Help in choosing camera and lenses.
I presently use a Nikon N80, SB50DX, 28-105ED (3.4-4.5) and 70-300D (4.5-5.6) combination. For my digital work I use a Canon G2 with a 420EX flash. Both systems are a bit bulky so i am looking for 2 cameras.
1. a small P&S that can fit in my shirt pocket (under 150-200gms) that I can carry almost all the time.
2. a Digital SLR with 2 zoom lenses (I dont want to be switching lenses all the time) and maybe 1 fast prime for low light occasions (night safaris, theaters and plays, etc.)
For the P&S I have short listed the Ricoh R4 as it has a range from 28-200mm and is not too slow F3.3-F4.8. Are there any other options? Any opinions on the R4/R3? I have a 4MP G2 and I find that in adequate light 4MP is fine for prints till 6x8". Does the R4 perform well in low light conditions as well? Is there any pocket sized Canon that has a hot shoe so can I use my 420EX with it? I find I prefer bounce or no flash to the "hot spots" that most on-camera flashes produce.
For the D-SLR I am a bit confused. My expereince with the N80 (at ISO 100) system above is as follows.
On a few occasions i find that the lenses I have hunt. Usually this is due to low or failing light. So would moveing the F/2.8 zooms make more sense?
That said i really like the 2 wheel Nikon system. My neice is a pro (Canon) and having used her Canons a bit (she has everything from a 20D to the 1Ds) I still like the Nikon's handling.
I would the D-SLR only on special occasions. My son's birthdays, plays, theatre, safari-holidays etc and I would need 24mm (film equivalent) to about 300mm or more if possible. I figure I could get by with 2 zooms (16-60 and 70-200) and a fast (50mm f/1.4) prime (since the low light shots are usually some distance away a film equiv would be 80mm).
Should I sell the Nikon lenses (the flash would have to go anyway as it is not compatible with Nikon's D-SLRs) and get the newer DX lenses (esp for wide angle)?
My D-SLR budget is US 3000. I assume 1/3 that for the body and 2/3 for 2 zooms and a fast prime. I would be happy to wait for the D70s replacement as i think the D200/30D are probably too much camera for my irregular use or should i dump Nikon and Canon in favour for alterantes like the Sony A100 - I'm told it can accept Minolta lenses?
Advantage Nikon: handling and I have 2 zooms that might or might not be suitable. I seem your advice on this.
Advantage Canon: I can buy basic lenses and borrow the big zooms from my niece when need! ;-) and India is Canon country. Everyone I know uses Canon here.
The tie breaker would be lens systems. BTW are Sigma or Tamron lenses as good as Nikon or Canon? The Nikon 17-55/2.8 cost $1200, the Canon $1150 but a similar Sigma and Tamron cost $400-450. That is a huge difference!
Yet one can get a Nikon 80-200/2.8 for the same price as an almost similar Sigma (with HSM) and the Canon (USM) is only $200 more than the Sigma! Go figure!
The Canon 30D+17-55/2.8+70-200/2.8+50mm/1.4 system is about $100 cheaper than Nikons and includes an USM lens so cost is not a big difference.
I dont think I need VR/IS as usually it is not me who is moving but my subject. Besides the long range IS/VR lenses are really expensive (2x times the cost of non-VR/IS lenses).
1. a small P&S that can fit in my shirt pocket (under 150-200gms) that I can carry almost all the time.
2. a Digital SLR with 2 zoom lenses (I dont want to be switching lenses all the time) and maybe 1 fast prime for low light occasions (night safaris, theaters and plays, etc.)
For the P&S I have short listed the Ricoh R4 as it has a range from 28-200mm and is not too slow F3.3-F4.8. Are there any other options? Any opinions on the R4/R3? I have a 4MP G2 and I find that in adequate light 4MP is fine for prints till 6x8". Does the R4 perform well in low light conditions as well? Is there any pocket sized Canon that has a hot shoe so can I use my 420EX with it? I find I prefer bounce or no flash to the "hot spots" that most on-camera flashes produce.
For the D-SLR I am a bit confused. My expereince with the N80 (at ISO 100) system above is as follows.
On a few occasions i find that the lenses I have hunt. Usually this is due to low or failing light. So would moveing the F/2.8 zooms make more sense?
