Canon EF-S 17-85 (f/4-5.6 IS USM) opinions

I'm trying to decide on an SLR system and will go for the Canon Rebel
XT/EOS-350D. However, I've learnt that the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6) is of inferior quality, so I'll be buying just the camera
body and find myself a better lens to go with it.
As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?
If I had the $$$ the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM would probably be a
better choice, but at twice the price I think not. I don't know what's
available and at what quality 3rd party lenses can offer, so please
post any advice/experience here.

In addition I want to get a good zoom lens for special situations, and
so far the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM looks like a good
candidate.

I'm pretty new to the world of SLRs, but don't want to get disappointed
because of inferior gear, and also want equipment that will "grow"
alongside my experience. And of course not break the bank ;-)


Arild

Arild P. wrote:
I'm trying to decide on an SLR system and will go for the Canon Rebel
XT/EOS-350D. However, I've learnt that the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6) is of inferior quality, so I'll be buying just the camera
body and find myself a better lens to go with it.
As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?
If I had the $$$ the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM would probably be a
better choice, but at twice the price I think not. I don't know what's
available and at what quality 3rd party lenses can offer, so please
post any advice/experience here.

In addition I want to get a good zoom lens for special situations, and
so far the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM looks like a good
candidate.

I'm pretty new to the world of SLRs, but don't want to get disappointed
because of inferior gear, and also want equipment that will "grow"
alongside my experience. And of course not break the bank ;-)


Arild


I have the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 lens and the EF 70-300 DO IS f4.5-5.6 lens.
I use both at times when I don't want to or don't need to take my heavy
camera bag with another heavier camera and faster heaver lenses. Most of
the time I use both lenses for general outdoor photos. Using just two
lenses to cover a range from 27mm to 480mm (using X1.6) is not too
shabby if your thinking is general use and travel convenience. It
wouldn't hurt to consider getting a flash such as the Canon 430EX and
regularly use it for fill light when needed. Tip: Always use a lens
shade when shooting outdoors.

Bottom line: I'm happy with both lenses and see no reason to change.

As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?

Even though it "only" covers a 5x zoom range (which is still somewhat of a
compromise), trying to go from super-wide to medium-telephoto is pretty hard
to do well - and *extremely* hard to do on a cost-effective basis. Don't
forget that the cost of an IS unit is not exactly negligible. =)

Because of that, it doesn't compare technically to lenses which cover
smaller zoom ranges, and try not to cover such different focal lengths.
However, the vast majority of people who own it just can't seem to take if
off of their camera, because for them, the slight or moderate reducation in
image quality is vastly outweighed by the convenience of the lens.

So, if you're the type of person who sits pixel-peeping at 500%
magnification in Photoshop, it's not for you. If you're the sort of person
who just wants to take reasonably good pictures, it's likely to be a good
choice.

steve

"Arild P." wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm trying to decide on an SLR system and will go for the Canon Rebel
XT/EOS-350D. However, I've learnt that the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6) is of inferior quality, so I'll be buying just the camera
body and find myself a better lens to go with it.


The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II feels very cheap, but optically isn't as bad
as some people say, or maybe some samples are better than others. At least
mine seems to take good pictures and focuses very quickly without overshoot,
even in low light. It also focusses very close, works well with diopter
filters and reversed. Watch out for flare if you use UV filters though.
Finally it is very small and light compared to other choices in that range.
You can put it in bag and toss it in your pocket as a quick wide angle when
you are out.

Since it adds not more than $100 to the camera price, you may want to get it
for the situations where you want the camera smaller, lighter, and less
obtrusive, or when you want it not to look or be expensive. Buying it
separately will cost you twice as much. A camera that is small and light
will be less likely to be left at home. The Rebel XT is very small for a
SLR and so you might want a small lens in order to have a small camera
sometimes.


In this range consider also the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. It is optically very
good, but it is Canon's smallest, lightest and cheapest lens. With a large
aperture like this, you can take pictures in quite low light. You can also
get very shallow depth of field when you want it. There is a picture of it
he
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_18/index.htm

I use mine indoors quite a bit. The fast aperture gives a nice bright
viewfinder also.

