ewx: (photos)
Richard Kettlewell ([personal profile] ewx) wrote2008-11-22 07:59 pm
Entry tags:

New camera

I just bought the body and kept the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS that I had already. Quality-wise it's not the greatest of lenses; there's some CA at the wide end (mostly not visible in the last batch of wide-angle shots due to software correction) and it's rather soft when not stopped down (particularly at the wide end). Still, the long zoom range gives it great flexibility, and I'm loathe to give that up.

This lens on the other hand is exceptionally sharp even at f/2 and was well worth spending over a hundred pounds to get repaired:

ext_8007: Drinking tea (Default)

[identity profile] auntysarah.livejournal.com 2008-11-22 08:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Would you like me to keep that lens safe for you? ;-)
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2008-11-22 09:59 pm (UTC)(link)
I think I can look after it l-)
ext_8007: Drinking tea (Default)

[identity profile] auntysarah.livejournal.com 2008-11-22 10:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Can't blame a girl for trying!

[identity profile] baljemmett.livejournal.com 2008-11-23 12:55 am (UTC)(link)
Has the 50D revealed shortcomings in the 17-85mm lens that were hidden with the 350D? I haven't had an opportunity to try the combination out myself; the shops I've visited 'only' had the new 18-200mm EF-S and the 24-105mm L to experiment with. I know I used to get some fearsomely grotty CA with mine, but taking the skylight filter off the front helped considerably -- what's left isn't really noticeable on the 300D.

I've heard the new 18-55mm IS kit lens performs better than the 17-85mm, but like you I find the zoom range far too handy to change. I replaced my kit lens with a 28-90mm within six months, which in turn lasted about six months before I invested in the IS model.

(I need to find willing subjects to play with my 135mm f/2.8 FD sometime, it seems promising but nobody lets me point a camera at them to brush up on my portraiture technique!)
Edited 2008-11-23 00:56 (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2008-11-23 11:09 am (UTC)(link)

It does emphasize the softness at e.g. 17mm f/4 but you'd notice that on the lower-resolution sensor too. I don't use UV filters; one particular problem is that UV filter + polarizer on that lens impinges into the image frame and taking the polarizer on and off is enough hassle without moving the filter too.

The Jessops in town had the 50D and the 17-85mm IIRC though in fact I'd brought mine so I could try it with that.