That said i really like the 2 wheel Nikon system. My neice is a pro (Canon) and having used her Canons a bit (she has everything from a 20D to the 1Ds) I still like the Nikon's handling.
I would the D-SLR only on special occasions. My son's birthdays, plays, theatre, safari-holidays etc and I would need 24mm (film equivalent) to about 300mm or more if possible. I figure I could get by with 2 zooms (16-60 and 70-200) and a fast (50mm f/1.4) prime (since the low light shots are usually some distance away a film equiv would be 80mm).
Should I sell the Nikon lenses (the flash would have to go anyway as it is not compatible with Nikon's D-SLRs) and get the newer DX lenses (esp for wide angle)?
My D-SLR budget is US 3000. I assume 1/3 that for the body and 2/3 for 2 zooms and a fast prime. I would be happy to wait for the D70s replacement as i think the D200/30D are probably too much camera for my irregular use or should i dump Nikon and Canon in favour for alterantes like the Sony A100 - I'm told it can accept Minolta lenses?
Advantage Nikon: handling and I have 2 zooms that might or might not be suitable. I seem your advice on this.
Advantage Canon: I can buy basic lenses and borrow the big zooms from my niece when need! ;-) and India is Canon country. Everyone I know uses Canon here.
The tie breaker would be lens systems. BTW are Sigma or Tamron lenses as good as Nikon or Canon? The Nikon 17-55/2.8 cost $1200, the Canon $1150 but a similar Sigma and Tamron cost $400-450. That is a huge difference!
Yet one can get a Nikon 80-200/2.8 for the same price as an almost similar Sigma (with HSM) and the Canon (USM) is only $200 more than the Sigma! Go figure!
The Canon 30D+17-55/2.8+70-200/2.8+50mm/1.4 system is about $100 cheaper than Nikons and includes an USM lens so cost is not a big difference.
I dont think I need VR/IS as usually it is not me who is moving but my subject. Besides the long range IS/VR lenses are really expensive (2x times the cost of non-VR/IS lenses).
0
Comments
It sounds like you are used to Nikon's handling so that may be the best fit for you. Usually the camera whose handling is the most comfortable to you is the best choice.
I would avoid the Sony at the present time because its still an unknown factor as is Sony's committment to a DSLR line. Also remember that Sony has charged very high prices for its accessories in the past.
The D70 or the 30D would be a good fit for your intended uses. A 50mm 1.4 would be a great lens for indoor shooting. I would definitely get a flash along with your lenses. If money is a concern Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have some excellent lenses available. Their only drawbacks are that they are not constructed as well as the Canon/Nikon lenses and they don't hold their resale value as well.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm in the same position as you and after goin' thru millions of web pages for weeks and weeks yesterday I finally had the chance to put my hands on all the cameras in my budget, all at the same shop and was really surprised. I narrowed down my choice to the two smaller Nikons, D50 and D70s (having a couple Nikon lens an uncle gave me last week) and the smaller Canon, 350D (or Rebel XT in US).
I previously saw the Rebel XT in one shop and the D50 in another but apart from grabbing them for less than 10sec I didn't have any idea. Yesterday (really out of luck because this particoular shop never carried DSLR) there were on display all the three of them, plus the Pentax ist*DL. Anyway, to make a long story short, I grabbed all of them to see how they fit in my hands (please consider that I have big hands, almost 9" from the bottom of my palm to the top of my middle finger) and was really impressed by the huge variation in dimension between the various models. I know it may sounds stupid but I would sacrifice a bit on image quality to have a camera that feels better in my hands and yesterday I really experienced an epiphany. Right now I'm shooting with a Fuji S5600 that feels so damn small in my hands that I'd really like to smash it on the floor at times. Controls are cramped, there is no room for my left hand on the len, my right hand is bigger than the grip and it feels very unconfortable after handling it for long period of time. Last weekend I shot a basketball tournament (about 3 to four hours, both Saturday and Sunday) and my wrist and fingers was in real pain on Monday. Just something to keep in mind. Good luck. Cheers.
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
http://judah.smugmug.com/
For low light, your current zooms are very slow--the f2.8 zooms are what you will want, though they are expensive. Start with the fast prime. Unless you are using a tripod, I still think IS/VR is useful with low-light.
