"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill wrote:

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 problem is more that while Nikon bundles essentialy a L glass
equvalent
with D70, Canon bundles low quality lens - something you wouldn't really
want to keep if you already hadlens and were intersted in quality. The
Nikon
one would be a keeper either ways.

Neither of those statements are true. The Nikon lens has been crticized
for
build quality and vignetting, the Canon lens has been criticiszed for
being
too soft at the edges. They are both mid-level lenses. The Nikon has a
metal
mount, and a wider range, which makes some people think that it is better
than it really is. The difference is that the Canon lens, at $100
difference, is a no-brainer, but the Nikon lens at $300 difference is
something to consider more carefully.

The 18-70 is a dx DO lens. Which is what canon call low dispersion and
sigma call apo. I'm reasonably sure that is better than G or even D lenses.
Its certainly far more substantial.