10D and 20-35 lens is twice as much as 300D and 18-55 lens?

[The Photo Tuell]

I finally figured out why a lot of people (including me) are excited about the 300D/Digital Rebel kit.

Why spend $1500 for the 10D then ~$100 (all lens prices from the cheap online stores like B&H and Adorama) for a 22-55 F4/5.6 (that isn't listed on Canons site, so is it still being made?) when the 300D kit is $1000? The cheapest wide angle zoom listed on Canons lens list is the 20-35 F3.5/4.5 for ~$350.

The 300D kit plus a nice zoom like the 70-200 F4L for ~650 and the 50 F1.8 II for ~100 sounds like a nice range of quality lenses (hopefully the 18-55 is decent, Canon says it's as good as the popular 28-135 right?) for almost the same price as the 10D body alone. Tempting.

I played around with a Rebel Ti the other day. It seemed solid, sure it was plastic but not too cheap. I'm sure next to the 10D it would look even cheaper, but by itself it was OK. What really matters is the pictures, and the 300D should get shots like the 10D, maybe even better because you can get better glass with what you saved (I know, it's Canons trap: cheap body, expensive accessories).

[slejhamer]

The Photo Tuell wrote:
I finally figured out why a lot of people (including me) are excited about the 300D/Digital Rebel kit.



Well you raise a number of good points, and I share your enthusiasm for the camera body. In fact, I had made up my mind to wait for the DigiReb when I first heard about it as I figured it would meet most of my needs, including my spouse-imposed budgetary restrictions.

However, I was less than thrilled by the announcement of the 18-55 lens. I will be very surprised if the optics are anything like those of the 17-40L. Also, I'd really want a longer zoom and possibly a portrait lens that covers the 80-125mm equivalent range. My view is that the 18-55 EF-S is more or less the equivalent of the 28-80 lenses that come on Rebel "kits," and it's priced as such. So, even if I did wait for the DigiReb body I'd still be investing in lenses...

In the meantime, I came across an exceptionally good price on an open-box 10D and took the plunge, and picked up a 28-135 IS "starter" lens. No regrets, despite the brow-beating my wife has given me...

:)

[The Photo Tuell]

Didn't Canon say somewhere that the new 18-55 lens will be as good as the popular 28-135 IS? I can't seem to find where they said it, does anyone else remember where it was?

Here is an interesting thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=5914877

Do you use the 28-135 as your wide angle lens? I think for myself I might need something wider. Hopefully the 18-55 is decent.

I'd like an updated 10D with EF-S mount for $1,200 or less. Thanks.

[slejhamer]

The Photo Tuell wrote:
I'd like an updated 10D with EF-S mount for $1,200 or less. Thanks.


Ha! Yes, me too ... if I can get an EF-to-EFs adapter for under $50 then I'll just hit that price.

No, the 28-135 is not wide enough; as I said it's my starter lens. I'll probably get the Sigma 15-30 or Canon 17-40 at some point.

I haven't seen anything from Canon directly comparing the 18-55 to the 28-135. The official press release simply says the lens "retains all the high-quality hallmarks of the EF range." The link you posted is interesting but seems a bit theoretical to me. We'll have to wait and see the test pics.

Looking at the Canon press release again, that new lens does seem to have some very nice features: very short minimum focus distance (0.28m), extra lens coatings to reduce flare, and what Canon calls an "almost perfectly circular barrel aperture" to generate a nice background blur (bokeh). Well, too late for me now ... I'm sure you will enjoy it!

[Guillermo Freige]

I've already posted the following text in another thread, but for simplicity I'm posting it again.
Yes, Canon says "somewhere" (the usa site?) the 18-55 is similar optically to the 28-135.

The new 55-200 USM lens has MTF charts very similar to the 75-300 IS USM, and that lens (I have one) has a very soft and low contrasted image, so probably the new lens isn't very sharp or contrasted either. Ths EFS 18-55 seems to be a very different beast, with MTF similar to the 28-135 IS USM, fact that seems to support Canon claims (they say the 18-55 have a image quality similar to the 28-135), but the MTF only reach 13mm, instead of the classic 22mm, because is a "digital only" 1,6x lens, so if you are not very careful it seems to be better than in reality it is.


My idea is to buy the 300D "full kit" because the 18-55 covers the 28-45 range lost at 1,6x crop in my 28-135, and apparently with a similar image quality.

[slejhamer]

Guillermo Freige wrote:
Yes, Canon says "somewhere" (the usa site) the 18-55 is similar optically to the 28-135.


I searched the Canon site (briefly) and couldn't find the direct comparison. Do you have a link?

I also took a look at the MTF charts. The charts provided show the measurements only at the extreme short and long focal lengths for each lens. My understanding is that MTF charts should only be used to compare lenses at the same focal length, and this can not be done for those two lenses with the charts on the site.

However, a comparison of the 18-55 EF-S lens at 18mm to the 17-40L lens at 17mm might raise a few eyebrows, at least through a distance of 10mm from center. If the measurements are correct, the 18-55 may prove to be surprisingly good!

[Longwatcher]

I used the canon.usa.com site and brought up the MTF charts for both lenses from the EF lens links.

The 18-55 has a very good MTF chart although it starts dropping at the edge (which is cutoff early). So it would appear to match the 28-135 within the 28-55 range. The 55-200 is not nearly as good on the MTF chart if you actually look at the numbers (but the chart itself makes it look better). The MTF chart for the 75-300 goes to 20 the 55-200 only goes to 13 (figure it out for yourselves ;-). At the wider end though the 55-200 does appear better, but at the tele end, the 75-300 appears to cream the 55-200.

Just my opinion of the charts; which I still have not figured out completely, but do know higher is better.

[slejhamer]

longwatcher wrote:
it would appear to match the 28-135 within the 28-55 range.


Tim: Unless I'm missing something (which is very possible!) there are only two MTF charts on the Canon USA site for each zoom lens, and they show the measurements only at full wide and full tele - e.g, the MTFs for the 18-55 show the measurements only at 18mm and 55mm and nowhere in between, and likewise the charts for the 28-135 give measurements only at 28mm and 135mm. Where do you see the comparison through a range of focal lengths, e.g., between 28 and 55mm?

Thanks,

[Guillermo Freige]

The "28-135 quality equivalence" is in Rob Galbraith report about the 300D.
Quote follows

Canon also took the wraps off two new lenses, neither of which are aimed at pros. One is of interest, however, because it's designed to work only on the Digital Rebel. The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 has a shorter back focus than a traditional Canon EF lens, and protrudes further into the camera's mirror box. This allowed for a dramatic reduction in the lens' size, weight and manufacturing cost, says Canon, though the company promises that it will be of equivalent optical quality to a lens like the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

Interestingly, the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that ships in Japan will be slightly different than most or all other regions worldwide. In Canon's home market, the lens will include an internal ultrasonic focus motor (USM); elsewhere, it won't. Canon USA's Chuck Westfall indicates that the actual performance difference - focus speed as well as the sound the lens makes when focusing - between the USM and non-USM versions is slight.


You can find the whole article in:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6270-6325

And when in my previous post i've said "(the usa site)" my intention was to say "(the usa site?)". Sorry about the mistake.

In the MTF area, the 55-200 charts have the standard 0-22mm range (is a standard EF lens). Only the EF-S 18-55 MTF is in the 0-13mm range