If you like wider, then then EF 35mm F/2.0 or the EF 28mm f/2.8 are not very
expensive but much more than the 50mm. It sounds like you would prefer a
zoom lens though. A zoom lens gives you the flexibility of both perspective
from changing the camera position and field of view by changing the focal
length. A fixed lens often requires you to back-up or get closer to get the
field of view that you want, which may then not be the perspective that you
wanted, or you have to change lenses which takes time.


As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?


I don't have this lens but I keep considering it.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm
This review keeps me from buying it. Despite the positive comments in the
review, the performance appears worse than the 18-55 in almost every
category. The 17-85 is a bit sharper in the MTF tests though. The 18-55mm
is a faster lens than this one also. This one is just so expensive for what
seems like not great performance and quite small aperture, but 17-85 is a
very useful range and IS is a wonderful thing. Many people who have it are
happy with it.

I ended up buying the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens and I am very pleased
with it, however it doesn't go wide, only to normal. The sensor in the 350D
has a 28mm diagonal, so 28mm is a normal field of view, like 43mm is on a
35mm camera. If you really like wide-angle photography, save up for the
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.


If I had the $$$ the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM would probably be a
better choice, but at twice the price I think not. I don't know what's
available and at what quality 3rd party lenses can offer, so please
post any advice/experience here.

That lens is very expensive also. For an actual tested review, see:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
Everything has trade-offs in photography, and more money solves many things
but for the price I would have expected better and still Canon doesn't give
a lens hood even at that price.


I haven't tried many 3rd party lenses. I had a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG
Macro (not the APO version). It was also quite inexpensive. I got quite
good pictures out of it, and it is fairly compact. The main drawback was
chromatic aberrations which can be fixed in photoshop. It also was a little
soft sometimes at 250-300mm, not bad, just noticibly not quite as sharp as
at the short end. There is a little bit of light fall-off in the corners
(just barely perceptable) but this is also fixable in photoshop. It is not
image stabilized, so for hand-held use, high shutter speeds are usually
needed. Finally the focus was not nearly as quick as the 18-55mm and the
focus would sometimes hunt or overshoot and oscillate a bit. However, at
lease Sigma included a lens hood, unlike Canon. I didn't worry about
travelling with this lens either as it is not expensive to replace really.
I have got some great pictures with this lens though. At the time, I was
comparing it to the Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III lens which was only a bit
more expensive and I decided on the Sigma since it went wider and would
focus to 1:2 magnification, where the Canon would only go to 1:4
magnification and still cost less.

I also tried a Quantaray 500mm F/8 mirror lens. The build quality was
excellent and it looked very nice. However I never once was able to get a
decent picture from it. The pictures were always too soft to produce a
final image much above 640x480 pixels and the contrast was poor. It was
very lightweight and compact for a 500mm lens though. Don't buy cheap
mirror lenses no matter how good they look or feel.


In addition I want to get a good zoom lens for special situations, and
so far the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM looks like a good
candidate.


I also have this lens and I find it to be fantastic optically. The IS is
very good too. I do wish the zoom ring had a bit more friction. If you
point straight up, the lens will usually shorten and if you point straight
down, the lens will extend unless you are holding the zoom ring. I have got
so many excellent pictures with it, and so sharp and crisp. The lens hood
from Canon for it is quite expensive though for a what is really a plastic
cup although it is flocked with a felt-like material.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm

There is the EF 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 DO IS available as well. It is
physically smaller but more expensive and smaller aperture. Most reviews
seem to favour the non DO version in terms of performance, but if size is
the dominating factor then it could be considered.


I'm pretty new to the world of SLRs, but don't want to get disappointed
because of inferior gear, and also want equipment that will "grow"
alongside my experience. And of course not break the bank ;-)


Good luck and be patient in getting what you want. There is a lot of money
to be saved by shopping around and waiting for the right thing rather than a
trade-off now at a high price.

nick c wrote:
Arild P. wrote:
As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?
(snip)
In addition I want to get a good zoom lens for special situations, and
so far the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM looks like a good
candidate.