The third party lenses are spotty. Some are reputed to be as good as the Nikkor/Canon, while others are terrible. Go through the review sites and photo fora, and if possible test one.
judah: have you tried one with a battery grip? I have the same problem & my 20D is MUCH more comfortable with the grip. IMHO DSLRs are getting too darn small (the saying just because you can doesn't mean you should comes to mind).
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Hey thanks Harrry. That was a quick response.
1. Is the D70 equal to the 30D. I thoguht the 30D was more in competition with the D200. I have used the D70 and the 20D and 1Ds and the D70 felt easiest to use (maybe because I have used a N80 film body).
2. I hear there is a D80 coming out to replace the D70 or slot between the D70 and D200. True? The local Nikon rep just smiled at me and refused to comment. I can wait. You guys must have seen the teaser on Nikon's website.
3. If I were to buy a 3rd party lens I wold be most tempted by the wide-zooms as there is a huge price difference betwen sat the Sigma 18-50/2.8, Tamron 17-70/2.8 and Nikon 17-55/2.8 or Canon 17-55/2.8. Unfortunately this is the lens I will be using most and it does not seem logical to have my most used lens cheaper (half the price in this case) than the tele-zoom. Would I expect the same Quality of Picture with a Sigma or Tamron (I have not even seen Tokina on the shelf here in Bombay) as with a Nikon or Canon? Could you guys list some of the better Sigmas & Tamrons (and Tokinas if they are in the same league) or isthe list too long and the sample to sample variation to big?
4. The 50/1.4 is mandatory but with a D-SLR would a Nikon 35/2 or Canon 28/1.8 make more sense as it wold give an approximate 50mm field of view? My low light shooting covers a range of scence from landscapes to theater to night safari.
Sorry for being such a bother. BTW I did see your shots on the Canon-Nikon shootout and realise that in all probability the limitation is me and not Nikon or Canon or even Sigma or Tamron or Sony!
Hey thanks.
1. Where do I look for reviews on 3rd party lenses. If at all I would be considering the Tamron 17-70/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50/2.8. As my post above states I feel awkard using a 3rd party lens when that is the range I use most but that is where the price difference means anything.
2. At the theater or for landscapes I can carry my tripod but for night safaris I would be stuck but I figured IS/VR is more useful when the object is moving rather than when the subject it. Please correct me.
3. I too found the N80 a lot easier to use with the MB16 (I have that too). Also i foind it balanced bigger lenses (I have borrowed an older 80-200/2.8 lens for one trip) better with the MB16.
4. Lastly no one commented if I should keep my old Nikon lenses (If i go with Nikon) or should i sell the entire system (body, 2 lenses, flash, battery pack and 62mm filters)? What can i expect for this system? I intend to keep the Canon G2/420EX as a compact kit.
So what did you select? Why did you atleast try the D200 or 30D? The look larger.
My hands are 8.25" from palm to tip of my middle finger. I find the N80+MB16 to work fine and was more comfortable with that than the 20D. the 1Ds was too cool but when my niece told me the price I gently put it down never to ask for it again.
Navin,
I suggest that's what you should do. The rumors about a new Nikon (early August) are flying, so if you can wait, I think you should. The choice may become much clearer.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38595
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks. so you guys answered my queries on the Body atleast till this "D80" is released.
Now I have 2 choose the lenses. I know can't afford the IS/VR lenses atleast not the 70-200 versions. I am looking for 2 zooms to cover 24-300mm (35mm equivaltent) and a fast-prime (mostly a 50/1.4 or 35/2 or 28/1.8) for low light situations.
Q1. Should I consider the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 as my wide zoom knowing full well that this is the range I use 75% of the time. Or should I stick to Nikon/Canon?
Q2. I dont see much advantage of using a Sigma/Tamron for my long-zoom or fast-prime as the prices of Nikon/Canon glass are not that much more. Right?
Q3. What are the "recommended" 2 zoom combinations? I was looking at a 18-50 or 17-55 mated to a 70-200 or 80-200 and having a hole in the 80-120mm region. It is not something I'd like to do but this seems to be one logical fast zoom combination. I hope the gurus can offer others.
