Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>One of the reasons I haven't yet bought a Canon DSLR is that I keep
>eyeing the ideal range (28-108 equiv) and f/2.8 speed (well, sort of) of
>the ZD 14-54 which make it desirable for minimizing lens changes and for
>low light focusing.
>However, one of the reasons I haven't bought the E-1 is that its low
>light focusing ability is reputedly much less than a 20D. I'm stuck
>between a rock and a hard place.
>
One of the defining moments in my decision to go with a 300D was
standing in a camera store playing with and E-1 and a 300D. Aiming at
areas that were modestly lit, but with high contrast detail, like paper
boxes stacked up in a corner, the E-1 struggled to focus in the tele
range, taking 2 seconds or more to settle down. The 300D just snapped
into focus. This also agrees with what the dpr reviews said.
Last Christmas, taking candids of family across a couple of rooms
indoors at night, the 300D sometimes couldn't find focus at 300mm, f5.6,
but was overall surprisingly good. And the 20D tests better at low light
focus.
>The range thing is very frustrating. There is plenty of constant
>aperture 2.8 wide to tele glass for Canon thingies but they start at 24
>or 28mm which, after the crop factor is applied means 38-45mm equivalent
>on the short end. Going wider at 2.8 means changing lenses to something
>in the 17-35mm range. I can see myself changing lenses all night long
>when covering events. And who wants to do that; especially with no
>ultrasonic dust shaker. :-)
>
>
Weeelll... Can*n does have the 17-85/4-5.6 IS, which is 27-136mm eq.
When you figure that the 20D is at least 2 stops faster than the E-1,
for equivalent image noise, that becomes the eq. of an f2.0-2.8 lens.
Then the Can*n has IS, which isn't the universal solution many seem to
paint it as. There's a funny review of this lens on fredmiranda.com
where the guy goes on and on about how the IS isn't any help for indoor
photos. It soon becomes clear that he is trying to take pictures of
people at speeds like 1/15, but he doesn't get it that IS only
compensates for camera shake, not people movement. :-)
In any case, IS is of use for many kinds of shots. I don't know about
this lens in particular, but IS is generally good for 1.5 to 2+ stops
for stationary subjects. So taking 1.5 stops, the 35mm eq. comparison of
the Can*n 17-85/4-5.6 IS on a 20D and the ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 on an E-1
becomes:
ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 E-1@100(200) 28-108/2.8-3.5
Can*n 17-85/4-5.6 w/o IS 20D@400(800) 27-136/2.0-2.8
Can*n 17-85/4-5.6 IS 20D@400(800) 27-136/1.2-1.4
So for ability to take images in dim light with roughly equivalent noise
qualities, the 20D/17-85 combo is pretty much superior IMHO, and has a
wider fl range.
There are, of course, all kinds of other issues:
- The Can*n on a body set for higher iso is going to give lots of DOF
compared to a faster FF lens at lower iso. The ZD will be somewhere in
between. Good for some kinds of shots and not for others.
- The Can*n is not an L lens, certainly not as well made and not as
optically good as the ZD 14-54. The reviews at FM are, as usual, a mixed
bag, but it is clearly good quality lens. Probably the eq. of the 14-45
in build/optical quality.
- The Can*n has USM focusing, which is really fast and quiet. I don't
know how the ZD lenses compare.
- The ZD will be usable on all upcoming 4/3 bodies. The Can*n is an
EF-S, usable only on their APS-C sensor bodies. A perfect match for the
20D, though.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|