about to buy lens, need QC advice

[Pindy]

I'm about to pull the trigger on a $1k lens.

My question is more of a poll: Would you trust a mail-order shop to give you a good copy the first time, or would you buy locally, usually at higher cost, plus tax, but you get to see the lens (or several iterations of it) and mount it to check for quality control. The talk about getting unsharp specimens has me a little nervous.

Thanks

[ziggy53]

I'm about to pull the trigger on a $1k lens.

My question is more of a poll: Would you trust a mail-order shop to give you a good copy the first time, or would you buy locally, usually at higher cost, plus tax, but you get to see the lens (or several iterations of it) and mount it to check for quality control. The talk about getting unsharp specimens has me a little nervous.

Thanks

Regardless where you purchase, test the lens to determine its suitability for "your" use. That means testing in as close as possible to the conditions you expect to encounter for your purposes.

I once tested 3 lenses before I found one usable for my task. All were mail order, but it wouldn't have mattered, because I couldn't have run the tests at a store. Returning the items was rather expensive, but the satisfaction of having a lens with known properties and reliable performance was well worth it.

ziggy53

[Pindy]

good advice.

[Scotty_R]

I suppose it depends upon the mail order house you're buying from. I've bought many high dollar lenses from B&H in New York City and have never had any trouble dealing with them if the lens was anything less than perfect. But I've only had once incident in many years when they've shipped me a lens that was less than what I had expected and hoped for. Know your seller.

[Pindy]

I suppose it depends upon the mail order house you're buying from. I've bought many high dollar lenses from B&H in New York City and have never had any trouble dealing with them if the lens was anything less than perfect. But I've only had once incident in many years when they've shipped me a lens that was less than what I had expected and hoped for. Know your seller.

Yes, quite.

I suppose what I'm angling for is this answer: What's the state of QC in lenses these days? If tolerances are wide, does it make sense to view through multiple units of the same lens and choose the best? Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.

[ziggy53]

Yes, quite.

I suppose what I'm angling for is this answer: What's the state of QC in lenses these days? If tolerances are wide, does it make sense to view through multiple units of the same lens and choose the best? Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.

If you could describe which lens you're interested in, you would probably get some better responses about user experiences.

I don't think it's either fair or safe to try to describe "all" Canon lenses as one quality, or all Sigma lenses as another quality. That would be a hasty generalization, and I wouldn't give it any credence, because I have had good and bad experiences with all major manufacturers products. (Except for Vivitar, which sadly has very few new lenses I would actually consider or recommend.)

ziggy53

[Pindy]

I'm looking at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

I am aware of the dust thing. Otherwise, I hear it has excellent IQ.

[ziggy53]

I'm looking at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

I am aware of the dust thing. Otherwise, I hear it has excellent IQ.
I think we have a couple of members with that lens, and I don't recall any problems mentioned.

A Google turns up a couple of vocal folks on the Internet who believe that lens sucks in dust. One of those individuals claims that his second copy of the lens didn't exhibit the same problem. I don't think it's anything to worry about, because I believe that lens has been pretty successful, so even if there were two instances, that is statistically insignificant.

I also did not find any evidence of any other major failing or fault or quality control problem with that lens. Some people claim the fit and finish is sub-par, but I think they are comparing to "L" series lenses.

It's your money, but I think I would easily recommend that lens as a safe purchase, if from a reputable dealer, B&H being favored for that type purchase.:thumb

ziggy53

[Pindy]

It's your money, but I think I would easily recommend that lens as a safe purchase, if from a reputable dealer, B&H being favored for that type purchase.:thumb

ziggy53

Yeah B&H have been great. 17th Street, too.

Thanks again for the assistance.

[mercphoto]

There are a few reputable mail order houses, but I personally do prefer to shop local. Partly so that I have a person to talk with about questions and issues (I deal with the same sales person each time). Partly out of the very fear you have -- getting a bad copy. But I am lucky to have an excellent local camera store in Austin, which makes it easier to fork over the extra $.

[Pindy]

There are a few reputable mail order houses, but I personally do prefer to shop local. Partly so that I have a person to talk with about questions and issues (I deal with the same sales person each time). Partly out of the very fear you have -- getting a bad copy. But I am lucky to have an excellent local camera store in Austin, which makes it easier to fork over the extra $.

I have an excellent shop 5 mins from my home, but I'm a little intimidated in there, being a mere neophyte hobbyist proletarian imbecile. I think I would likely end up paying almost $200 more to buy it locally. If they could match prices, then fine, I might suck up the $90 in tax.

[Razrx]

I am new to the world of DSLR and I was wondering what makes a Pro Lens? I have read so much info its kind of hard to tell what is what.


Oh, if you wanted to know I shoot Nikon but my friend shoots Canon so both are welcome.

Again thanks for any help possible.

[Pindy]

I am new to the world of DSLR and I was wondering what makes a Pro Lens? I have read so much info its kind of hard to tell what is what.

Oh, if you wanted to know I shoot Nikon but my friend shoots Canon so both are welcome.

Again thanks for any help possible.

"Pro" is a kind of questionable designation in a sense. Any pro can use a cheap lens and do more with it than the rest of us, but here's a good starting point, in response to your question:

Canon L-Series Lenses (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx)

Perhaps somebody could chime in on Nikon's lenses. I believe ED glass is the ticket.

[mercphoto]

I have an excellent shop 5 mins from my home, but I'm a little intimidated in there, being a mere neophyte hobbyist proletarian imbecile. I think I would likely end up paying almost $200 more to buy it locally. If they could match prices, then fine, I might suck up the $90 in tax.
My personal opinion is that it is unfair to expect a local brick and mortar shop to price match the Internet or most mail order houses. Retail space can be expensive to rent. Sales people to pay. The benefit of face-to-face communication, hold it before you buy it, etc. My opinion.

[sirsloop]

Ive had great experiences from BH for many years, many products, and many thousands of dollars :D

why chance it?

Did you scope out the 17-40L? You can get that and 580ex for a grand at BH after the $120 rebate!! NO dust issue... tried and true lens. The lens hood and bad should come with it too...

[Pindy]

Ive had great experiences from BH for many years, many products, and many thousands of dollars :D

why chance it?

Did you scope out the 17-40L? You can get that and 580ex for a grand at BH after the $120 rebate!! NO dust issue... tried and true lens. The lens hood and bad should come with it too...

I did, but it's all about the 2.8 for me. I tend to shoot more indoors in really poorly lit places and need all the help I can get. I spend most of my time in studios and the like. Otherwise, the 17-40L seems like a great outdoor lens. I could use the 580ex as well... AARGH!

[Razrx]

"Pro" is a kind of questionable designation in a sense. Any pro can use a cheap lens and do more with it than the rest of us, but here's a good starting point, in response to your question:

Canon L-Series Lenses (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx)

Perhaps somebody could chime in on Nikon's lenses. I believe ED glass is the ticket.

Thank you very much for the info...With all of the choices today, it is hard to tell what is what anymore. Back in the day when I did this AI lens for Nikon was the way to go. True I could still use those, but you lose some of the metering from what I understand or I may have been reading the wrong forums.

Again, thank you for the quick response!

[Pindy]

Thank you very much for the info...With all of the choices today, it is hard to tell what is what anymore. Back in the day when I did this AI lens for Nikon was the way to go. True I could still use those, but you lose some of the metering from what I understand or I may have been reading the wrong forums.

Again, thank you for the quick response!

I would love to know if Nikon has certain grades of quality that are distinguishable by initials.

[ziggy53]

I would love to know if Nikon has certain grades of quality that are distinguishable by initials.

While it's true that there are "grades" of lenses within each manufacturer, it's best to qualify each lens by its particular traits and how it meets "your" needs. You don't always "need" a Canon "L" lens, or a Nikon "IF-ED, VR", or whatever.

Try not to over simplify the situation.

Determine your needs first, then find the tool that best fits that need.

A great explanation here:

http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec3.htm

ziggy53

[Pindy]

Try not to over simplify the situation.

Determine your needs first, then find the tool that best fits that need.

I'm pretty sure I was deliberately not oversimplifying the situation by way of the following:

"Pro" is a kind of questionable designation in a sense... but here's a good starting point, in response to your question...

My 50mm f/1.4 is magic—NOT an L. Weather sealing, ring USM (for Canons at least) and metal construction seems to be a badge of "professional" standard, however. As you imply, there is both a technical and a creative answer to the question, and these answers may not necessarily coincide.

Again, thank you for your input.


That link is very helpful!

[ziggy53]

I'm pretty sure I was deliberately not oversimplifying the situation by way of the following: ...



My 50mm f/1.4 is magic—NOT an L. Weather sealing, ring USM (for Canons at least) and metal construction seems to be a badge of "professional" standard, however. As you imply, there is both a technical and a creative answer to the question, and these answers may not necessarily coincide.

Again, thank you for your input.


That link is very helpful!

I would love to know if Nikon has certain grades of quality that are distinguishable by initials.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that everything you said was an oversimplification, only the above statement. I gather now that you may have been asking somewhat sarcastically?

I agree with you that the 50mm, f1.4 is a great lens at a great price.

Best,

ziggy53

[Pindy]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that everything you said was an oversimplification, only the above statement. I gather now that you may have been asking somewhat sarcastically?

Oops. I didn't mean to sound narky or take that as offensive. It was late when I wrote that and I think I didn't express myself correctly. Most lens companies seem to have a litany of abbreviations and a legend of these crypts would be helpful.

[sirsloop]

If you shoot indoors a lot, you may want to consider getting a 35 f/2, or 50 f/1.4 instead. I shoot all the time with my 35/2.. its a fantastic lens and its inexpensive. To be honest, f/2.8 isnt all that great when you compare to f/1.4 or even the 35/2!! Thats nearly two extra stops with the 50/1.4!

I'll be honest and tell you I dont like that 17-55IS. I think for 1100 bucks, the body is a plastic hunk of junk and yes its prone to get dust on the internal lenses. The optics are spot on from what I have heard, but there are other lenses out there that do just as well. You either sacrifice zoom and gain 1~2 stops, or get a better body and sacrifice 1 stop.

[Pindy]

If you shoot indoors a lot, you may want to consider getting a 35 f/2, or 50 f/1.4 instead. I shoot all the time with my 35/2.. its a fantastic lens and its inexpensive. To be honest, f/2.8 isnt all that great when you compare to f/1.4 or even the 35/2!! Thats nearly two extra stops with the 50/1.4!

Yes, I have the 50 f/1.4 and it's great. I think I'd get more utility out of the Sigma 30 f/1.4 on a 1.6x FOVCF body such as mine. I should try the 35/2.


I'll be honest and tell you I dont like that 17-55IS. I think for 1100 bucks, the body is a plastic hunk of junk and yes its prone to get dust on the internal lenses. The optics are spot on from what I have heard, but there are other lenses out there that do just as well.

"Just as well" as f/2.8 and IS can only be f/2 or lower, I take you to mean. There is currently no other 2.8 + IS lens in this focal range.

You either sacrifice zoom and gain 1~2 stops, or get a better body and sacrifice 1 stop.

I have thought often of getting another f/1.4 or 1.8 prime. Please explain the "better body" comment—I'm not following you.

[sirsloop]

If i'm going to spend over $1000 on a lens, it had better be made of metal so if it accidentally gets dropped... it doesnt shatter into a million pieces :)

[Pindy]

If i'm going to spend over $1000 on a lens, it had better be made of metal so if it accidentally gets dropped... it doesnt shatter into a million pieces :)

You bring up my main point of contention. Blast you—you've cast me into doubt once more!

I think I shall go down to the shop with an open mind.

[sirsloop]

lol... im not trying to be confusing, only trying to present some of the other options that may result in a better assortment of equiptment for you to use with the amount of money you are willing to spend. If you don't have a 580ex, or any hot shoe flash... that would be high on my list. Definitly higher than an thousand $ plastic lens that doesnt come with a hood or lens bag, and is prone to get dust in it. I do see that they are now only $1000 from BH.... still at least $250 overpriced IMHO.

:deadhorse :rofl

[Pindy]

lol... im not trying to be confusing, only trying to present some of the other options that may result in a better assortment of equiptment for you to use with the amount of money you are willing to spend. If you don't have a 580ex, or any hot shoe flash... that would be high on my list. Definitly higher than an thousand $ plastic lens that doesnt come with a hood or lens bag, and is prone to get dust in it. I do see that they are now only $1000 from BH.... still at least $250 overpriced IMHO.

:deadhorse :rofl

on your list of HQ primes, what would be the top 3 for 1.6x?

[sirsloop]

at what price point?? I can think of a few that are over a grand myself that I wouldnt mind owning :)

Assuming we are talking about ones under 100mm... the cheaper ones are the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 in that order. I'd love the 35/1.4L but not gonna happen cause lots of cash and the 35/2 is primo to begin with. Over 100mm... thats a dangerous discussion cause i'll start looking into prices on B&H again :rofl:wink

[Pindy]

at what price point?? I can think of a few that are over a grand myself that I wouldnt mind owning :)

Assuming we are talking about ones under 100mm... the cheaper ones are the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 in that order. I'd love the 35/1.4L but not gonna happen cause lots of cash and the 35/2 is primo to begin with. Over 100mm... thats a dangerous discussion cause i'll start looking into prices on B&H again :rofl:wink

Let's leave above 100mm aside then.

the missing range for me is 20-70. I have the 50/1.4—sorted there.

