Lens advise

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joel Dorfan, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. Joel Dorfan

    Joel Dorfan Guest

    This type of question has been asked many times before and I have learnt a
    great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.

    I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
    I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been very happy
    with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush taking pics of wild
    animals. I have used all of the available manual modes possible with this
    camera.

    I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am leaning
    towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and slow speed
    (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.

    Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is it safe
    to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported problems)
    attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the 7900 can do
    across the whole 18-200 spectrum?

    My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although one
    always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS (lots
    of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
    also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
    the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.

    I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.

    Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around lens.

    Thanks

    Joel
    Joel Dorfan, Aug 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joel Dorfan

    C Wright Guest

    On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
    , "Joel Dorfan"
    <> wrote:

    > This type of question has been asked many times before and I have learnt a
    > great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
    >
    > I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
    > I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been very happy
    > with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush taking pics of wild
    > animals. I have used all of the available manual modes possible with this
    > camera.
    >
    > I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am leaning
    > towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    > I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and slow speed
    > (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
    >
    > Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is it safe
    > to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported problems)
    > attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the 7900 can do
    > across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
    >
    > My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although one
    > always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS (lots
    > of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
    > also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
    > the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
    >
    > I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
    >
    > Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around lens.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Joel
    >
    >
    >

    IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true wide-angle to a
    true telephoto is asking too much! It will be soft at either the tele side
    or the wide side, and probably both. You don't say what types of photos
    that you prefer taking so it is difficult to make a recommendation but I
    would go with either a wide to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide
    angle shots or a normal to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
    If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the normal to
    tele lenses.
    C Wright, Aug 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joel Dorfan

    Frank ess Guest

    C Wright wrote:
    > On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
    > , "Joel Dorfan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have
    >> learnt a great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
    >>
    >> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
    >> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been
    >> very happy with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush
    >> taking pics of wild animals. I have used all of the available
    >> manual
    >> modes possible with this camera.
    >>
    >> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I
    >> am
    >> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    >> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
    >> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
    >>
    >> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is
    >> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported
    >> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that
    >> the 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
    >>
    >> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK
    >> although one always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the
    >> Canon 17-85 IS (lots of CA, distortion and softness also reported)
    >> or the Tamron 24-135 would also do the job very well but at $600 vs
    >> $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for the 24-135 it seems like a no
    >> brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
    >>
    >> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
    >>
    >> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around
    >> lens.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Joel
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true
    > wide-angle to a true telephoto is asking too much! It will be soft
    > at either the tele side or the wide side, and probably both. You
    > don't say what types of photos that you prefer taking so it is
    > difficult to make a recommendation but I would go with either a wide
    > to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide angle shots or a
    > normal
    > to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
    > If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the
    > normal to tele lenses.


    Why did you want to "move up" to a dSLR if you didn't want to carry
    more than one lens?

    Think about the area you wanted to step into by investing in an
    expensive body, and buy a lens that will take you there. I presume it
    was some deficiency in the CP7900's performance.

    I can't imagine you just wanted to add an extra MP at that price.

    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Aug 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Joel Dorfan

    Joel Dorfan Guest

    Thanks for the input.
    The 7900 belongs to work and I just have the use of it.

    I understand the compromises of lenses with such wide ranges hence the
    question relating to weather or not it would be better than the 7900.

    I would did not buy DSLR for the extra MP but for many other reasons. The
    fact is that I already have it and would like to make the best single lens
    choice.