Q4. Given the smaller APS sized sensor does a Nikon 35/2 or Canon 28/1.8 make sense than a 50./1.4. Yeah both would be lovely but unfortunately I am not made of money. Even the $3000 budget is a strech. I have not budgeted for a flash or filters yet! :-( or should I go for the 35/2 (28/1.8 in case of Canon) now and get a 85/1.8 later instead of the 50/1.4. Is there a huge difference in low light abilities between F/2.0 or f/1.8 and f/1.4?
and should keep my old Nikon lenses (If i go with Nikon) or should i sell the entire system (body, 2 lenses, flash, battery pack and 62mm filters)? How much (in US$) can i expect for this system? $400? $500? or more?
You have $3,000 to spend. A D70 (body only) goes for $700.00. I would bet that the soon to be released D80 would go for $800-950.
The Nikon 17-55 2.8 goes for $1200. If you got the 17-55 and the D70 the cost will be around $1900. A Nikon 80-200 2.8 would cost around $900. A Sigma 70-200 2.8 (outstanding lens) would cost the same. This would bring you to just about $3000 w/o flash, memory cards, or the 50 1.4 lens.
If the $3000 budget has no flex you will have to consider a 3rd party lens for your short range zoom. The Sigma 24-60 2.8 and the 28-70 2.8 have garnered very good user reviews and cost under $500. Thats the way I would go with your stated budget and then add either the the Nikon 80-200 or the Sigma 70-200 to it and then get the 50mm 1.4 for indoor shots. The 1.4 does make a difference in low light situations.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
http://www.photozone.de/ <- maintains a databse of user ratings. I refrerence this one all the time.
As long as the lens produces good results does it really need the same name on it as the body? Based on excellent reviews & many sample shots, I plan on getting a Tokina 12-24 soon--it rivals Canon's 10-22 for image quality at a $200 savings. I do tend to look at Canon lenses first, but will check out the Sigma/Tamron/Tokina options as well.
You mean more useful when the camera is moving? Yes. IS/VR cannot account for subject movement.
It would help you get started in digital. Then you only need the body immediately and upgrade lenses as buget allows. You can then keep shooting while saving up for the best lens available for the purpose in mind.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Thanks Harry just a couple of clarifications.
a) The Sigma 24-60 and 28-70 lenses are full frame lenses. I dont think i need them on a D-SLR.
I find I tend to take about half my photos between 28-70mm (full frame) and would really love to have a zoom that went a bit wider (say 24mm full frame). SO my lens lens on the APS/DX sensor would be a 16-50 DX (like Nikon's 17-55/2.8, Sigma's 18-50/2.8 or Tamron's 18-50/2.8). The Sigma and Tamron wide DX/APS lense are about $400-450 while the Nikon is $1200. Do these 3rd party lenses compare with the Nikon?
I feel kinda awkward compromising and getting a 3rd party lens for my main lens but unfortunately that is the only area where I can save money. The Sigma/Tamon long zooms (70-200) are about the same cost as Nikon's 80-200/2.8 so I cant samve much money by getting 3rd party long-zooms. Is the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM actually better than the Nikon 80-200/2.8?
b) I assume you feel that the F/1.4 is significanlty better in low light than a F/1.8 or F/2.0 lens. So the 50/1.4 should be chosen over the 30/2 or 28/1.8. Right?
c) If I go Canon instead of the Nikon I doo save about $300 on the flash as well as my 420EX will work with the 30D while my SB50DX will not work with either the D70 or D80 (except as a slave). Right?
d) Filters: Is it ok if for about $100 I get a UV filter and polarizer kit like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=136016&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Also, for filters, take a look at 2filter.com. Excellent outfit - since 2003 I've bought all my filters from them. The filter set you linked has a warming filter - completely unnecessary in the digital age thanks to Photoshop. You're just paying for something you don't need.
tristansphotography.com (motorsports)
Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
Sony F717 | Hoya R72
Great advice Tristan!
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Hi Navin,
after seeing the teaser on Nikon website I'm waiting to see what next Nikon will look like anf if it will be something for my needs. I was almost settle on the D70s and two days after Nikon started the teaser. I'm in no hurry so I have plenty of time to wait and see. On the other hand, if (and I repeat IF, because rumors say that it will be a stripped down D200 priced at around 1000$, a dream come true) the new Nikon will be out of my range, I hope prices on D70s will drop a bit and then it will be a no brainer to me.