I have the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 lens and the EF 70-300 DO IS f4.5-5.6 lens.
(snip)
Bottom line: I'm happy with both lenses and see no reason to change.

I see there is a huge variation in people's views, especially on the
EF-S 17-85mm lens.
So as a newbie it's hard for me to judge if a lens getting a negative
review really is something I should stay away from, or if it reflects
the view of the person reviewing it (I would assume that a response
from a pro would be different from a novice).

Anyway, I do understand that in order to get the very best pictures out
there you need several specialized lenses. Lenses that are dedicated to
a specific area, and that would be fixed lenses, wouldn't it? But
that's impractical in many ways, so unless I become a dedicated
photographer and take dedicated photography trips I have to make a
compromise.

The reason why I've been looking into the EF-S 17-85 is among others
because I think the stabilizer (IS) might come in handy when
travelling, because without it (say using the EF 17-40mm lens instead
as suggested here), wouldn't I have problems getting a sharp image if I
was to take a picture from a boat, a bus, a car or whatever?
And the same thing if I was to take photos inside say a shopping mall,
hotel or whatever where the lighting isn't optimal.
Even though the 17-85mm isn't "perfect", wouldn't I get overall better
pictures in the above instances than with a 17-40mm, or am I getting it
all wrong?


Tip: Always use a lens shade when shooting outdoors.

You mean those plastic thingies you put on front of the lens to block
out the sun?
I take care not to take photos against the sun, so would I need one
anyway?

I also believe I need a couple of filters to complete my setup:

1) a polarizing filter (to remove the reflection from any glass, so I
can take pictures through a window etc. and also to get that "tropical"
effect when taking pictures of the sea. I used a filter like that with
my EOS-300 and am glad I did!

2) Not really a filter, but a transparent piece of glass to protect the
lens

3) Can't remember what it's called (Neutral density?), but I was told
that if I want to take pictures of say a flowing river over several
seconds I need one of these so as to not overexpose or whatever, making
the river look completely white.

default wrote:

The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II feels very cheap, but optically isn't as bad
as some people say, or maybe some samples are better than others.

I bought a Canon EOS-300 (35mm film) camera a few years ago which came
with a 28-90mm kit lens. That's my first SLR and lens, and I don't have
any experience with other SLRs or lenses, meaning I don't have much to
compare with.
But the lens felt very cheap and not very well built and I haven't been
completely happy with my prints. But then again it might be because of
using cheap paper or the combination of many things.

In any case I still have this camera and the lens, so I was wondering
how it stands up to the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens? Is it better or worse?
Naturally I'll get another range with 28-90mm, making it 44-144mm, so
no wide-angle of course, but I was thinking that if I just buy the
camera body (and memory card) for now, perhaps I could use my 28-90mm
lens just to get used to teh camera, then after a few weeks decide on
which lenses I really want/need.

I know the 18-55 kit lens is cheap when you buy it with the camera as a
kit, but if I don't really need it I might as well save a few bucks by
skipping it, just buying the camera body instead.


In this range consider also the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. It is optically very
good, but it is Canon's smallest, lightest and cheapest lens.

Yeah, I've heard about this lens. They say it's something every Canon
SLR owner should have. I also hear that the Mk. I version is built
better, and usually costs more second hand than a new Mk. II lens ;-)
Having the ability to take pictures in low light is good. Might come in
handy for indoor shots (shopping malls etc.) without a flash.

I use mine indoors quite a bit. The fast aperture gives a nice bright
viewfinder also.

Is that with a small scale digital SLR?
I ask because 50mm really becomes something like 80mm, so not very wide
at all.


If you like wider, then then EF 35mm F/2.0 or the EF 28mm f/2.8 are not very
expensive but much more than the 50mm.

Yeah, might be a better solution for an EOS-350D.


It sounds like you would prefer a
zoom lens though. A zoom lens gives you the flexibility of both perspective
from changing the camera position and field of view by changing the focal
length. A fixed lens often requires you to back-up or get closer to get the
field of view that you want, which may then not be the perspective that you
wanted, or you have to change lenses which takes time.

