Zoom Lens recommendations?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Kevin Backous, Mar 4, 2005.

  1. After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing
    lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself
    in the market for a Zoom lens.

    Does anyone have any recommendations for a good zoom in the <$400 price
    range?

    Thanks~
     
    Kevin Backous, Mar 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing
    Are you sure? "Film" lenses from Canon *will* work with the dRebel.
    They just behave a bit differently.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Canon 75-300 IS.
     
    Charles Schuler, Mar 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Kevin Backous

    Fyimo Guest

    I'd buy the 28-135mm IS lens as a gerenal lens and then save for a
    longer or wider lens in the future when you want something else. The
    28-135mm is a 45-212mm on the Rebel and it takes awesome pictures and
    the IS works great.

    Art
     
    Fyimo, Mar 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Depends on what the OP wants to do. This shot from a tram ride in the
    Florida Everglades would not have been possible with the 28-135:

    http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg
     
    Charles Schuler, Mar 4, 2005
    #5
  6. I thought this to be the case as well, and I have a Tamron lens that I like
    really well. It functions correctly (focus looks sharp etc.) however it
    produces a picture sligthly out of focus, no matter what I do even in manual
    focus.

    I talked with Tamron, and they explained it too me as the emulsion process
    is non reflective and more forgiving that the digital CCD which is
    reflective and causes the image to "bounce" around causing the distortion
    (no matter how in focus you are). It is sort of a roll of the dice, you may
    get a good image every so often, but not very often if at all. The digital
    specific lenses have special coatings and are designed to take care of
    this.

    Kevin
     
    Kevin Backous, Mar 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Kevin Backous

    Dekko Guest

    Dekko, Mar 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Kevin Backous

    Skip M Guest

    28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, a little over $400, but worth the extra $10 or so at
    B&H. The 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM is $415 from the same source.
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Kevin Backous

    dylan Guest

    Sounds very dubious to me, how come other manufacturers lens work, eg Canon,
    they aren't 'digital' ?.
     
    dylan, Mar 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Kevin Backous

    Skip M Guest

    Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image limitations of
    the well regarded 28-105 f3.5-4.5 to the point of it being unacceptable.
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Kevin Backous

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    I look at it this way ... some of my lenses give true 8MP images, and
    some don't.
    --
     
    JPS, Mar 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Kevin Backous

    Alan Browne Guest

    When it smells like horseshit...
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Kevin Backous

    Skip M Guest

    Heheheh, yeah. But the thing I found curious is that it was difficult to
    see the difference between my 28-135 IS and my wife's 28-105 on print film,
    but the difference is startling on our 20Ds...
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #13
  14. I have read that the extra reflectivity of the CCD can reduce
    contrast when the lens lacks special coatings. Also that it
    complicates TTL flash metering.

    Nothing about distortion though.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 5, 2005
    #14
  15. Kevin Backous

    paul Guest

    Have you tried the old lenses? I never heard anyone complain about
    non-digital coatings before. Maybe a minor issue.

     
    paul, Mar 5, 2005
    #15
  16. I think the smaller 1.6 crop format makes more demands on the lens.

    Canon's MTF data talks about 10 lp/mm and 30 lp/mm giving an diagnostic of
    the lenses contrast and resolving power respectively.

    Of course this is on film. When you scale in the smaller sensor dimensions
    the same image detail (scaled down) will be 16 and 48 lp/mm respectively.

    Added to this for a given angle of view you need shorter lenses that are
    harder to get high resolution from, I think this means you need the best
    lenses for the 20D sized sensors particularly at the wide end.
     
    Lester Wareham, Mar 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Kevin Backous

    Skip M Guest

    Sure it does, but it puts the same demands on all lenses, especially those
    designed for film rather than digital. So why the 28-135 IS outperformed
    our 28-105 so much on a digital format remains unexplained. Both are
    designed for film, and both performed to a similar level on that medium.
     
    Skip M, Mar 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Kevin Backous

    Drifter Guest

    Actually a lot of them are. A quick Google search on this topic will
    turn up all sorts of references. Basically (as I understand it) Canon
    and Nikon both have special coatings on their lenses to cut down on
    this effect as it certainly doesn't hurt a film image and is vital to
    digital. I have a Tamron lens that ALWAYS looks blurry on my 10D
    (though it always looked pretty good with a film camera). I nearly
    went mad trying to figure out the problem until someone told me about
    this issue.

    a few references...

    Tamron
    Di: Lenses with optics designed to combat increased reflectivity of
    digital sensors.


    Lens manufacturers are all busy slowly introducing new versions of
    their present lens lines but corrected for digital cameras. Goals:
    elimination of ghost and flare images caused by the increased
    reflectivity of digital sensors, smaller manufacturing tolerances,
    increased corner and edge capability...
    http://www.photoreporter.com/2003/12-15/features/the_way_it_is.html


    I have the 300 2.8 AF-S D II, only a year old and while it's great for
    most shots, have had issues with backlit/rimlit subjects and
    situations with my D1x which doesn't appear on film. If you notice,
    the newest 300 2.8 VR has a curve on the inside of the built-in
    skylite filter (vs. a flat piece of glass in previous versions) which
    is supposed to stop light from reflecting off the chip, back to the
    front element/filter, back again and so forth. "Meniscus protective
    glass element to overcome internal reflections from digital imaging
    sensor" is how Nikon puts it certainly inferring there is an issue
    with using this lens on a digital camera. Canon has also corrected
    this problem in all of their long glass. I understand the increased
    reflectivity of the chip surface vs. film is the cause of this.
    http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=311421&Main=311189
    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
     
    Drifter, Mar 6, 2005
    #18
  19. The MTF curves might give some clue. I haven't looked at the MTF data for
    those lenses but have been looking closely at Canon and Photodo data for
    other lenses to work out what to get.

    What I noticed for wider angles of view, is that some lenses MTF response
    seems to fall off much faster than others (this varies across the image
    plane).

    There is not much information from Canon as they only provide MTF data on
    two spatial frequencies (10 and 30 lp/mm).

    However, it seems to me (warning! pet theory) that some lenses perform much
    worse at the higher spatial frequencies that would be more significant on
    APS-C digital than other lenses. This I expect to be more significant with
    wide angle zooms (<35mm wide end). This would explain your experience.

    The MTF curves for the EF-S lenses don't look a lot (or any) better than the
    35mm lenses but they so seem to roll-off much slower.

    This is of course all a little tentative, as I am trying to curve fit the
    Canon data to extrapolate the performance at higher spatial frequencies. It
    seems plausible though, as long as the MTF 50% frequency for the lens is not
    too high.


    Lester
     
    Lester Wareham, Mar 7, 2005
    #19
  20. Yeh, I agree.

    I tried out my friends 75-300 last weekend on my 20d, and took a ton of
    duck pictures, they came out very nice.

    The focus is sometimes slow (some people have referred to it as "hunting"
    for the focus).

    I am think of getting the canon 100-400 IS L lense.

    There was a couple both with digital cameras, one 20d, and a 1d (or???)
    and BOTH with the 100-400 lens!

    He let me take a couple photos with the 1d. The 100-400 focused faster
    and smoother than the 75-300, though that could certainly be the 1d.

    Also, the 100-400 is much heavier!

    -- Patrick Mansfield
     
    Patrick Mansfield, Mar 8, 2005
    #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.