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
http://judah.smugmug.com/
Hi Cloudermilk,
no way. If you ask for a battery grip they look at you like you're a weirdo. I dont' have any pro shop here around me and the only way I can test something is just walk around and look at all this silly mall-shops and similar. The D70s and the D50 (I'm leaning toward Nikon because I was gifted with a couple Nikon lenses last week) where on show with the 18-55 (D50) and 18-70 (D70s). I asked the clerk to show me both and pointed at the two different zoom askin' for differences between the two (to test his knowledge) and his reply was flattering and amusing: They look the same to me, are they different?
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
http://judah.smugmug.com/
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
thanks for the 2filter.com website.
Thanks so despite the review on photozone.de (which states "Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX HSM DC may perform pretty good in absolute terms but for a fix-focal the lens disappoints a little") the Sigma 30/1.4 would score over the Nikon/Canon 50/1.4 Right? So the long zoom and fast prime are done. Now only the short zoom is in question.
What scares me about the Sigma and Tamron 18-50/2.8 DX lenses is the price. Why are they 1/3rd the price of a similar Nikon or Canon? In my mind when something looks too good to be true it usually is. What's the catch?
If there is no catch then I could ideally get a Sigma 3 lens set using teh 18-50/2.8, 30/1.4 and 70-200/2.8 HSM! Are these Sigma lenses comparable to Nikon or Canon? Do the Gurus and Pros use any regularly?
If I dont need a warming filter then this kit sould save me about $35!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=72729&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
or should I get 2 filters like these at the same cost of the Tiffen 3 filter set.
http://www.2filter.com/prices/2filterpackages.html
For the filters, the B&H link should be fine.
tristansphotography.com (motorsports)
Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
Sony F717 | Hoya R72
Navin,
I "Love" my Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC. I have no plans to replace it with Canon "L" glass, or anything else. Here is my take on it and samples:
http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=14651
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29694
Many of these are with the Sigma:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=32855
My experience with the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 was less fortunate, and I tried two copies:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116&page=5
I wound up getting the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L, and I haven't regretted it. I did test the Canon against an "old" version of the Sigma (the old Sigma is an excellent lens, just not compatible with modern bodies, and not re-chippable):
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29773
Many folks have, and like, the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8s, and the lens tested well by PhotoZone, so I may have gotten a couple of "duds".
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&cpage=8&perpage=15&cat=37
I am currently using an old Pentax 50mm, f1.4, for low ambient light work and for my 50mm prime. I do have to use it with an adapter, and it's manual everything, but great quality:
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38398
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I use the B+W and went through www.maxsaver.net. Why spend all this time trying to get good lenses, then cheap out and stick a sub-par filter in front of it? To me it's similar to investing in a 1Ds MkII, then sticking it on top of a $30 mall store tripod.
General wisdom is Heliopan, B+W, and Hoya (more-or-less in that order) are the best filters available.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I did read the reviews but none had a Canon/Nikon vs Sigma vs Tamron shootout so all I was left with was opinions. Since I am a newbie this got me even more confused (and now I feel like "Vinny Barbarino"). I also tried to "extract" a consistent opinion on the 3rd party lens fourm at Nikonians. Granted I was expecting a simple answer. Something like "get the Sigma/Tamron if your use is occasional but the Nikon if you are a travelling Pro" or "the difference between the Nikon/Canon and Sigma/Tamron is not the quality of glass but the quality of construction".
Funnily I read more people comparing the Sigma with the Canons and fewer comparing these 3rd party lenses with Nikons. Is it becuase Nikonians are more brand loyal, fewer in number, or is Nikon glass considered a little better than Canon hence the differences between Nikon and Sigma are larger than Canon and Sigma? The friend of mine who got me the N80 kit (on post 1) told me "if you are getting a Nikon body dont get anything else but Nikon glass" his attitude was "Nikon bodies sell bcause their glass makes it worth it".
This and the less than favourable review on photozone on the Sigma 30/1.4 has me thinking about the efficacy of 3rd party lenses.
I hear Hoya is better than TIffen too. Not that expensive either!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=408020&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Navin,
I love your comment, "Since I am a newbie...". Give yourself some credit.
