"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8 IS.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive? Doesn't having overlapping
f/l range zooms seem counterintuitive to you?

Pretty much the only thing missing from your setup is a 50mm. An 85mm might
be worth considering too, but not knowing what you want to shoot (other than
that you clearly wish to cover as many focal lengths as possible) or for
what application makes things difficult.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

You mean like the 24-70 f2.8L? Or the recently discontinued, and some
places still available, 28-70 f2.8L?
It is not just Canon that doesn't seem to have, say, a 35-55, 40-80 or
something like that, there isn't one that I know of for SLR type cameras
from any manufacturer. The closest is the 18-55 that comes with, and fits
only, the Digital Rebel/300D.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Martin Francis" wrote in message ...
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Doesn't having overlapping
f/l range zooms seem counterintuitive to you?

The only overlap in my proposed setup is the 40mm upper limit and 28mm
lower limit for the "wide" and "normal" zooms. That's not much of an
overlap.

Pretty much the only thing missing from your setup is a 50mm.

I've owned 50mm lenses and although they are (or at least can be)
optically superior to zooms, I often feel like I need something just a
bit shorter or longer.

An 85mm might
be worth considering too, but not knowing what you want to shoot (other than
that you clearly wish to cover as many focal lengths as possible) or for
what application makes things difficult.

I'm a huge fan of the 85-90mm focal length and one of my favorite
lenses is the Zuiko 85mm f/2. However, if I can cover this with either
a good zoom or the 100mm f/2.8 in my lineup (for portrait work) I
don't see the need for another fixed lens at 85mm.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Skip M" wrote in message news:vPyDc.640$876.219@fed1read07...
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

You mean like the 24-70 f2.8L? Or the recently discontinued, and some
places still available, 28-70 f2.8L?

I'm considering those, but the long end is short of the 100mm minimum
end of that 100-400 zoom. I may end up considering the 70-200 f/2.8 or
f/4, but I've seen what that 100-400 can do, and it's quite a lens.
200 seems sort to me for wildlife, and I'm not a huge fan of
extenders. But perhaps for the really long shots, an extender might be
the way to pull the whole system together at a reasonable cost.

It is not just Canon that doesn't seem to have, say, a 35-55, 40-80 or
something like that, there isn't one that I know of for SLR type cameras
from any manufacturer. The closest is the 18-55 that comes with, and fits
only, the Digital Rebel/300D.

I noticed that it's not just Canon. But I guess I'm curious as to
"why"!

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

Tony Spadaro wrote:

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8 IS.

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.

I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens, even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

Karl Winkler wrote:

I'm considering those, but the long end is short of the 100mm minimum
end of that 100-400 zoom. I may end up considering the 70-200 f/2.8 or
f/4, but I've seen what that 100-400 can do, and it's quite a lens.

Have you seen comparisons between the 100-400 and the 400 F/5.6?

Admittedly I have not personally compared these lenses, but Michael
Reichmann has:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:
Tony Spadaro wrote:

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8
IS.

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.

I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens,

Of course it's a "top-class" lens: it performs better than any Canon lens
with a shorter focal length*. Other than the 50/1.4, it's the best
normal-to-wide lens Canon makes.

Pretty flipping amazing for _any_ lens, let alone a $79.95 wonder (including
tax and shipping!).

*: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm

even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Of course it's not a long-term investment: it's a $79.95 throwaway lens you
buy if you don't know if you would really use the 50/1.4 all that much.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money. There
is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing.
Basically you can use what you want but try not to be such a high hatted
snob about it.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"pioe[rmv]" wrote in message
news:yVRDc.396$vH5.173@amstwist00...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8
IS.

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.

I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens, even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway