View Single Post
  #21  
Old March 7th 05, 02:44 AM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , says...
Kind of ridiculous to compare a $99 lens with a nearly $300 one and base
your judgment on the camera heavily on that.


I agree, the Nikon gets the edge in image quality due to the better
glass on it. Perhaps if you couple the 350/XT with a similar quality
lense like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, that optical edge is removed and it
once again becomes more a comparison of the bodies.

It's too bad Canon didn't have an 18-70 or similar lense to compare with
the Nikkor 18-70. Now that I think about it, I'd like to see Canon come
out with a non-IS version of their 17-85 with the same optical quality,
as it would be a good everyday lense for a good price. It would be an
excellent starter lense for the Rebel series and 20D too.


The best way to compare the two would be to put either a third-party
lens on each, or use the respective 50mm primes from Nikon and Canon,
which are pretty much identical in quality.

As far as the kit lenses, Canon doesn't have a equivalent to the 18-70
Nikon, but the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS certainly has a lot going for it.
If only it were closer in price to the 24-135mm version.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/