Canon vs Nikon - Lenses

[VanMac]

Hey.

I am getting close to purchasing a DSLR. I've had a point and shoot for a while (currently a SD550), but want 'more'.

I'm new to photography. I've just purchased the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson based on the recomendations on this board. So far the book is very good (just getting into it), and I've learned a lot already. It is getting me excited about photography.

I've held off on purchasing a decent camera to date just cause I really know very little about photography, but that will soon come to an end, so I intend on researching and purchasing shortly.

I've read many posts on "This Body vs That Body", and the main thing I've learned from people that seem to know what they are talking about is that I should choose my lens system first, and then get the body, so that is what I intend to do.

So, I will post it out to you all ..... What lense system should I go with ???
( I did a search, but could not find suitable post...sorry if covered)

I will try to answer some upfront questions:
- I wish to go with a Nikon or Canon body
- I have no existing lenses
- I do not intend to become a professional photographer
- I will shoot kids, family gatherings, landscapes, travel stuff
- I would like something I can build upon
- I appreciate quality, and dont mind spending a fair price to get it.

That's about it. Let me know if you need more info, or have any good suggestions. I did briefly play with a Nikon D80 and Canon 30D in the store. I seemed to like the feel of the Canon more, but I will need to spend some more time. Any suggestions on body appreciated as well. I can probably spend $3k for Body and Lens(es) to get going.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Allstermac]

Another photo newbie... I just started with the Nikon D40. $599 with lens is dirt cheap and I know it does not compare to the big boys toys... but is so easy to learn with! It's only 6MP buy for me moving up from a 5 yr old sony point & shoot, it's great! I figure once I play with this for a year, I'll be thirsty for a nice set up... the good part about that! The tech advances the way things are, will have some sweet deals out there!

 

[valdore]

You can get the new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi with 18-55mm kit lens for $900. That's a great deal if you ask me.

 

[hodgjy]

Both Canon and Nikon have very comparable lenses and bodies. They are competitors with each other, so they have very similar quality and selections. You really can't go wrong with either platform. My advice is to go to a camera shop and handle and use every camera body you can. Ask to try different lenses on each body. See what body feels the best in your hands. See what control sets and interfaces you like the best. See what body feels "right" in your hands.

Then, go with the body you like the best. Either a Canon or a Nikon body will take very similar pictures. Each platform has almost the same lens selection. You can't go wrong with either platform.

 

[compuwar]

I will try to answer some upfront questions:
- I wish to go with a Nikon or Canon body
- I have no existing lenses
- I do not intend to become a professional photographer
- I will shoot kids, family gatherings, landscapes, travel stuff
- I would like something I can build upon
- I appreciate quality, and dont mind spending a fair price to get it.

For your usage, it really won't matter which one you get. Get the Canon if you like the handling better, either system will work for the above conditions.

 

[Abstract]

It won't matter. Get whichever camera you like the best. I guess it's like buying a car....you're never going to a very definite "this one is the best" answer anyway...not when all your options are good. You need to drive them all yourself, I say.

And besides, every company makes some great lenses, and then some bad lenses that everybody slags off. I think you're ok with any company's camera and lens "system", be it Nikon, Canon, or Pentax (at least think about it).

 

[Counterfit]

Plus, Sigma makes lenses for damn near everybody.

 

[valdore]

Plus, Sigma makes lenses for damn near everybody.

i've been pondering a sigma lens for my Canon digital. is it any better than the Canon brand lenses?

 

[coldrain]

i've been pondering a sigma lens for my Canon digital. is it any better than the Canon brand lenses?

No. Some Sigma lenses are good, and some Canon lenses are bad.
But on the whole, Canon lenses are very good.

So, a blanket statement is wrong, and without discussing actual individual Sigma lenses it is impossible to tell you which Sigma lenses are preferrable over Canon lenses.

And then there are some Tamron lenses that are worthwhile considering... and also 2 Tokina lenses... It really is about what type of lens you are interested in, and then to ask about those specific lenses.

 

[coldrain]

So, I will post it out to you all ..... What lense system should I go with ???
( I did a search, but could not find suitable post...sorry if covered)

I will try to answer some upfront questions:
- I wish to go with a Nikon or Canon body
- I have no existing lenses
- I do not intend to become a professional photographer
- I will shoot kids, family gatherings, landscapes, travel stuff
- I would like something I can build upon
- I appreciate quality, and dont mind spending a fair price to get it.

That's about it. Let me know if you need more info, or have any good suggestions. I did briefly play with a Nikon D80 and Canon 30D in the store. I seemed to like the feel of the Canon more, but I will need to spend some more time. Any suggestions on body appreciated as well. I can probably spend $3k for Body and Lens(es) to get going.

Thanks in advance.

So... kids, family gatherings.
Landcapes.
Travel stuff.

Not all lenses are equal. So, there actually are some lenses from one manufactur that are better than the other manufacturer, even if the difference may be small in some cases.

