If money doesn't matter get the Canon. If it does get the Sigma. I don't have either one but I've known a couple of people with the Sigma and they are very pleased with the results. They used it for shooting their daughters at dance competitions. I just bought the Canon 70-200F4 IS and I'm very pleased with that. I also have the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and a Sigma 10-20 so I wouldn't be afraid of Sigma...
Get Canon, it's the only one that I'll get..
Hi All, I am trying to decide on what camera I should get. Due to my job I travel worldwide and have great opputrunities to take fascinating pictures. I have a small digital Canon (cant remember exact model number), which has been working fine for me until now. But I think I want to take my photography to the next level. So here are my stupid beginner questions:.
- How to pick a camera.
- What is important to look for.
- There is a lot of technical terms popping up when I am comparing different models and I don't know what half of them mean.
- What about lenses.
- What about flashes My 3 preliminary choices at this point.
- Canon EOS 5D (Although the price is high and I know lenses will cost 3-3 times the price of the box).
- Canon EOS 40D.
- Nikon D 60.
Any other suggestions are very much welcome! PO..
I have a Canon EOS Digital camera and have a purchased a few Digital only lens, but the cost is becoming painful. I have used Canon 35 mm film cameras for years and have a number of Canon film lenses, all of which function fine with my Digital EOS, but I am concerned about the quality difference between the film lenses and the digital only lenses. Is there a difference in the quality of the two types of lenses (The resulting pictures) and if so, which is best and if the Digital only lenses are better, is the difference in picture quality enough to notice...
Canon as do most (all?) of the other makers of dslrs and lenses make a range of lenses from relatively inexpensive consumer oriented lenses to extremely high quality and expensive professional oriented lenses. Most but not all of the "digital only" lenses were consumer oriented lenses. That's not necessarily an optical deficit but other materials and build savings were also incorporated. They do fit the lens mount area differently so there are obstructions when you try to use them on full frame cameras. Although for some makers/lenses, it's not a fit problem but the image circle is smaller and the full size/quality image needed for a full frame sensor or film camera isn't provided. So you really need to consider individual lenses.
Sometimes they just suffer from easier comparison checks and some aren't coated as well and there are different internal flare and contrast results on digital sensor cameras. there are a few "digital" lenses that are aimed at very discriminating users...
Craig; Thank you for your thoughtful response to my rather badly worded question. All of my lenses are Canon consumer lenses. My question is more generic than relating to an individual lens, specifically, will the 35 m/m lenses lens provide better or worse quality pictures than the "digital" lenses, all other things (m/m and F stop, etc.) being equal ?
If I had to generalize, I'd think that the newer "digital" lenses might perform better, perhaps through use of more recent coating technologies and optimized for the smaller image section. The only way to be sure would be to find a site that has lens test results, user reviews, etc., for old and new lenses. Some of the lower priced lenses, like the 50mm lenses, are almost all high performing lenses for all of the makers. There are some middle range better lenses which are smaller, lighter, smaller max apertures which except for the lack of an f2.8 or similar fast aperture do quite well. However, for some of the different consumer lenses, there were some that were made to compete with low price trumping image performance. "Kits" with two zooms and an slr selling for $200 or so aren't likely to be killers at performance.
4x6 prints are generally too small to really show off poor performance. Poor print quality/small size hid the low lens performance. The more discriminating the users were, the more they found the better lenses or moved up the lines. Also, if there was a satisfactory lens already in the line-up a a particular point, there would have been no real need to introduce a new lens. Perhaps a coating upgrade, etc.
The budget minded consumer usually didn't need to go wider, so wider lenses, like 17-xx zooms, tended to be both higher priced and higher performing. But this was a more needed range for general use on the smaller frame cameras so a more budget friendly alternative was needed for most makers lines. Hence the added wider end "digital" lenses. One disadvantage to the older lenses is that in a digital scenario, even if folks buy small, inexpensive prints, there is a lot more viewing being done on screen. Take an image that seems OK at 4x6 and view it full screen on a 15"-19" monitor and flaws become more apparent.
An advantage to some of the older lenses is that if used on a small frame camera, performance problems out on the edges or corners may simply not show-up due to the smaller portion of the image circle being used. They aren't really better, you've just cut the bruise off the apple...