If I'm NOT going to buy the 17-55 IS, then what am I looking at "walkaround" style? I can afford the 17-55, so there's your price point. If I'm going to go prime here, I should be getting equal or better quality to the 50/1.4, so no holds barred with those L-series recommendations.

Macro is also a consideration, assuming I have upwards of 1,200 to spend. Perhaps I could wangle a decent macro plus the 35/2. The flash on top would be nice. Oh I hate the option anxiety.

To give you an idea, I own the following: 10-22/3.5-4.5, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L IS

[sirsloop]

I sold my 50mm cause I never used it after I got my 35/2. If you can handle minor focus motor noise, then you'll love this lens. If you are really willing to spend 1200 on something... try out the 35/2 for $225 and see what you think. I think you'll love the lens and that'll give you a grand to put elsewhere.

[pathfinder]

Pindy,
If you have $1200 and already own a 50 f1.4, take a very long look at the 24-105 f4 IS L. Less than $1050 at B&H

Search here on dgrin and you'll find numerous threads complete with images from the 24-105 f4 IS L. I use that lens as my walk around most of the time, when I don't need a faster aperture.

[Pindy]

Pindy,
If you have $1200 and already own a 50 f1.4, take a very long look at the 24-105 f4 IS L. Less than $1050 at B&H

Search here on dgrin and you'll find numerous threads complete with images from the 24-105 f4 IS L. I use that lens as my walk around most of the time, when I don't need a faster aperture.

Yes, I've considered this one. And when you DO need a faster aperture?

[sirsloop]

well its always nice to have the option to shoot with a huge aperture... but in a lot of cases its really not all that great. The DOF is pretty shallow at f/1.4... a lot of times you will get people out of focus. Shooting like a table of people at f/1.4 is no good... you need to be at like f/5.6 or f/8 with flash (if low light) to get them all in focus. Shooting wide open is a great way to seperate one subject from the background...

this is the 35/2 at f/2

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/104609162-L.jpg

[Pindy]

This is the 50mm at f/1.4:

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/122825938-M.jpg

I went round to my local shop and they had the 17-55, 24-105 and 24-70 in stock which I faffed about with a bit. The rental department had not much today, but I'm going to go back when they get the following on the shelves:

24-105
17-40
35 f/1.4L
35 f/2

I agree about the DOF issue. You almost are better off with flash in many cases, but I am not a fan of flash—the size of it, using it for much other than for fill. IS could get me a little more DOF with motionless subjects. Not really people, though (Aargh).

The 24-105 was nicely made and the IS was totally silent, not like the rather harder-working IS on my 70-200. I didn't think the widest focal length was too long in general, as many have felt. Truly, the only way to do this is to rent them all and use them.

[pathfinder]

Yes, I've considered this one. And when you DO need a faster aperture?
24-70 f2.8 L or an 85 f1.8 or a 35 f1.4 Y0u said you have a 50 f1.4 already

As much as I like shooting available light ( and I do a lot - think windlow light ), frequently available light is not very good light at all - for that I prefer to use nice, bounced flash that does not look like flash, but lets me use an aperture I prefer, with a much higher shutter speed that prevents capture of motion blur.

This was captured in a room so dark that I could not read in it, and the light did not have the nice directionality your shot did have. I like Rembrandt window light too.
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/118657210-M.jpg
Is that acceptable use of flash?

Available light that is contrasty is great, but really flat, dark available light is not always that charming :dunno JMO YMV

[Pindy]

Is that acceptable use of flash?


I'll say. Shooting with a flash is something I need to learn to do properly.

I'm beginning to lean towards the 24-105L plus one more prime around 1.4 - 2. Plus a 580ex.

[sirsloop]

I'll say. Shooting with a flash is something I need to learn to do properly.

I'm beginning to lean towards the 24-105L plus one more prime around 1.4 - 2. Plus a 580ex.
my wedding photographer shoots with the 24-105L... he loves it. I'm pretty sure that one has the dust seal built in it, unlike the 17-55IS... and like all L lenses it comes with a bag and a nice pedal style hood. I do a lot of sports shooting so I generally have a 70-200/2.8L bolted on.

