n0b0 wrote:
I'm not familiar with Nikon lenses. I assume that AF-S is their version of USM?
Yep, AF-S is Nikon's equivalent of USM.
I didn't know Nikon has a lens with exactly the same FL. Why Canon wants to copy that still beats the hell outta me. I would prefer that 15-85mm for the wider FL if it was cheaper or a constant f/2.8 lens.
Well, Nikon has been investing in their DX line (1.5x crop) for some time now. They have released excellent lenses at an affordable price. They even released a DX 35mm 1.8 prime (!). Their DX cameras like the D300 and D90 are all sellers. And so are their DX lenses. Furthermore, they even let you use the DX lenses on their FF cameras (crop mode). Nikon is smart by luring beginning photographic enthousiasts with their many excellent DX offerings... hoping they will buy themselves into the pro Nikon system eventually. I think Canon just wants a piece of that cake too. But then they will have to do more than copy cat Nikon. They will have to be better than Nikon (more innovative at least). Lenses like this new 18-135mm aren't going to be of much help here I am afraid.
EOS20 wrote:
...from what I've seen, the only kit available in USA is the 28-135 IS kit which IMHO isn't really a useful lens on a crop camera.
Yes, exactly my point. They were missing a "step up" lens in this range to offer with prosumer kits. Presumably both the 17-85 and the new 15-85 are too expensive to serve this purpose and still keep the kit prices compelling.
If you don't care for the lens, you can always buy the body and a different lens of your choice.
I don't know about you guys but for an inexpensive alternative (studio/flash for candids at events) usage where I am usually at f/8 anyway, this will be sweet! That is if it performs anything like the Nikon equiv. There are times when I will need one body at the photo booth while the other is used for candids, so this lens on the candids body and the 24-70 on the photo booth body. For a couple bucks I think this is a sweet arrangement. I regret selling my 28-135.It was on my list but I will go this route now. The only instance when I would pick up the 24-70 over it would be in the dark when no flash and f/2.8 preferred. I will deinately give this booger a chance.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I just can't believe they'd think a 7D user would want this as a kit lens. How about the 400 f/5.6L as a kit lens
On the contrary, think of the newbies you see shooting, if indoors,almost exclusively with flash (so no fast aperature needed there), and if outdoors f/5.6 is ok. And as far as focal length goes, I would think this is more appealing than 16-35,24-70 and 28-135. You have you wide to short tele covered.
Its not until you can't use flash or don't know how to that you HAVE to have fast glass, but with these high iso monsters of today if you halfway know your way around a dslr, these kit alternatives can surely get the shot. I simply stopped falling for the hype that "L" glass is the end all. Its not, same goes for the 1d juggerknots, they are sweet no doubt, but stop the once you go 1d you never go back, pleeeease! If you can't get the job done with a 20d, somethin is wrong. That's why prices are so inflated and new tech comes out every year, because the marketing gods have us dangling on a string. Don't take my statements "personally", just think about it for a min. And don't think I don't have my eye on the mkIII or the 7d for that matter, but I do realize it is just the consumer side of the brain, I honestly don't need or have to have em, I've just been tricked into thinking I do.
^ bingo. this lens hits all the targets for basic consumer do-almost-everything lens. more useful than a (also mediocre) 17-85 to a vast majority of users
the whining about the lens is strange... whine instead about canon's choice of tiny-sensor body in a $1700USD camera!
p.2 #11 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
Glen_C wrote:
...whine instead about canon's choice of tiny-sensor body in a $1700USD camera!
The 7D still represents a good value at its price point (in $US). Just two years ago the top-of-the-line "pro" model with a similar sensor size and performance specs cost $5K and had much worse high ISO noise. Today the closest competing product has lower resolution yet still costs more.
I would have preferred an APS-H or full frame sensor on the 7D too, but it would never be offered at anywhere near this price point, much as we would wish otherwise.
p.2 #12 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
^
good value in the USA... i don't really see it... $600 upcharge for a real AF system vs 50D (or what would have been the 60D) ... WHOOP DE DOO.
i don't really see the value myself in USD (nevermind what looks like absurd overseas pricing). You have a $1700 body that can't even properly utilize a $1400 16-35L lens. Super lame.
Also the D700 can be found for $2100 at times which is closer to 2 years old and slaughters this camera in all features except 18MP crammed-in.
p.2 #13 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
lwrnclightner wrote:
On the contrary, think of the newbies you see shooting, if indoors,almost exclusively with flash (so no fast aperature needed there), and if outdoors f/5.6 is ok. And as far as focal length goes, I would think this is more appealing than 16-35,24-70 and 28-135. You have you wide to short tele covered.
Its not until you can't use flash or don't know how to that you HAVE to have fast glass, but with these high iso monsters of today if you halfway know your way around a dslr, these kit alternatives can surely get the shot. I simply stopped falling for the hype that "L" glass is the end all. Its not, same goes for the 1d juggerknots, they are sweet no doubt, but stop the once you go 1d you never go back, pleeeease! If you can't get the job done with a 20d, somethin is wrong. That's why prices are so inflated and new tech comes out every year, because the marketing gods have us dangling on a string. Don't take my statements "personally", just think about it for a min. And don't think I don't have my eye on the mkIII or the 7d for that matter, but I do realize it is just the consumer side of the brain, I honestly don't need or have to have em, I've just been tricked into thinking I do.
p.2 #14 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
"Also the D700 can be found for $2100 at times which is closer to 2 years old and slaughters this camera in all features except 18MP crammed-in."
All feature huh ?....video ?...or yeah you don't give a damn about video
Glen_C wrote:
^
good value in the USA... i don't really see it... $600 upcharge for a real AF system vs 50D (or what would have been the 60D) ... WHOOP DE DOO.
i don't really see the value myself in USD (nevermind what looks like absurd overseas pricing). You have a $1700 body that can't even properly utilize a $1400 16-35L lens. Super lame.
Also the D700 can be found for $2100 at times which is closer to 2 years old and slaughters this camera in all features except 18MP crammed-in.
p.2 #15 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
+1
garyvot wrote:
The 7D still represents a good value at its price point (in $US). Just two years ago the top-of-the-line "pro" model with a similar sensor size and performance specs cost $5K and had much worse high ISO noise. Today the closest competing product has lower resolution yet still costs more.
I would have preferred an APS-H or full frame sensor on the 7D too, but it would never be offered at anywhere near this price point, much as we would wish otherwise.
p.2 #17 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
For a Canon gear owner, you sure bitch more about Canon than the average Nikon trolls. Almost makes me wish Canon would announce another "disappointing" body just to piss you off even more...
p.2 #18 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
Glen_C wrote:
^
<snip>
i don't really see the value myself in USD (nevermind what looks like absurd overseas pricing). You have a $1700 body that can't even properly utilize a $1400 16-35L lens. Super lame.
<snip>
But it will make a $5000 500L sing. You use the body designed for your purposes, I'll use the one designed for mine.
p.2 #20 · EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
WillWeb wrote:
But it will make a $5000 500L sing. You use the body designed for your purposes, I'll use the one designed for mine.
maybe, maybe not. time will tell.
no one objective would proclaim anything otherwise before it ships (my reference to 16-35 is to what 1.6x crop obliterates at the wide end FYI)
n0b0 wrote:
For a Canon gear owner, you sure bitch more about Canon than the average Nikon trolls. Almost makes me wish Canon would announce another "disappointing" body just to piss you off even more...
Get some help mate... seriously.
thanks for the advice "doc". you should prescribe "getting a life" for yourself based on your comments.
Not everyone purchasing items from a company is a zealot who who ignores things like pricing, performance and time-to-market decisions.
