Does Canon have a similar lens to this one ...

[igmolinav]

Hi,

For Canon users, does any manufacturer produce a similar lens to this one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...178_16_85mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_VR.html#accessories

It is in 35mm. the equivalent to a zoom that ranges from 24mm to 127.5mm.

Quite cool !!! isn't ?? I wonder if any manufacturer produces something similar.

Thank you very much, very kind regards,

igmolinav

 

[gkarris]

Are you looking for a 35mm equivalent?

 

[PeteB]

Well, there's the 28-135 IS

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro.../Zoom_Lenses/EF_28135mm_f3556IS_USM/index.asp

 

[toxic]

uh...17-85 IS?

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

Thank you for your repplies. I am working with digital, so the 17-85mm. seems like a good option.
It is just a shame that because of the 1.6x factor, it doesn't
get to be as wide as with the Lens for Nikon.

Kind regards,

igmolinav.

 

[Grimace]

Most Nikon bodies have a 1.5x crop factor -- is the difference such a deal breaker?

Also consider the 16-35mm and 10-22mm Canon options.

 

[miloblithe]

The 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS doesn't have the most amazing reputation.

Sigma has a new lens that might be a good choice:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3359&navigator=6

It's and 18-50 f/2.8-4.5 lens. It doesn't have as wide a zoom range (which will probably mean less barrel distortion at the wide end and better sharpness at the long end. It's also 2/3 to a stop faster than the Nikon and Canon lenses, and is probably more solidly built. It's a new lens so reviews aren't out yet.

Another option on the Canon is the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS. It's so much less than these other options that it's worth considering. Use the difference to get a flash or put more money into other lenses you're considering.

Are you looking at lens review sites? See the sticky at the top of this forum for some good ones.

Is image stabilization essential?

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

Thank you very much for your answers again : ) !!!

IS can be helpful for me. I tend to do quite a bit of
photoshooting with low light.

The Sigma lens looks like a good alternative. I'll
wait for some reviews to come out. Hopefully the
lens will not be too soft like some Sigmas that I
have had.

Kind regards,

igmolinav.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Double post (sorry).

 

[jons]

Go with the 16-35mm 2.8L, you won't be sorry.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Canon has this one:
EF 24-105 f/4 ISL (~$1029 ). The following link shows most Canon lenses, and most other lenses for Canon cameras from other manufacturers (Sigma Tamron, etc.).

However, not all lenses that can be used with Canon EOS mounts (Leitz lenses, Pentax, Nikon, Vivitar, etc.) are shown.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

 

[leighonigar]

Canon has this one:
EF 24-105 f/4 ISL (~$1029 ). The following link shows most Canon lenses, and most other lenses for Canon cameras from other manufacturers (Sigma Tamron, etc.).

However, not all lenses that can be used with Canon EOS mounts (Leitz lenses, Pentax, Nikon, Vivitar, etc.) are shown.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

Fantastic. Except he wants an equivalent to Nikon's 16-85, especially at the wide end. It seems Canon does not have an identical lens, rather some broadly similar ones.

 

[Experiment13]

Sony Zeiss 16 - 80mm = incredible pictures

Everyone on this forum seems to believe that Nikon and Canon are the only cameras made. Sony (was Konica-Minolta) has what might be called the best carry around DSLR lens made. Check reviews for the Sony Zeiss 16 - 80mm (24 - 120mm equivalent) f3.5-4.5. Stabilization is built into the camera. The lens is extremely sharp with wonderful colors. I had one and it drew beautiful pictures. Look at pictures in dpreview or flickr that have been taken by this lens.

I regrettably sold it and bought the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 for low light portraits. It cannot really be beat. The 135mm Zeiss f1.8 is even better.

Sony has good cameras, makes the sensors for Nikon and others, and is the only brand that has access to autofocus Zeiss prime or zoom lenses. Worth every penny. One can, though, buy manual Zeiss lenses for Nikon, Pentax, and Canon.

BTW My normal-wide angle range is also Zeiss, only on a Leica M8.

 

[miloblithe]

Everyone on this forum seems to believe that Nikon and Canon are the only cameras made. Sony (was Konica-Minolta) has what might be called the best carry around DSLR lens made. Check reviews for the Sony Zeiss 16 - 80mm (24 - 120mm equivalent) f3.5-4.5. Stabilization is built into the camera. The lens is extremely sharp with wonderful colors. I had one and it drew beautiful pictures. Look at pictures in dpreview or flickr that have been taken by this lens.

I regrettably sold it and bought the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 for low light portraits. It cannot really be beat. The 135mm Zeiss f1.8 is even better.

Sony has good cameras, makes the sensors for Nikon and others, and is the only brand that has access to autofocus Zeiss prime or zoom lenses. Worth every penny. One can, though, buy manual Zeiss lenses for Nikon, Pentax, and Canon.

BTW My normal-wide angle range is also Zeiss, only on a Leica M8.

That Zeiss lens sounds pretty unimpressive to me, actually. $750 for a plastic, variable aperture f/3.5-4.5 lens that you have to manually switch from AF to MF to focus manually?

SLRgear's review:

While Sony may advertise this lens as professional-grade, its optical quality doesn't quite reach the level of what we would expect for a professional lens; sharpness is a mixed bag, performing well when stopped down to ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8, but showing signs of significant corner softness outside of that range. The lens vignettes significantly at wide angle (16mm), but chromatic aberration and distortion are fairly well controlled. That said, for the range of focal length possibilities, and a half-stop more speed than the regular 18-70mm ''kit'' lens, the lens doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and certainly performs better.