You have been able to identify your needs and translate them into the digital equivalent. You have been able to articulate your desires, in terms of quality and focal length. Now you are looking to "come up to speed" (my words) with the current state of the industry.
The honest truth is, but very much IMHO, there is no "best" or "simple" solution to the question "Which?" as it refers to body and lens.
Look back just 6 years to see how much the photographic industry has changed. Almost anything bodywise from 6 years ago is pretty antiquated by now. Try to find that body which has the best mixture of features that match "your" needs. If that seems too much a struggle, you need to refine your priorities and needs list to help define and prioritize what's important to you.
Image stabilization, for example, is something that is exploding onto the scene. Basically there are two solutions, body wise integration versus lens integration. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.
Both Canon and Nikon have chosen the lens-based solution, ... for now. That could change as the market demands change. Sony/Minolta and Pentax have appeared to go with the body-based solution. I believe that Olympus could go either way, but they will choose a path soon. (Panasonic chose lens based, but they are pretty small market share.)
I don't own anything with image stabilization, yet. I believe that all the stabilization that "I" need is available in technique and mechanical support. That may change as my needs change and technology provides more competent solutions.
It is true that high-quality lenses, particularly the best lenses from Canon and Nikon, hold their value well. Many people use that fact to influence their buying decision.
My personal preference is to purchase what I feel is the appropriate tool for the task. I am influenced by other people and their opinions, but ultimately, I retain both authority "and" responsibility for my actions. I make the best decision I can, based on the information at hand, and then I work with the results of that choice, making adjustments as necessary. This is tremendously empowering.
So my recommendation to you is similar, make the best purchase decision "you" can, based on the best information "you" can find. Don't rely on a single source. Make your initial purchase, and then learn and grow. Use what you have and then grow into what you need. Don't try to do it all at once. Use "your" experience as "your" guide. Don't beat yourself up for mistakes and problems, and certainly don't blame others for bad advice.
Ultimately, it is possible to make great images with almost any camera and lens. Ultimately, it is "you", and not your equipment, that makes the biggest difference.
Best,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Hi,
I never expected others to be responsible for my purchases. My only heop is to read as much as possible (since the Nikon "D80" is still a few days/weeks away) and then make an informed decision. I dont want to make a decision I regret 2-3 years down the road.
OK I'll try and ask clearer questions:
a) why are Nikon and Canon short zooms so much more expensive than 3rd party zooms? Build? Brand? or Glass Quality. I am not really Brand loyal and dont think i will sell my lenses etc and my usage of my D-SLR is limited ot special occasions so a lesser built lens might suffice but I would like to have the best glass quality I can afford espcially since the short zooom is the lens I will be using most on the D-SLR. Are the Nikon/Canon lenses more consistent, more resistant to fungus (I live in Bombay, India) etc.. or do they really offer better resolution/DOF and less CA/Distortion etc... Having no experience with 3rd party glass (nor knowing anyone who owns one) forums like these are MY oly source of information.
b) Why is the above only true for the short zooms? not the long zooms or the primes?
c) The Sigma 30/1.4 was not reviewed well at photozone. Are there others who have similar experiences? It is the only fast-wide-prime in my price range, the only other alternates being Nikon/Canon 501/.4.
d) Since I live in India and buy in the US and dont make frequent trips there I like to buy atleast the body and 2 zooms at one go. The prime can be added later.
... and I'm telling you it's OK to make a decision now, and then decide 2-3 years from now that you need to change. I'm telling you it's OK to do that after 2-3 months. If you worry about having regrets, you can seriously impair your judgment.
The new Nikon may look like a wonderful camera, and it may get glowing reviews.
What if it suddenly develops a class-wide problem, a design or production defect? How will you manage the "regrets"? This has happened before to manufacturers and it will happen again, it's part of the process.
What if that one key feature, that's not so important or obvious now, becomes glaringly deficient in whatever you get now? Are you going to have serious regrets? Will you simply learn and move ahead?
OK, enough "fatherly advice", let's get back to the questions.
A great question! No simple answer. An excellent observation!:):
Let me start with your use assessment: "... the short zoom is the lens I will be using most on the D-SLR."
That statement indicates where you should spend most of your resources, investigative and (potentially) monetary.
It has been my personal observation that yes, Nikon and Canon have better quality control than the third party manufacturers. It would appear that most quality control effort is skewed towards the "best" lenses, which makes sense for a number of reasons.
