"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

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

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

"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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:

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

Well, irrespective of what theoretical MTF models say, I just maintain
that it is inferior to both the 1.4 and the previous model. If MTF
numbers are to be of any value, they have to be measured, not
theoretical models from the manufacturer.

This comparison shows the true pictu

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontif...sus_fifty.html

Here is my own test, which is in Norwegian, but the aperture values
and pictures should explain themselves. The quality difference in
favor of the 1.4 is plain to see:

http://akam.no/art.php?artikkelid=913

My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

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.

Agreed, but there are good reasons to buy something that lasts.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

In article KFcJc.2058$vH5.810@amstwist00, "pioe[rmv]" "pioe
says...
My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

It's $80! What else do you want?

In article KFcJc.2058$vH5.810@amstwist00, "pioe[rmv]" "pioe
says...
My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

It's $80! What else do you want?

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

"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
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.

I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the mount.
A brand new one, too.

--
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...."

That sounds like someone at the factory frogot to put in a screw or two. I'm
talking about the plastic mount on a lens or body actually breaking under
pressure. The anti-Canon idiots have been claiming this can happen for many
years now but have not managed to document a single case.

--
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
"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
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.

I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the
mount.
A brand new one, too.

--
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...."