigma 17-35 mm
> f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM. It's about 1/3 the cost of the Canon L and optically
> very, very close.
>
> I've got one and Daniel Rocha's got one. I like mine very much and the last
> I heard, Daniel was happy with his.
>
> Bill Jameson
I'll chime in with a vote for the Sigma 17-35, also. I have one, and
I'm very happy with it.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Bill Jameson
>
> Bill Jameson <bjam...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You might want to look into reviews and test results of the Sigma 17-35 mm
> > f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM. It's about 1/3 the cost of the Canon L and optically
> > very, very close.
>
> Another possibility would be the (relatively new) Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 "193"
> which costs almost as little as the Canon 22-55. Extrapolated Photodo score
> is higher for the Tokina than for the Sigma, and I've never understood why
> anybody would need a fast wide angle lens.
I've checked the photodo.com listing, they don't list the Tokina
19-35/3.5-4.5.
I have seen the Pop Photo test results for this lens and they look pretty
good.
I corresponded with one photo magazine reviewer who had reviewed both this
Tokina and the Sigma 17-35. That person gave the edge to the Sigma, which
is significantly more expensive. (I didn't ask the reviewer about the Canon
17-35 L, but from some of the reviewer's later writings, I believe they
would have picked the L as the lens of choice for the EF mount in this
focal length range).
Fast wide angle lens: available light and also, at least with Canon,
precision autofocus with the EOS 3 and 1v (minimum aperture value f/4 or
wider), a change from the EOS 1N and earlier top tier Canon EOS bodies,
which required f/2.8 or wider. Another advantage is brighter viewfinder.
Bill Jameson
Bill Tuthill
>
> I've checked the photodo.com listing, they don't list the Tokina
> 19-35/3.5-4.5.
According to Tony Polson, the new "193" uses the same optical design as
the 20-35/3.5-4.5 that preceded it, and magazine tests show that the
new "193" doesn't actually provide the 19mm focal range.
> I have seen the Pop Photo test results for this lens and they look
> pretty good.
Except for barrel distortion, IIRC.
> Fast wide angle lens: available light ...
Yes, but for some reason wide angle lenses seem to collect more light
from the same scene, so they don't need to be fast. Also, long lenses
have to be fast to compensate for the high shutter speeds required to
prevent camera-shake blurring. Personally I use wide-angle lenses
mostly outdoors where there is usually plenty of light.
Another optically good wide angle lens is the Tamron 20-40/2.7-3.5,
although build quality is suspect.
BTW, here are some Canon lenses rated lower than the 22-55:
Canon 28-80/3.5-5.6 USM 200g 71mm $150 38cm ø58 2.2
Canon 28-200/3.5-5.6 USM 500g 89mm $500 45cm ø72 2.4
Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM 540g 121mm $270 150cm ø58 2.4
John Bateson
That makes it a 28-69mm on my EOS-IX. It also means that the APS format is
using more of the center of the lens coverage which means that aberations
that would most likely appear on the edges far less present. Why doesn't
someone at Pop Photo or Photodo test it in the format for which it was
originally designed? That might give a fairer assesment of the lenses
performance. The only reason it has become a popular 35mm lens is because
it's the cheapest way to get a 90 degree wideangle. Personally I hope that
Canon one day updates it and makes it a 21-55 with some improved optics.
But, if you want pro level quality, get a Canon 17-35mm f2.8L, at more than
twice the weight and over 10 times the cost.
Regards,
John Bateson
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Larry Sprigg" <gsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010830192836...@mb-md.aol.com...
Stephen M. Dunn
have a good reputation.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
John Bateson
drawback that I can see is the large filter size it requires.
Regards,
John Bateson
"William Sit" <si...@hongkong.com> wrote in message
news:9ml2fr$1r...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Scott Elliot
news:h%sk7.4328$Uf1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> There is also Canon's 20-35mm which has recieved good reviews. It's only
> drawback that I can see is the large filter size it requires.
> Regards,
> John Bateson
It takes 77 mm filters, the same size as the 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 100-400
IS, 300/4 and 400/5.6. I would say that it is an advantage that it takes
filters that are the same size as other lenses.
Scott Elliot