Travel stuff to me means NOT BIG AND HEAVY. Because with kids and family you already have to pack and carry a lot anyway.
So, no 70-200 f2.8 lenses that weigh already more than twice as much as a D80 or a 30D.

Some people like an all in one lens to travel with. Size and weight play a big role here, as does not wanting to change lenses (for whatever reason).
I am not one of those people, because with an all in one lens you have so many compromises that the optical qualities let you down a bit.
But, in case you don't mind that... Nikon has a 18-200 VR(=image stabilization). It has quite a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle, pin cushion distortion at longer focal lengths, very soft edges especially in wide angle. Its build quality is a bit of a letdown for a $800 lens.
Canon, does not have a lens like this. A "comparable" lens for the Canon would be a Sigma 18-200, which has no image stabilization, but is half the price of the Nikon.
Advantage: Nikon

A standard zoom. The nikon 18-135 kit lens is not a good lens, soft with other problems as well. So I will skip it. The Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 is quite a good lens colour and contrast wise. It has however a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end and strangely enough it has switched the normal places of the zoom and the focus ring, making it a bit confusing to work with when you switch lenses. The Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM offers IS, but also has quite a bit of barrel distortion and its colour and contrast are a bit of a let down to me. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 is the winner in this group in my opion, it is sharp, good colour and contrast, a bit faster, and offers a handy 1:2.3 macro mode.
Advantage: Sigma. Place 2: Nikon. Place 3: Canon.

"Fast" standard zoom. The Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 DX is a good lens especially at the 17-35mm range, above that it loses a bit of contrast and sharpness. It does show some CA wide open.
The Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is a very good lens, it is sharp over the whole range and does not show the extent of CA. It also offers IS which gives it a big advantage, especially in museums where non-flash photography is allowed.
These two lenses are quite expensive, the Nikon a bit more than the Canon.
Two quite good, cheaper alternatives: Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC macro, and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II. The Tamron may focus inaccurately on the D80, try before you buy.
Advantage: Canon

Wide angle landscape/travel view zoom.
The Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM is a very fast and accurately focussing lens with very little barrel distortion, making it a very attractive lens. Good colour and contrast. Do however not forget to buy its sun hood that does not come standard. The Nikon AF-S 12-24 f4 DX is also a good wide angle lens, good in colour and contrast again. It is quite a bit more expensive though, and build quality of both lenses is comparable.
Affordable alternatives:
Tokina 12-24mm f4, very sharp, great colour and contrast, but prone to more CA at 12mm and quite flare sensitive. Sigma 10-20mm. Quite a nice lens too, but vignets more than the 3 others, even when stopped down.
Advantage:
Canon price wise.

Tele zoom for travel/playing kids.
Since my position is that big and heavy teles are not a choice for traveling and family, lets look at less weighty lenses.
Canon 70-300 IS USM. Very very very sharp lens. Great colour and contrast. Offers a very handy 3-stop image stabilization. Under $600. Only downside I can see is the rotating front element, for people that want to use it with a circular polarizer. But this type of filter is usually used in wider lenses (landscape stuff). Nikon 70-300 VR. Quite a good lens, but not totally up to the level of the Canon optics. Also image stabilization. Costs more at this point in time, and may be hard to find because of low production figures to date (new lens).
Canon 70-200 f4 L. Great build quality, good sharpness, nice colour and contrast. Less than half the weight of the f2.8 versions, making it suitable for lighter traveling kits. Only downside I can think of: lens is not black, drawing some attention at times.
Canon 70-200 f4 L IS. Same as above, but with IS and taht gives it a hefty price tag.
Advantage: Canon

Low light primes (nice for indoor "portrait" shots of kids playing for instance, when you dont want to flash).
Nikon 50mm f1.8. Sharp, contrast and colour are good. Canon 50mm f1.8 Also quite sharp, and good colour and contrast. Build quality of the Canon feels quiet flimsy, it is a bit cheaper than the Nikon.
Advantage: Nikon
Nikon 50mm f1.4. Sharp, contrast and colour as good, but it has no real advantage over the already good f1.8 version from Nikon. Canon 50mm f1.4 USM. Sharper than the f1.8. better colour and contrast, much better build quality.
Advantage: Canon
Overall advantage 50mm primes: Nikon, since their 50mm f1.8 costs a 3rd of the Canon 50mm f1.4

Wide angle fast prime for indoor shots. Nikon 35mm f2. Canon 35mm f2. Both are sharp on the whole, well built, and offer good colour and contrast.
Advantage: Nikon and Canon

$3000 will buy you:
EOS 30D
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
EF 70-300 IS USM
Tokina 12-24 f4

EOS 30D
Sigma 18-50 EX DC macro
EF 70-300 IS USM
EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
EF 50mm f1.4

EOS 30D
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II
EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM
Tokina 12-24 f4

Nikon D80
AFS 17-55 f2.8 DX
AFS 12-24 f4

Nikon D80
Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro
AFS 70-300 VR
Tokina 12-24mm
AF 50mm f1.8
AF 35mm f2

Nikon D80
Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro
AFS 12-24 f4
AFs 70-300 VR

The mostly bit higher prices of the Nikon lenses, especially the 12-24 f4, make combinations for that amount a bit tricky. Since I did not look up exact current USD prices, some combinations will be a bit over.. and some may leave some room still. I leave it to you to find prices available to you.

