Today, at the local camera store....

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Rich, Dec 30, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    A couple had come in with two Rebels, one a 300 the other an XT.
    They were trying out different lenses to see if they could get
    better pictures. The store clerk was blunt; She told them to get
    rid of the 18-55mm zooms. She repeatedly told them the lens
    "wasn't very good." Luckily, the couple listened because they wanted
    something with more range to be able to use them more often.
    I think they settled on a pair of 17-85s. Funny thing was, the store
    wouldn't take the 18-55s in-trade, only consignment!
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Going from bad to mediocre right?


    *************************************
    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However" replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."
    Stephen Crane
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. What is with you and the Canon kit lens? Did one molest you in a back
    alley? My God man, let it go or get therapy!
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Dec 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Rich

    Gormless Guest

    YOU in a camera shop?
    You weren't actually considering the purchase of a camera were you?
     
    Gormless, Dec 31, 2005
    #4
  5. Rich

    Beach Bum Guest

    A couple had come in with two Rebels, one a 300 the other an XT.
    The 18-55 is quite good. My girlfriend takes tack sharp photos with it.
     
    Beach Bum, Dec 31, 2005
    #5
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Because I believe that the lens should exceed the sensor, not the
    other way around. Or, why should anyone use a $100 lens to hobble
    an $800 camera, OR would you put a $1000 paint job on an S-series
    Mercedes....
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    In that case, you shouldn't be allowed to use a 28-135 IS on a 1Ds mkII.
    "Exceed the sensor?" Few lenses will do that, and only expensive ones, at
    that...
     
    Skip M, Jan 1, 2006
    #7
  8. Coming from someone that doesn't even own a DSLR makes this a pretty
    damn comical statement. So a person that can only afford a 350D with a
    kit lens shouldn't bother buying the camera at all? You put way too
    much importance on your opinions. Especially considering they are
    illogical, irrelevant and rarely listened to with any seriousness.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jan 1, 2006
    #8
  9. Rich

    Taswolf Guest

    Mr. J, I just have to ask.
    What does PE stand for?
    T.W.
     
    Taswolf, Jan 1, 2006
    #9
  10. Rich

    Slack™ Guest

    Usually, Professional Engineer
     
    Slack™, Jan 1, 2006
    #10
  11. Slack is right. It stands for "Professional Engineer". The reason I
    include it in my user name is a long story that I won't bore you with.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jan 1, 2006
    #11
  12. Rich

    Taswolf Guest

    Thanks for the info. I would not have guessed it stood for "Professional
    Engineer"
    My official title is SCE. Any guesses as to what that means? ;)

    T.W.
     
    Taswolf, Jan 1, 2006
    #12
  13. Rich

    Rich Guest

    It's interesting. Another poster on another group said the opposite.
    I wonder which is true?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Jan 1, 2006
    #13
  14. Rich

    Rich Guest

    But thanks for listening AND responding anyway! :)
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Jan 1, 2006
    #14
  15. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    I had a couple of problems with your statement. First, that 18-55 is the
    rough equivalent of the old 28-90 kit lenses included with the Rebel film
    cameras, quality wise, and may even be a step up, optically. So...it's ok
    to put a cheap lens, in all senses of that word, on the bottom of the line
    Canon film camera, but not on the bottom of the line digital? Forget that
    it's $800ish, it's still the cheapest camera in Canon's digital lineup.
    Second, if it is the price you are concerned about, then that also means
    that the $700 17-40L shouldn't be used on a 1Ds mkII, since it costs 10x
    what the lens does, just like the RebelXT/18-55 combo does.
    Third, if its the idea that the "lens should exceed the sensor," few lenses
    will exceed the 5D, not to mention the 1Ds mkII. You've even remarked on
    that, yourself, in several posts, when you accuse the 5D of being let down
    by the lens selection. A requirement that the "lens should exceed the
    sensor" would eliminate virtually every non "L" lens, (with a few
    exceptions, like the T/S and Macro lenses) and many "L" lenses, too, like
    the 16-35 f2.8L.
     
    Skip M, Jan 2, 2006
    #15
  16. Although you apparently don't care or realize it, you are quickly
    becoming the village idiot of this and other newsgroups. Keep up the
    good work and 2006 should see you reaching a new level of being the
    newgroup joker. You managed to accomplish the same feat in the Mustang
    newsgroup so I see no reason you can't repeat that here. Good luck!
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jan 2, 2006
    #16
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Michael Withrop Johnson Jr. III "PE" (Esquire)
     
    Rich, Jan 2, 2006
    #17
  18. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I think film cameras can be left out since film is film and a $200
    Canon SLR will peform much like a (gone now) $2000 SLR. Digitals
    don't function like that. The Rebel XT is not going to match the
    image from a 1Ds mkII.
    The 17-40L isn't a dog and (I don't think) it would let down the
    sensor of either camera. And it costs as much as the Rebel XT body
    so there is no contradiction. The cost of the 1Ds mkII is excessive,
    no doubt owing to it's uniqueness in the market.
    The 18-55 is a dog, and does fail to allow any Canon sensor to perform
    even close to what it's capable of. Hell, it would fail a 4 meg
    camera. No lens should have to be stopped down to f9 or 11 to
    function properly.
    I don't know about that. Not all Canon non-Ls seem to be designed as
    poor lenses, some in tests have come very close to L's in performance.
    There are other things that differentiate them from the Ls like
    weather sealing.
    I guess you can find bad lenses in every "class" perhaps more in the
    lesser classes. But I'll take your word for it that most Canon lenses
    cannot match the sensors, I'm only stating that I've heard the
    opposite about good lenses.

    One lens that seems to represent the pinnacle of performance for Canon
    is the 400L f2.8. Much of it's quality obviously stems from the
    materials they used for it's lens elements, but it's obvious they
    lavished attention on it's production, based on the performance
    feedback people have provided. That is what is needed to do justice
    to Canon's sensors. Yes, it costs $6000, but much of that is the cost
    of Optron (Canon subsidiary) fluorite blanks used in that lens. It
    runs around $1200/lb for that material, if you buy it
    from Optron and one large element in the 400 uses 2lbs of fluorite.
    But it's fabrication quality can be applied to smaller more
    conventional lenses in the L and maybe the series below that.

    Personally, I'd like Canon to jettison the 18-55 and any other junk
    lenses and produce something on the level of the Nikon 18-70 as a base
    kit lens.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Jan 2, 2006
    #18
  19. Come on show us the real Rich like you have in
    rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang You've already got a wonderful start here
    so it shouldn't take much of an effort.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jan 2, 2006
    #19
  20. No, I don't. What does it stand for?
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jan 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.