    Joel

    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > C Wright wrote:
    > > On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
    > > , "Joel Dorfan"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have
    > >> learnt a great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
    > >>
    > >> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
    > >> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been
    > >> very happy with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush
    > >> taking pics of wild animals. I have used all of the available
    > >> manual
    > >> modes possible with this camera.
    > >>
    > >> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I
    > >> am
    > >> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    > >> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
    > >> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
    > >>
    > >> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is
    > >> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported
    > >> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that
    > >> the 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
    > >>
    > >> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK
    > >> although one always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the
    > >> Canon 17-85 IS (lots of CA, distortion and softness also reported)
    > >> or the Tamron 24-135 would also do the job very well but at $600 vs
    > >> $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for the 24-135 it seems like a no
    > >> brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
    > >>
    > >> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
    > >>
    > >> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around
    > >> lens.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks
    > >>
    > >> Joel
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    > > IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true
    > > wide-angle to a true telephoto is asking too much! It will be soft
    > > at either the tele side or the wide side, and probably both. You
    > > don't say what types of photos that you prefer taking so it is
    > > difficult to make a recommendation but I would go with either a wide
    > > to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide angle shots or a
    > > normal
    > > to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
    > > If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the
    > > normal to tele lenses.

    >
    > Why did you want to "move up" to a dSLR if you didn't want to carry
    > more than one lens?
    >
    > Think about the area you wanted to step into by investing in an
    > expensive body, and buy a lens that will take you there. I presume it
    > was some deficiency in the CP7900's performance.
    >
    > I can't imagine you just wanted to add an extra MP at that price.
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess
    >
    Joel Dorfan, Aug 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Joel Dorfan

    Frank ess Guest

    Joel Dorfan wrote:
    > Thanks for the input.
    > The 7900 belongs to work and I just have the use of it.
    >
    > I understand the compromises of lenses with such wide ranges hence
    > the
    > question relating to weather or not it would be better than the
    > 7900.
    >
    > I would did not buy DSLR for the extra MP but for many other
    > reasons.
    > The fact is that I already have it and would like to make the best
    > single lens choice.
    >
    > Joel
    >


    Aha.

    List your "many other reasons" and see which lens most of them fit
    into. You can bet not all of them will fit into any one of them.

    Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
    pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    --
    Frank ess

    > "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> C Wright wrote:
    >>> On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
    >>> , "Joel
    >>> Dorfan"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have
    >>>> learnt a great deal from the answers. However here is my
    >>>> situation.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
    >>>> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been
    >>>> very happy with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush
    >>>> taking pics of wild animals. I have used all of the available
    >>>> manual
    >>>> modes possible with this camera.
    >>>>
    >>>> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I
    >>>> am
    >>>> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    >>>> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
    >>>> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me,
    >>>> is
    >>>> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various
    >>>> reported
    >>>> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that
    >>>> the 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
    >>>>
    >>>> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK
    >>>> although one always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this,
    >>>> the
    >>>> Canon 17-85 IS (lots of CA, distortion and softness also
    >>>> reported)
    >>>> or the Tamron 24-135 would also do the job very well but at $600
    >>>> vs
    >>>> $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for the 24-135 it seems like a no
    >>>> brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
    >>>>
    >>>> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
    >>>>
    >>>> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around
    >>>> lens.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks
    >>>>
    >>>> Joel
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true
    >>> wide-angle to a true telephoto is asking too much! It will be
    >>> soft
    >>> at either the tele side or the wide side, and probably both. You
    >>> don't say what types of photos that you prefer taking so it is
    >>> difficult to make a recommendation but I would go with either a
    >>> wide
    >>> to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide angle shots or a
    >>> normal
    >>> to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
    >>> If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the
    >>> normal to tele lenses.