I also do most of my shooting with a "middle zoom", and my first major purchase, outside of the body itself, was for a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX series lens. I am still very happy with that choice.
At the time, my only true alternatives (of those I cared to consider) were the Canon 17-40mm, f4L and the Canon 16-35mm, f2.8L. The first was a stop slower, and a critical stop for my use, and the other was a shorter range of zoom that cost sooo much more, albeit with better overall quality. I decided the extra stop and extra range were more important so, fortunately, the better price just sweetened the deal. I am also fortunate in that the first copy I tried works well with my camera.
I don't find CA or PF to be a serious problem with my use of the lens, but the 16-35mm, f2.8L is supposed to be much better.
Since then, the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS has appeared. This is a very desirable lens for my uses and is on my radar. It's a very expensive lens, and still too new to know about durability etc.. PhotoZone still hasn't even tested it.
(I'm trying to give some insight into my thought process. Whether I actually change from the Sigma should be immaterial to your decision.)
I really can't comment on the Nikon lenses. I did work with a nice Kodak pro dSLR which was Nikon based and I used a couple of great Nikon lenses, but not zooms and not in this range.
Fungus and mold are serious potential problems and I don't think any of these lenses are sealed (middle zooms), so I recommend either air-conditioned storage or a desiccant storage solution.
I have to believe that marketing is the most significant factor here, but note that there are also more choices, at least with Canon in the 70-200mm range.
I wound up going with the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L, only after trying 2 copies of the Sigma equivalent. I basically decided that the critical combination of full 200mm and wide open f2.8, the Sigmas didn't meet my criteria. I found considerable "ringing" in high contrast boundaries and edges that simply don't exist in the Canon version.
Incidentally, the Sigmas did very well at the short end and a little stopped down. Unfortunately, that didn't match my intended use.
I did not get the IS version, partly because of cost, and partly because of how I will use the lens. I will always use physical stabilization for the primary use, night sports, so either a tripod or monopod. I don't think the IS provides an enormous advantage under that circumstance. (It does provide an advantage, just not enough to me to offset the extra cost.)
Long primes, I don't have any experience with.
I don't have a prime at this length, but I have been looking:
http://www.whichlens.com/index.php?blog=5&title=sigma_30mm_ex_dc_f1_4_vs_canon_ef_35mm_f&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=349
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9782
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/248332
http://philip.greenspun.com/photography/sigma-lenses
I am probably more seriously considering the Canon EF 35mm, f2.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=25&sort=7&thecat=2
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_35_2/index.htm
Not a perfect lens (by a long shot), but not too bad at this price point.
That seems like a pretty good plan.
Take care and happy shooting,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Just thought you'd like to see them.
tristansphotography.com (motorsports)
Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
Sony F717 | Hoya R72
Thanks Tristan.
I want it for sure, but my bank account is telling me, "don't you dare!"
I do wish I had been born rich instead of sooo good looking. (Glancing in mirror)
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I stand corrected. (Sometimes I lie down too.)
Thanks Tristan,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ah, great question. Most of this has to do with branding. Canon charges more because they can. The third parties are at a disadvantage there, and therefore they use price to help bring in customers. Don't forget, that price has nothing to do with cost. Price is used as a value pointer for nearly everything we buy. Is that Cadillac a better/more expensive to produce car than is the Chevorlet sister car? Most likely not, but the price is one way to differentiate them.
The other typical issue with third party lenses is that they are forced to backward engineer their electronics. In the past, this has caused issues when new cameras shipped and the lenses no longer worked with them. A simple firmware update today can potentially render your third party lenses useless. So, you get a discount for taking the risk (however small).
Also, you can not simply compare lenses that have similar focal lengths and assume they are equivalent. So look for Sigma EX as the better lenses in their line, the SVs in Tokina, and I have no idea about Tamron.
Probably the best solution is to read the reviews, and try them yourself. For example, read the reviews on Tamron's 28-70 f2.8...they are nearly all glowing and offer good comparisons to the Canon 24-70L. But for other lenses, they do not offer such glowing reports. Then buy a lens from a reputable dealer, try it out, and return it if it doesnt suit you. A few bucks shipping is a reasonable cost for trying out a lens.