Yes, a "general" zoom lens will come in handy for taking photos of city
life such as people doing their stuff. I really feel uncomfortable
sticking a camera in the front of strangers' faces, so I tend to zoom
in on people without them knowing.


As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?

I don't have this lens but I keep considering it.

Despite all the negative reviews?


http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm
This review keeps me from buying it. Despite the positive comments in the
review, the performance appears worse than the 18-55 in almost every
category.

Yeah, it's confusing though as different reviews say different things.
I guess I have to make a choice soon, but perhaps the best thing to do
now is buy the camera and just use my existing lens, then take it from
there.

By the way, what kind of CF memory card do I need?
Will a Sandisk Ultra II be fine, or do I need an Extreme III?
I plan to start off with a 1 GB card, then buy a 4GB later.

Arild P. wrote:
nick c wrote:
Arild P. wrote:
As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?
(snip)
In addition I want to get a good zoom lens for special situations, and
so far the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM looks like a good
candidate.

I have the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 lens and the EF 70-300 DO IS f4.5-5.6 lens.
(snip)
Bottom line: I'm happy with both lenses and see no reason to change.

I see there is a huge variation in people's views, especially on the
EF-S 17-85mm lens.
So as a newbie it's hard for me to judge if a lens getting a negative
review really is something I should stay away from, or if it reflects
the view of the person reviewing it (I would assume that a response
from a pro would be different from a novice).

Anyway, I do understand that in order to get the very best pictures out
there you need several specialized lenses. Lenses that are dedicated to
a specific area, and that would be fixed lenses, wouldn't it? But
that's impractical in many ways, so unless I become a dedicated
photographer and take dedicated photography trips I have to make a
compromise.

The reason why I've been looking into the EF-S 17-85 is among others
because I think the stabilizer (IS) might come in handy when
travelling, because without it (say using the EF 17-40mm lens instead
as suggested here), wouldn't I have problems getting a sharp image if I
was to take a picture from a boat, a bus, a car or whatever?
And the same thing if I was to take photos inside say a shopping mall,
hotel or whatever where the lighting isn't optimal.
Even though the 17-85mm isn't "perfect", wouldn't I get overall better
pictures in the above instances than with a 17-40mm, or am I getting it
all wrong?

Comparing the 17-85mm to the 17-40mm L lens in construction and picture
taking quality, the 17-40mm L is by far the better lens. If your
interest is in the IS feature of the 17-85mm lens because the 17-40mm L
is not IS, I would like to remind you IS alone should not be the
exclusive consideration in choosing and using a lens. However, I assumed
we were discussing a lens that fits into the _general_ use area,
providing a broad useful focal range, without the need of carrying other
supporting lenses, with the intention of generally making small size
prints and it's in that area where the 17-85mm IS lens deserves
consideration.

I think there is something else you should consider. Good quality prints
are almost never contact prints or prints made by a local 1hr.
processing center. Quality prints of any size almost always require
effort to produce. In a wet darkroom, there's color balanced filters,
dodging and/or burning in, paper, enlarger lens, type of enlarger used,
etc., etc,. Digital photography requires computers using a photo
processing program, plug-in filters, printer, and paper type. The point
I'm trying to make is quality prints require work, not just having
exceptional equipment. With that in mind, if you have a eye for
composing a scene, light, and subject matter and your photo equipment is
half way decent and you do your computer work, you can generally do
well. Regardless of how well you do, even if you use the very best of
equipment, there will be folks who will find fault with your photos so
don't be thinned skin (sensitive) about your photos.



Tip: Always use a lens shade when shooting outdoors.

You mean those plastic thingies you put on front of the lens to block
out the sun?
I take care not to take photos against the sun, so would I need one
anyway?

I'll repeat for emphasis: _Always_ use a lens shade when shooting
outdoors. It's not just direct sunlight that you should be concerned
about, it's bounce light that you normally don't readily see that should
also be blocked from entering the lens. Just because you don't notice it
when looking through the finder doesn't necessarily mean it's not there.
If you decide to use a flash for fill light, adjacent walls or windows
may bounce angular light into the lens.