    >>
    >> Why did you want to "move up" to a dSLR if you didn't want to carry
    >> more than one lens?
    >>
    >> Think about the area you wanted to step into by investing in an
    >> expensive body, and buy a lens that will take you there. I presume
    >> it
    >> was some deficiency in the CP7900's performance.
    >>
    >> I can't imagine you just wanted to add an extra MP at that price.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Frank ess
    Frank ess, Aug 11, 2005
    #5
  6. "Joel Dorfan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This type of question has been asked many times before and I have learnt a
    > great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
    >
    > I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
    > I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been very
    > happy
    > with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush taking pics of wild
    > animals. I have used all of the available manual modes possible with this
    > camera.
    >
    > I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am
    > leaning
    > towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    > I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and slow
    > speed
    > (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
    >
    > Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is it
    > safe
    > to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported problems)
    > attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the 7900 can do
    > across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
    >
    > My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although
    > one
    > always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS
    > (lots
    > of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
    > also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
    > the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
    >
    > I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
    >
    > Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around lens.
    >



    Joel,

    I can't speak directly to the quality of the lenses you've mentioned but I
    can say I've read enough opinions and reviews since I bought my 300D to feel
    comfortable in suggesting that you pick up the canon EF 28-135 IS. It
    doesn't cover the range that you're looking at but I think you'll find that
    almost everyone of these lens threads gives this lens fairly high marks for
    performance. It was the very first lens I bought and it very quickly
    replaced the kit lens that came with my 300D. I've used the 18-55, the
    28-90 and the 28-135 for my "walk around" lens and I can tell you that by
    far the 28-135 meet my needs for range and quality.

    Also keep in mind the old adage, "You get what you pay for." Unfortunately,
    quality cost money. I bought a Sigma 70-300 when I bought my 300D (part of
    the package) and I used it once. The images just plain sucked. Maybe there
    are other Sigma lenses that are good but I personally don't think I'll
    experiment with my money.

    JMHO

    --

    Rob
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Aug 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Joel Dorfan

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    "Frank ess" <> wrote:

    > Joel Dorfan wrote:
    > > Thanks for the input.
    > > The 7900 belongs to work and I just have the use of it.
    > >
    > > I understand the compromises of lenses with such wide ranges hence
    > > the
    > > question relating to weather or not it would be better than the
    > > 7900.
    > >
    > > I would did not buy DSLR for the extra MP but for many other
    > > reasons.
    > > The fact is that I already have it and would like to make the best
    > > single lens choice.
    > >
    > > Joel
    > >

    >
    > Aha.
    >
    > List your "many other reasons" and see which lens most of them fit
    > into. You can bet not all of them will fit into any one of them.
    >
    > Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
    > pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?
    >
    > Not that there is anything wrong with that.


    People still don't realize the lens is more important than the camera.

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Joel Dorfan

    Eatmorepies Guest


    > My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although
    > one
    > always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS
    > (lots
    > of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
    > also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
    > the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
    >
    > I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
    >


    As I tell anyone who listens - the lenses to buy are the L series. But they
    are very expensive. When you see the results you can see why.

    If you go to
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

    you can get lots of advice/reviews. I go with the 24 - 70 mm f2.8L as the
    best walk round lens. Then look at a 70 - 200mm for a telephoto.

    If you want an non-L (cheaper) lens then the 28-105 f3.5/4.5 is quite good
    when stopped down to f5.6. But consider this; why buy and expensive body and
    put a cheap lens on it? The lens is the most important bit.

    John
    Eatmorepies, Aug 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Per Frank ess:
    >Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
    >pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?


    Lack of shutter lag is a pretty big thing to me.
    --
    PeteCresswell
    (PeteCresswell), Aug 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Joel Dorfan

    Mike Warren Guest

    Joel Dorfan wrote:
    > I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am
    > leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
    > I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
    > slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
    >
    > Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is
    > it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported
    > problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the
    > 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?


    I don't recommend the mega zooms on a DSLR. I tried the
    Tamron 18-200.

    Here are some comparison shots with a Panasonic FZ20:

    Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1Full.jpg

    Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1.jpg

    Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2Full.jpg

    Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2.jpg

    FZ20: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20aFull.jpg

    FZ20: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20a.jpg

    FZ20: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20bFull.jpg

    FZ20: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20b.jpg

    -Mike
    Mike Warren, Aug 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Joel Dorfan

    Ben Thomas Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > Per Frank ess:
    >
    >>Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
    >>pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?