As far as making a photo look like flash wasnt used... thats the tricky part. The easiest way is to use a gary fong lightsphere, set the flash to ETTL, and adjust camera on manual to achieve the amount of background brightness you want. Other methods can be done with great success like bounce flash, the white cards, or other difuser types. You'll rarely point a flash directly at someone and get a flattering photo :)

Keep in mind, the 24-105 is a grand, the 580ex is like 375 bucks, and the 35/2 is $225. If you get the 24-105 and the 580ex, you'll get double rebates on both. Should be $100 off the L lens, and like $30 off the 580. Of course when you get into the 580, then you'll start looking at getting a quantum battery cord, a jacobs black box, and possibly a offshoe cord and flash bracket. Gotta love the hobby!

[pathfinder]

The trick is to never point the flash at the subject if you can possibly avoid it.

An Off shoe cord, or the IR controller do great things for an EOS flash -

In the studio, just shoot in manual with PWs or light synchs to trigger the studio strobes.

For a 580ex, you will need an Off shoe cord or the ST-E2 IR trigger which I like a lot. The 580ex will not accept a PC cord, and a hot shoe adapter gives up ETTL which is too high a price for me.

The 24-105 is sealed pretty good - after my last trip in Antelope Canyon it was literally covered in fine sand. I cleaned it off with a fine camel paint brush and it has been good to go ever since. It was brown when I started cleaning it that day. No canned air - just afine camel brush diligently applied.

[Pindy]

An Off shoe cord, or the IR controller do great things for an EOS flash -

In the studio, just shoot in manual with PWs or light synchs to trigger the studio strobes.

For a 580ex, you will need an Off shoe cord or the ST-E2 IR trigger which I like a lot. The 580ex will not accept a PC cord, and a hot shoe adapter gives up ETTL which is too high a price for me.


Woah, Nelly. I'm just not that kind of photographer!

[sirsloop]

yeh... ive used that hotshoe pc cord adapter before on studio flashes. You just have to take a few minutes to set the flashes up and off you go. I would never use one outside a studio tho...

[Pindy]

Okay, focus..... focus..... :D

[sirsloop]

HYJAACKEDDDDD :rofl


where do you live? If you are near NYC you should be able to just go down to B&H and try out all the lenses without renting.

[Pindy]

HYJAACKEDDDDD :rofl


where do you live? If you are near NYC you should be able to just go down to B&H and try out all the lenses without renting.

I Live in LA, which is also not a problem. It's the woefully inadequate subjects I'm limited to in a camera shop that makes it less appealing.

[pathfinder]

Woah, Nelly. I'm just not that kind of photographer!


????? Sure you are. Or with a 580ex you certainly can be:D Or a 430 ex and an ST-E2 controller which my shot was done with.

[Pindy]

????? Sure you are. Or with a 580ex you certainly can be:D Or a 430 ex and an ST-E2 controller which my shot was done with.

Change is frightening.

[pathfinder]

Growth, not change. Learning new tricks can be fun too:clap

[Pindy]

Growth, not change. Learning new tricks can be fun too:clap

I never said I didn't love it :wink

[ziggy53]

Change is frightening.

For a minute there I thought you meant, "Pocket Change is frightening", as in, "I just bought that great new Canon lens, and now all I have left to my name is pocket change" kind of frightening.

Now that I can relate to. :wink

ziggy53

[Pindy]

(Having read this back later today, you may want to screw on a spazz filter to deal with this)

There seems to be this "Cult of f/2.8" that comes out of the woodwork when you talk about getting an f/4. But in reality, 2.8 isn't going to avail me much more in the kind of flash-forbidden environments I shoot in during the day (dimly lit studios with cranky talent!) so what good is worrying about getting a, say, 24-70 f/2.8 when the 24-105L would be just as good for outdoors and have a wide prime for indoors? Right?

But...

The question is where to sink the majority of my cash. Although the 35mm f/1.4L would undoubtedly be amazing for indoor use, that's all my budget pretty much. Would I get as much use from it outdoors as I would the 24-105? I don't think so. So, there's the 35mm f/2 which I could just barely afford to get on top of the 24-105. Probably not a bad option eh?

The thing for me is this: Is more money better spent on a zoom with great performance, to make up for the inherent lackings (when compared to primes) or do you spend it on the single-focal-length lens you'll mostly use indoors? This is such hell. You could say, "Just buy them all" but this leads to leaving lenses at home, where they do no good. I don't want a stable of lenses, but rather a tightly knit team that do most of my important bidding without fuss.

so...