I also believe I need a couple of filters to complete my setup:

1) a polarizing filter (to remove the reflection from any glass, so I
can take pictures through a window etc. and also to get that "tropical"
effect when taking pictures of the sea. I used a filter like that with
my EOS-300 and am glad I did!

Important filters that I think you should have a

1) Circular polarizer, preferably one of good make, e.g. B+W, Heliopan.
2) Neutral density filters.
and
3) Neutral graduating filters.

Exception:

4) When shooting in inclement weather, i.e. beaches, windy days, damp
fog, high altitudes where UV may be problematic, etc., use a coated UV
or a haze filter (your option) for lens protection. Otherwise, consider
not using a filter for "lens protection" and get into the habit of using
a lens hood. Lens designers - manufactures go to great lengths and
expense to coat lenses. Various type coatings used are often proprietary
and optional unnecessary additional glass may not enhance your photo's.


2) Not really a filter, but a transparent piece of glass to protect the
lens

3) Can't remember what it's called (Neutral density?), but I was told
that if I want to take pictures of say a flowing river over several
seconds I need one of these so as to not overexpose or whatever, making
the river look completely white.


Eh??? A neutral density filter cuts down the amount of light entering a
lens. Slow your shooting speed and you'll get flowing white water.

"Arild P." wrote in message
ups.com...
I bought a Canon EOS-300 (35mm film) camera a few years ago which came
with a 28-90mm kit lens. That's my first SLR and lens, and I don't have
any experience with other SLRs or lenses, meaning I don't have much to
compare with.
But the lens felt very cheap and not very well built and I haven't been
completely happy with my prints. But then again it might be because of
using cheap paper or the combination of many things.

Many here also say that the 28-90 is not a very good lens. It may perform
better on the digital camera since most of the problems in the image are
probably near the edges of the picture which aren't captured by the digital
sensor. People who I have met who are using this lens say that they get
good pictures. Probably because compared to a point and shoot, it is miles
ahead. I think how happy with it that you are depends on your expectations.

With digital, you can adjust the black and white points and shift the levels
and contrast, adjust sharpening parameters etc until a slightly bland
picture looks more exciting. Often there is some bit of cropping that will
improve things, or cloning out some little distraction etc.

You can do this with film as well by just getting the film developed but no
prints made. Then scan the developed negatives at 3200dpi or so and work
them over in photoshop. Then take your adjusted image files back to a
photo-shop and get prints. In fact, you can do a lot of that before it pays
to get a digital camera. You still use the film and developing costs as a
consumable though.


In any case I still have this camera and the lens, so I was wondering
how it stands up to the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens? Is it better or worse?
Naturally I'll get another range with 28-90mm, making it 44-144mm, so
no wide-angle of course, but I was thinking that if I just buy the
camera body (and memory card) for now, perhaps I could use my 28-90mm
lens just to get used to teh camera, then after a few weeks decide on
which lenses I really want/need.


The 28 to 90 will go from normal to short telephoto on a digital sensor. It
is not a 44-144 though, just you are using less of the image circle so the
field of view is reduced. Everything else is the same. Probably the
results will be better anyway partly from only using the center of the image
circle, and partly from not having to take the focal length quite as long so
you will get a larger max aperture.

I know the 18-55 kit lens is cheap when you buy it with the camera as a
kit, but if I don't really need it I might as well save a few bucks by
skipping it, just buying the camera body instead.


That is true. It is wasted money if it doesn't suit your needs. It has a
similar field of view as your 28-90 does on the film camera but it is a bit
smaller and lighter. Many people don't like the 18-55. It does feel very
cheap. The lens barrel rocks a bit. The manual focus ring is not very
nice. The end of the lens rotates during focusing so if you use a graduated
ND filter or a polarizer, you have to reset it after focusing. The end of
the lens also moves in and out both during zooming and focusing which may
scare small animals that are you really close to. On the other hand, it
gets my cats attention and they stare absolutely still right into it. The
upsides are that it is very light, small, inexpensive and goes pretty wide.
If you don't like carrying a big camera bag, you can toss it in a little
pouch and put it in your jacket pocket to bring with you in case you need a
wide-angle. If you find the pictures it makes unacceptable, then don't
waste your money on it. Get something good that pleases you.