    >
    >
    > Lack of shutter lag is a pretty big thing to me.


    And focus speed (which contributes to the perceived shutter lag).

    And noise.

    --
    --
    Ben Thomas - Melbourne, Australia
    The essentials: Kodak DX6490, Nikon D70, Canon i9950, Pioneer DVR-109,
    Hitachi W37-PD2100, DGTEC 2000A, Harmon/Kardon AVR4500, Denon DVD-2800,
    Whatmough Synergy, Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm LifeDrive.

    Disclaimer:
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
    Ben Thomas, Aug 12, 2005
    #11
  12. "Ben Thomas" <> wrote:
    > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >>
    >> Lack of shutter lag is a pretty big thing to me.

    >
    > And focus speed (which contributes to the perceived shutter lag).


    (a) P&S cameras (in theory, anyway) have less shutter lag than dSLRs. It's
    only the AF that's the problem. (Well, some have glacial startup times.) (b)
    While lenses with built-in motors (USM and the like) are _fast_, lenses
    without (e.g. the Tamron 28-75/2.8) aren't all that fast.

    > And noise.


    The bottom line: It's the image quality, stupid.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 12, 2005
    #12
  13. Joel Dorfan

    Guest

    It is not an easy transition from a -good- point and shoot. (i.e. a
    good lens - like the 38-380 mm Schneider Kreuznach Variogon on the
    Kodak DX 6490 - which can be opened up to f2.8 for low light, slightly
    slow though -very- accurate autofocus, PASM modes ... and program modes
    that give precise focusing and exposure readings compared to the Canon
    EOS 350D.)
    (www.treklens.com/members/aalhad)


    Why did I move to a dSLR ? I did not like the jpeg compression and
    sharpening that the dx6490 subjected the photos to. Looks bad on 8x12
    prints.

    Why did I move to the EOS 350D - because of the smooth, noise free
    detail that the sensor gives.

    Biggest gripe so far - GLASS IS AWFULLY EXPENSIVE.
    Now I realize that 85% of the cost of the kodak dx6490 is probably the
    cost of the lens.

    - autfocus is inaccurate - off by around 4 cms - front focus bias -
    using a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II under 10 EV - test conditions. although I
    probably got a lemon, let's see how well the Canon India warranty holds
    up.


    I want a good normal-tele zoom that beats the Schneider Kreuznach
    Variogon on the kodak dx6490. I'm looking for one that isn't as costly
    as a Canon L class thingy. Will post if I find one.
    , Aug 12, 2005
    #13
  14. Joel Dorfan

    Colin D Guest

    Joel Dorfan wrote:
    >

    <snip>

    > Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS (lots
    > of CA, distortion and softness also reported)

    <snip>
    >

    Don't believe all you read about the 17-85 IS USM lens. It's not fast,
    f/4 to f/5.6, about the same as most zooms. I have had this lens for
    nearly a year now, and I can say that it is very sharp. I do
    competition quality prints up to 13x19 from its images. There is some
    CA and some barrel distortion at the short end - like (and no worse
    than) most zooms - but software exists (like the free PTlens plug-in for
    PS) that fixes both those problems. And the 5:1 zoom range is better
    than most, apart from the 28-200 or 28-300 types, but they do tend to
    suffer from the extreme range unless you head for an L lens. ($$$$$)

    Colin D.
    Colin D, Aug 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Mike Warren wrote:
    []
    > I don't recommend the mega zooms on a DSLR. I tried the
    > Tamron 18-200.
    >
    > Here are some comparison shots with a Panasonic FZ20:
    >
    > Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1Full.jpg
    >
    > Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1.jpg
    >
    > Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2Full.jpg
    >
    > Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2.jpg
    >
    > FZ20: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20aFull.jpg
    >
    > FZ20: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20a.jpg
    >
    > FZ20: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20bFull.jpg
    >
    > FZ20: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20b.jpg


    Mike,

    Thanks for posting those. Most interesting to see the better optics on
    the noisier sensor, and how they compare at 1:1 viewing and over the full
    frame. What is the weight comparison?

