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

[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.