In this range consider also the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. It is optically
very
good, but it is Canon's smallest, lightest and cheapest lens.

Yeah, I've heard about this lens. They say it's something every Canon
SLR owner should have. I also hear that the Mk. I version is built
better, and usually costs more second hand than a new Mk. II lens ;-)
Having the ability to take pictures in low light is good. Might come in
handy for indoor shots (shopping malls etc.) without a flash.


I think the 50 f/1.8 sells for about $70us new. The Mk1 version had a metal
mount, better focus ring, a focus distance scale, and a depth of field
markings. The MkII version is all plastic, the focus ring is at the end of
the lens and there is no distance scale or depth of field marks. They are
optically the same. I think the MK1 model was nicer looking too. But you
can probably buy two of the Mk2 models for the price of a mk1.


Is that with a small scale digital SLR?
I ask because 50mm really becomes something like 80mm, so not very wide
at all.

50mm is not wide on a APS-C size digital. It is short telephoto but still
you can back up a bit, or stitch photos together if you need wider.


Yes, a "general" zoom lens will come in handy for taking photos of city
life such as people doing their stuff. I really feel uncomfortable
sticking a camera in the front of strangers' faces, so I tend to zoom
in on people without them knowing.

Myself also. So I prefer to use longer focal length lenses for people.
People look better from further back anyway. I use my EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
IS for most "general" things. I even find the 70-300mm zoom to be quite
useful in many day to day things. Still for some stuff really wide is nice
or makes a more dramatic picture. For this I use the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
lens. That one is not cheap but seems very good.


As an "all round" and "general use" walking/travelling lens, how does
the EF-S 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) stand up?

I don't have this lens but I keep considering it.

Despite all the negative reviews?

Yes. It goes a bit wider than the 18-55 and somewhat longer and IS is so
excellent, I really don't like being without it anymore unless the focal
lengths are very short. Many that have this lens really like it. I really
don't like carrying a large camera bag or a lot of lenses, so I would love
something that covers most "tourist" type stuff in one lens. Really I need
a 10-500mm IS zoom so I can photograph everything I want to the optimal crop
point. Some photos will have to be not taken. The 350D has enough pixels
that even if you crop out 6 of the 8MP, you can still get a good 6x4" print
if the picture was very well focused and carefully processed. This is like
having a focal length twice as long so there is some flexibility after the
shutter is pressed to zoom in after.


Yeah, it's confusing though as different reviews say different things.
I guess I have to make a choice soon, but perhaps the best thing to do
now is buy the camera and just use my existing lens, then take it from
there.

Sounds like a good plan. You will soon see if you need wider or longer or
faster or closer focussing or what your desires are.


By the way, what kind of CF memory card do I need?
Will a Sandisk Ultra II be fine, or do I need an Extreme III?
I plan to start off with a 1 GB card, then buy a 4GB later.


I have some of various types of flash from 256MB to 2GB, and a 3GB Hitachi
Microdrive. There isn't a much of a noticeable difference in most cases.
Since the camera has a high-speed buffer which starts to empty onto the
card, you can pretty much always take another picture immediately after you
just took one as long as there is space in the buffer. There is an
indicator in the viewfinder that shows how full the buffer is. With RAW
capture, you can usually take 5 at 1/3 second intervals. A fast card may
get you one more since the buffer clears faster or let you shoot a bit
faster once the buffer has filled. A fast card may also improve the loading
times to the PC. But even my slow cheap cards seem to work quite well. My
personal preference it to put the priority on capacity compared to speed for
a given cost, but there is no harm in getting a faster card. Or get one
smaller super-fast card for longer bursts at 3 frames per second, and a
larger, more cost-effective card for general use?