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 12, 2005
    #15
  16. Joel Dorfan

    Mike Warren Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Thanks for posting those. Most interesting to see the better optics
    > on the noisier sensor, and how they compare at 1:1 viewing and over
    > the full frame.


    The Tamron lens is a waste of money if quality is important. I don't
    understand why anyone using a dSLR would bother with it. If you just
    want to take snapshots a ZLR is much friendlier to use.

    I also compared it to the Canon S2. The S2 wasn't as good as the FZ20
    but was still better than the Tamron 18-200. I printed one picture from
    the 18-200 at 6x4 and the CA was still obvious. It wasn't just a faulty
    sample either. I tried two of them.

    > What is the weight comparison?


    I don't quite get you here. The lens + D70S is much heavier than the
    FZ20.

    -Mike
    Mike Warren, Aug 12, 2005
    #16
  17. Mike Warren wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Thanks for posting those. Most interesting to see the better optics
    >> on the noisier sensor, and how they compare at 1:1 viewing and over
    >> the full frame.

    []
    >> What is the weight comparison?

    >
    > I don't quite get you here. The lens + D70S is much heavier than the
    > FZ20.


    Just to know what equipment can produce what quality of pictures, and what
    the trade-offs might be between cost, quality and bulk.

    That's all.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 12, 2005
    #17
  18. Rob,
    Did you buy this kit from a brick and mortar retailer? If you did, I
    was wondering; if you had put the Sigma 70-300 on the camera at the
    store and taken a shot, do you think you'd have noticed this lens's poor
    performance? What I'm trying to determine is how beneficial is it to
    have a camera shop you can go to for a hands on test and just how much
    can you really find out from a hands on test. For example, can you
    expect most dedicated camera shops, like for example; Ritz, to print you
    out a copy if you're trying to decide on a camera or lens? Do places
    like Ritz employ knowledgeable people or are they generally just clerks?
    Paul

    snipped
    > Joel,
    >
    > I can't speak directly to the quality of the lenses you've mentioned but I
    > can say I've read enough opinions and reviews since I bought my 300D to feel
    > comfortable in suggesting that you pick up the canon EF 28-135 IS. It
    > doesn't cover the range that you're looking at but I think you'll find that
    > almost everyone of these lens threads gives this lens fairly high marks for
    > performance. It was the very first lens I bought and it very quickly
    > replaced the kit lens that came with my 300D. I've used the 18-55, the
    > 28-90 and the 28-135 for my "walk around" lens and I can tell you that by
    > far the 28-135 meet my needs for range and quality.
    >
    > Also keep in mind the old adage, "You get what you pay for." Unfortunately,
    > quality cost money. I bought a Sigma 70-300 when I bought my 300D (part of
    > the package) and I used it once. The images just plain sucked. Maybe there
    > are other Sigma lenses that are good but I personally don't think I'll
    > experiment with my money.
    >
    > JMHO
    >
    > --
    >
    > Rob
    >
    >
    Paul Schilter, Aug 12, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Umljaw==?=

    O.K. novice at work here!! Please advise..

    =?Utf-8?B?Umljaw==?=, Dec 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    580
    Carey Holzman
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. Awie
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,717
    Digital Doug
    Jul 13, 2003
  3. Ritzy & Tony

    Advise: Canon EOS 350D Zoom Lens Auto Focus

    Ritzy & Tony, May 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    519
    ian lincoln
    May 9, 2005
  4. go go dancer

    Nikon lens advise sought

    go go dancer, Feb 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    296
  5. cassia

    I NEED YOUR ADVISE--WHICH LENS SHOULD I CHOOSE??

    cassia, Apr 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    414
Loading...

Share This Page