24-105L + 35 f/2

17-55 + ?? This was the cursed original lens that would have been perfect had it not been for the value-for-money issue. AGAIN: there's no 2.8 + IS in this focal range.

35 f/1.4L and ??

Or screw the outdoor zoom idea and get the 100mm macro (which I want) plus the 35mm f/2 plus the 580EX. This leaves me with a 50 and 10-22 for outdoor walkaround, neither of which seem very optimised.

Zooms seem great for outdoor work and perhaps that's where they shine. Primes seem well suited indoors, though should be equally suited to outdoor work as well.

I can see myself talking in circles, trying to justify every possible notion. I'm creating drama where there is none.

[Pindy]

What are Canon's best non-L primes in the walkaround range (20-100)?

I loved Andy's photos with the 85 f/1.8.

A vote for the 35 f/2.

obviously the 50 f/1.4

Else?

[pathfinder]

The 85 f1.8 is a fantastic lens.

The 135 f2.0 L is also just dynamite. It is an L, but a cheaper one. Even the 200f2.8 L is great and not that astronomical in price.

The 100 f2.8 macro of course should not be forgotten either.

And I would not give up my 580ex either.

[Pindy]

The 85 f1.8 is a fantastic lens.

The 135 f2.0 L is also just dynamite. It is an L, but a cheaper one. Even the 200f2.8 L is great and not that astronomical in price.

The 100 f2.8 macro of course should not be forgotten either.

And I would not give up my 580ex either.

Yeah, I do also have a major macro jones. but i have to sort out my basic walkaround range first.

[erich6]

I have an excellent shop 5 mins from my home, but I'm a little intimidated in there, being a mere neophyte hobbyist proletarian imbecile. I think I would likely end up paying almost $200 more to buy it locally. If they could match prices, then fine, I might suck up the $90 in tax.

Let me guess...Samy's?? :wink

Some local shops do tend to be intimidating. It depends on the salespeople they have. The first time someone gives me a "holier-than-thou" attitude I'm out the door.

Samys, for example, is much much overpriced. On the other hand you can try Canoga Camera. They are local with prices comparable to the Internet's. That's where I picked up my 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Now, I wish I could help you with your problem by giving you the final answer but obviously I can't. That said, consider the types of shots you'll be taking indoors and figure out if you'll be getting the depth-of-field you will need at the focal lengths you intend to shoot if you use f/2.8. My guess is that you'll be wanting to stop-down anyway. If so, then the 24-105 f/4L IS starts looking better doesn't it? It's certainly versitile and with the excellent high ISO performance you get from Canon you can afford to bump up the ISO for available lighting shots. Add DxO post-processing and you'll get an extra couple of stops advantage with their noise reduction module.

Erich

[Pindy]

Let me guess...Samy's?? :wink

Well spotted!!

Samys, for example, is much much overpriced. On the other hand you can try Canoga Camera.

Thanks for the tip—I'll check them out.

My guess is that you'll be wanting to stop-down anyway. If so, then the 24-105 f/4L IS starts looking better doesn't it? It's certainly versitile and with the excellent high ISO performance you get from Canon you can afford to bump up the ISO for available lighting shots. Add DxO post-processing and you'll get an extra couple of stops advantage with their noise reduction module.

Erich

I follow you. I think this was sort of my point about the 1 stop advantage of 2.8 being a half-measure. Always, wider aperture is a good thing to have, but one needs DOF at times. hmmm. 24-105L is sounding better and better. I can always go with that 35 wide if I really need to. There's one for sale here for about 160.00.

Must investigate DxO—no idea about it.

[Pindy]

Canoga has the 24-105 for the same price as 17th Street and $10 lower than B&H. THey look like a real camera shop, too. Thanks again for the tip.

[Pindy]

Sorry Sirsloop, but I'm starting to go back to the 17-55. If the only reason not to buy this lens is on principle... well, my principles are just tapped out. It's a cake-and-eat-it-too lens for my current situation. Yes the stupid hood is $50. It's maybe not a desert island lens, granted. When I upgrade to FF I think a lot of these other focal lengths will make more sense. Might just pick up that 35/2 while I'm at it.

Thanks again for all your large and longness.



********update*********
Ordered the 17-55 from Canoga Camera, which will assure me cheap and fast shipping, being that I'm right over the mountains from them. Thanks to Erich6. The good price from them took away a bit of the sting. I stood there in Samy's this morning with the 24-105 in my hand and remarked what a great lens it seemed on a 5D. But they belonged together. Hopefully, in a year's time, they may both belong to me.