"Arild P." wrote in message
oups.com...

You mean those plastic thingies you put on front of the lens to block
out the sun?
I take care not to take photos against the sun, so would I need one
anyway?

The lens hood also protects the lens some and will keep the occasional water
droplet of the lens which would show in the picture. My experiments with
using a hood or not seem to indicate that the pictures do have better
contrast and less flare even if the sun is not nearby. It is not essential
though. Many people never use one. If the sun is in the frame, then no
hood is going to help. It is where the sun (or any strong light source) is
just outside of the frame that is the most trouble and where the hood might
help.

Flare occurs most when there is a filter on the lens and a hood helps, but
removing the filter usually removes the flare. In the case of a polarizer,
it is awkward to rotate the polarizer with the hood in place but depending
on the hood it may not be a problem.


I also believe I need a couple of filters to complete my setup:

1) a polarizing filter (to remove the reflection from any glass, so I
can take pictures through a window etc. and also to get that "tropical"
effect when taking pictures of the sea. I used a filter like that with
my EOS-300 and am glad I did!

A polarizer is an important one and pretty difficult to try to reproduce the
effect in photoshop. You can use it to darken the blue parts of the sky to
make the clouds more dramatic as well. For non-polarized light, there is a
2 stop loss of light so you can sometimes use it as sort of a ND filter as
well.


2) Not really a filter, but a transparent piece of glass to protect the
lens

Sometimes these are UV or Haze filters. If you need one then you should use
it. If it is causing problematic flare then remove it. I have had to rinse
the UV filter under a faucet a couple of times. I was glad I had it. I
have also had some obnoxious flare or ghosting in a few pictures where I
didn't recognize the problem in advance to remove the filter. I have heard
that better UV filters ghost less.

So far I have UV filters from Tiffen, Hoya, Canon and Optex. They all seem
to produce almost identical problems. Sometimes the ghosting is a bit of a
different colour depending on the coating type. If anyone knows of a UV
filter that doesn't cause flare of ghosting, I would love to know about it
so I could replace mine.


3) Can't remember what it's called (Neutral density?), but I was told
that if I want to take pictures of say a flowing river over several
seconds I need one of these so as to not overexpose or whatever, making
the river look completely white.

I can usually get the exposure to at least one second for waterfalls and
rivers by using ISO100 and f/22 or f/32 or more depending on the lens.
Adding the polarizer gets it to 2 to 3 seconds which is almost always enough
to get it really smooth. Even on a almost windless day, the trees do move a
little so going really long does sometimes blur some of the background
items. If you wanted to do ocean waves then you may want to go even longer
in exposure, then a neutral density filter would help to get the shutter
open longer. The other case for a ND filter is where you want very shallow
depth of field with a short focal length on a bright day. Your composition
may prevent you from getting closer to reduce DOF. This forces a large
aperture. On a 350D, ISO100 is as low as you can go and your shutter can
only go to 1/4000s. This also will require a ND filter to avoid
overexposure at 1/4000.

You don't need to get filters to fit all of your lenses. Just get the
polarizer and ND filter for the largest diameter lens you have or want to
use them with and get step-up rings to fit the rest. The step-up rings cost
much less than filters.

4). You might want diopter filters for closer focussing for macro work. +1
diopter moves infinity focus to 1 meter, +2 to 500mm, +3 to 333mm and then
your lens can focus much closer still at its minimum focus. Depending on
your lenses you may want to get extension tubes, or a real macro lens
instead but the close-up filters work pretty well and fit in a shirt pocket
so you can quickly put it on and take a picture of a small flower or bug
without changing lenses or even having to bring a macro lens.

Again, lots of great replies here!
I only have time for a quick comment though:

Bill wrote:
Arild P. wrote:

I see there is a huge variation in people's views, especially on the
EF-S 17-85mm lens.

