New lenses

[ewx]

Canon's new 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens looks interesting to me, and I'll be keen to see a proper review.

I've been using the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 for some time; its overwhelming plus point is the wide focal length range (compared to say the 18-55mm kit lens) and although I've been generally pleased with the results image quality starts to fall when it's wide open (especially when this means both focal length and aperture).

The first of the apparent advantages of the lens is 2mm more on the focal length. This amounts to about a 10% wider field of view (66° versus 73°) and since I keep running up against the 17mm stop, I'm sure I'd use the extra.

The second is another third of a stop in the diaphragm. Again doesn't sound like much but could just be enough on a dim day, and if it pushes the point where things get soft out a bit further that would help too.

It looks like it's physically shorter and fatter, but heavier, than the 17-85mm. The former is certainly good, as with a camera on the back and polarizer on the front the old lens is a tight fit in my camera bag. Fatter means that I'd need a new polarizer.

The obvious downside is the cost, even given that I expect I'll be able to sell my old lens on.

(Yes, I know perfectly well that if you really want high quality, fixed focal length is the way to go, but I have very limited tolerance for (1) carrying around lenses I'm only going to use occasionally and (2) constantly swapping between different lenses.)

In other news they've significantly upgraded their 100mm macro lens with IS and (given the L designation) presumably superior glass, not that I've detected any flaw in the existing one, which I've got a lot out of. I think this will be easier to resist but both of these lenses being announced at the same time has left me feeling like Canon have an eye on my wallet in particular l-)

Comments

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

I'd be tempted, if I didn't have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 covering most of that range.

MUCH more tempted by the 7D :D

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

The 7D surprised me; it's got some quite nice new features (the viewfinder overlays sound useful -- dad's Nikon D80 has a switchable grid, which is nice), but at first glance it seems just like an APS-C version of the 5D Mk. II. Not that that's a bad thing, of course, but apart from video there doesn't seem to be a huge jump from my 50D to be much of a temptation. Thankfully!

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that does look like an interesting lens -- I don't often find the wide end on the 18-85mm too restrictive, but I suspect the overall optical quality will be knocked up a notch (based on the reputed improvements in the 18-55mm IS). The f/3.5 might be nice too, but it's a shame the long end wasn't widened slightly; my day-to-day lens on the FD cameras is the 35-105mm f/3.5, and I find f/5.6 a bit dark by comparison!

Shall definitely be keeping an eye on second-hand prices of the older macro lens; they're a bit pricey to buy on a whim. At the moment I have the FD 50mm macro, but that's not much use on a DSLR...

Speaking of lenses, though, I took delivery of my freebie 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS yesterday; it's an impressive piece of glass, so now all I need is something to do with it :)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

The places where I use my 70-300mm most are zoos. If we have another clear night tonight you should be able to get a good shot of the moon, too.

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

Hmm, good thought; shall have a shot at the moon I think -- will also give me a chance to use the tripod I was given for Christmas in anger for the first time! I was going to try taking a 'townscape' from the hill above the house this afternoon, but the sky is a bit grey and featureless.

The ancient 100-300mm L that was previously my longest lens mainly got used for bird photography through the kitchen window, and motor racing. No birds at the new house yet, but USM and IS will certainly be very handy for the races...

[ewx.livejournal.com]

You should be able to take a reasonable shot of the moon hand-held (as I did the one I posted recently), actually, though by all means exercise your tripod l-)

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

It wasn't visible on Saturday night -- too much cloud cover -- but yesterday I took this one (cropped, at 1:1) (http://flatpack.microwavepizza.co.uk/scratch_pub/100-400/IMG_0681_c.jpg), handheld at 400mm. The tripod made no obvious difference! Bit rough-and-ready settings-wise I'm afraid :(

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Not bad.

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

Very, very few lenses fail to go a little soft wide open. This is generally because they are designed that way -- it is possible to design lenses that are tack sharp wide open, but you have to give up something else for it, so most typically are at their sharpest between 1 and 3 stops from the widest aperture setting. Of course, diffraction losses get you at the other end of the scale.

This is pretty much stock-in-trade for large format and medium format photography. Even the very highest end large format lenses are intended to be stopped down. There are large format lenses that are sharp wide open, but they are special purpose, typically lenses constructed specifically to work in copy stands photographing artwork at a fixed distance.

I have some medium format lenses that happen to be tack sharp wide open, and at least one Nikon DSLR lens that is (the 24mm tilt/shift), but I generally don't expect it. If I'm wide open, it's generally because I'm consciously trading off the exposure time to gain sharpness that way.

[3c66b.livejournal.com]

If you're banging up against the short end of the 17-85, I can heartily recommend the 10-22. Except for the constantly swapping lenses bit, I suppose, but it would be a much more interesting purchase (-:

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd been wondering about that one for a while, actually.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

The 10-22 is a lovely lens, and one that I can heartily recommend (http://gideon.fotopic.net/p48939943.html) - I saw a comment somewhere to the effect that it was effectively an L lens, but that Canon had a policy of not giving L designations to EF-S lenses.

I hardly ever use my 17-85 any more; my four usual carryarounds are the 10-22, the 17-40 f/4 L, the 50 f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.

One thing I do like about the 5D Mk II (which I've been lusting after and unable to afford) and the 7D (which may become my choice of next camera) is the AF microadjust - the ability to correct on a per-lens basis for slightly iffy focussing. I love my 17-40, but it focusses just slightly off where the AF thinks it ought to, making it a case of a slightly out-of-focus image or manual focus.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

50D has that too, though I've not played with it yet.