There is variation, but the strong positives are related to very wide
zoom range and the IS feature. There are no "sharp as a tack" comments
for the 17-85...it's sharp enough for 4x6 snapshots, but if that's all
you want, then a P&S is probably a better option anyway.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, I can understand that the IS feature is a selling point. In fact,
as a newbie this (and the wide range) is the reason I've been
considering it.
At this stage I don't know enough about lenses and cameras to make a
good choice, so I thought a "failsafe" lens would be one with IS,
allowing me to take pictures indoor without a flash.
However, I believe I now understand that IS isn't "magical" and as you
say I can probably get more or less the same pictures by setting the
ISO to a higher one.
If I can get a lens with better optical quality and allows me to take
the same shots (e.g. indoor without flash) and more or less the same
range I'm all for it!


I'm not a pro, but I do have several Canon lenses that fit the term
"professional", most notably the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L.

These do indeed seem to be great lenses, but at a cost.
After reading here I have actually considered the 17-40 f/4L, but my
reservations are against the limited zoom and the high cost.
I think a good zoom will come in handy for a walkaround/tourist lens.


I've used the 17-85 and optically it's a mediocre lense. It's true that
it has a wide zoom range, and the IS feature is nice to have, but if you
want sharp, contrasty optics, you won't find it in the 17-85.

Yes, I definitely want sharp and contrasty pictures!


The 18-55 kit lense is similar in optical performance, but with less
distortion and CA. For the price it's not bad really. You can use it
wide open because the sharpness doesn't improve much if you stop down.
It's compact and lightweight, which can be a benefit to some people.

But probably not much better than my existing EOS-300 kit lens (EF
28-90mm f/4-5.6), right?


Compared to a good lense like the 17-40 L the 17-85 doesn't cut it. And
that's one of my biggest beefs with the 17-85 - it costs almost as much
as the 17-40 L but has lousy performance for the price.

I'm sure the selling point is the IS feature.
But I do want a good lens. I don't mean professional,top of the line
(though I wouldn't mind if I had the $$$), but something which gives me
very good/great results.
I keep in mind that many of the places I visit might be places I never
return to, so I don't want to ruin good shots by using lousy equipment.


On sunny days I never have a problem taking photos from a moving car. On
cloudy days, I simply up the ISO level a couple of notches to compensate
for the lower light level.

That's great!
I know they didn't have IS in the old days, and they still took great
shots, so perhaps this IS thing is over-hyped.


Even though the 17-85mm isn't "perfect", wouldn't I get overall better
pictures in the above instances than with a 17-40mm, or am I getting it
all wrong?

If all you do is shoot in low light and mobile conditions, then the IS
may be of benefit to you. You'll have to decide what's more important
and if you really need it.

No, I've considered that lens because I want to be prepared for those
situations where I do shoot in low light and mobile conditions. I just
don't want the equipment to limit my shooting.
I general I'll probably be taking mostly outdoor shots, standing on
firm ground etc.

Anyway, there's another alternative which could be considered for a
general, allround, tourist/travel lens. The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5.
I can buy it along with the EOS-350D for a reduced price, and I say
that it costs way less than the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L (but not being an
"L" grade lens of course).
I read a review here which I believe concludes that it's better than
the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM!:

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/...icle_648.shtml

Again I worry about the negative aspects (mostly because I'm a beginner
and don't understand all the technicalities, worrying that I'll buy
something inferior because of my limited knowledge).

Anyway, I'm wondering if this is a good lens to consider for my use?
Apart from the Canon 17-40 f/2.8L that is.

(PS. I've heard that non-Canon lenses can sometimes cause
incompatibility problems with Canon bodies because of
reverse-engineering the communication protocols. Is this still an
issue? A big enough problem to keep away from Sigma and only buy Canon,
or is this a rare problem and nothing to worry about).


3) Can't remember what it's called (Neutral density?), but I was told
that if I want to take pictures of say a flowing river over several
seconds I need one of these so as to not overexpose or whatever, making
the river look completely white.

Same as above...photoshop does a better job.

I've got Photoshop elements 2.0 which I use on my Mac Powerbook G4.
I know there's a newer version, but I still haven't explored the
potential of what I have, so unless a lot of photo related stuff
doesn't work with it I see no reason to upgrade right now.