 

[dllavaneras]

Any of those will be a great choice. The D80 and the 30D will give you lots of room to grow. Personally I would lean towards the Canon because of the high ISO performance and very specific lenses, but for what you're planning to shoot, both will give you excellent results. Investigate more on the lenses suggested above (a great description, BTW)

Personally, I think a wide angle, a short zoom and a long zoom are the way to go, but I don't take portraits. Base your purchase on what you want to shoot

 

[VanMac]

Thanks for all the great posts/replies.

Coldrain - special thanks for a very informative post. Wow.

I will have to go into the shop and check out some deals, and manhandle them some more. I have briefly picked up some D40, Rebels XTi models earlier, but prefer the feel of the bigger brothers.

I live in Canada, and Henry's has a bit of a kit special with the following for $2999.
CANON EOS-30D
17-40 F4 L
70-200 F4 L

Reviews on these lenses seem decent. Is there an issue with these lenses only having an F4, as oppossed to maybe an F2.8. Any opinions on this kit are appreciated. Also, for some reason, their website does not identify these lenses as USM, but only reviews I can find specify this as a USM lens?

 

[drlunanerd]

A standard zoom. The nikon 18-135 kit lens is not a good lens, soft with other problems as well.

Can you please stop repeating this misinformation? The 18-135 is actually one of the sharpest zoom lenses Nikon make. It does indeed have other problems, but sharpness is not one of them.

To be frank coldrain, I think your photography is pretty good but your measurbating is really tiring to read. My advice would be to spend less time arguing about camera gear on here and more time taking good photos

 

[coldrain]

Thanks for all the great posts/replies.

Coldrain - special thanks for a very informative post. Wow.

I will have to go into the shop and check out some deals, and manhandle them some more. I have briefly picked up some D40, Rebels XTi models earlier, but prefer the feel of the bigger brothers.

I live in Canada, and Henry's has a bit of a kit special with the following for $2999.
CANON EOS-30D
17-40 F4 L
70-200 F4 L

Reviews on these lenses seem decent. Is there an issue with these lenses only having an F4, as oppossed to maybe an F2.8. Any opinions on this kit are appreciated. Also, for some reason, their website does not identify these lenses as USM, but only reviews I can find specify this as a USM lens?

The maximum aperture is about how much light a lens can get through to the film/sensor. Aperture means opening. A large aperture means a very shallow depth of field, but short shutter times.

To make large aperture lenses, you need to have big, and heavy, lens elements. So... both size, weight and price go up, with a bigger maximum aperture.

The EF 17-40 f4 L USM is a very good lens. I did not mention it, because it is a full frame lens. The 17-55/18-50/17-50 f2.8 lenses I mentioned are APS-C lenses, meaning that even with F2.8 they can be lighter because of the reduced image circle (APS-C format).

This does not mean that the 17-40 f4 L USM is not worthwhile though. It is a very good, well built lens, with "L" colour and contrast. Nikon does not have an equivalent. Both the f2.8 versions of Nikon and Canon are a lot more expensive (Canon 16-35 f2.8 L, Nikon 17-35 f2.8), and have some optics quirks because of their extreme build that do not make them better. Heavier, much more expensive, and one f-stop more light. That is the difference.

The 70-200 f4L USM also has no Nikon equivalent. Again, like i said in above post, the f2.8 versions from Sigma, Nikon and Canon are very heavy and I do not want to lug that weight around. That is the f4's main advantage... less size and less than half the weight.

Both lenses always have an USM AF system, so that they do not mention it does not matter.

Do not stare yourself blind on this deal though, for instance the f2.8 18-50 and 17-50 tamron, or the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM Canon, also are good lenses and will be more compact. And the 70-300 IS is more compact than the 70-200 f4 L, and offers 100mm more tele reach.

So, a nice kit, but not your only option.

 

[EstorilM]

Yeah, this is going to turn into a long thread.

To be honest with you (and I'm a little surprised I'm going to be the first to say this) I would do exactly the opposite of what the OP mentioned as far as picking the lenses THEN deciding what camera to get.

I mean, there are TONS of lenses out there to choose from, most of which will look the same in REAL WORLD performance, on a non FF camera, for general p&s stuff. On the other hand, there are maybe 1-2 camera bodies from each company that you would ever consider, and the performance differences between these are far different than the lenses.

Having said that, I think it's important that you go and find the camera that feels best to you. I really don't want to start an argument here, but the build quality (for non-pro) is better on the Nikons - from control layout, feature accessibility (without using menus, the Nikons have far more switches, dials, toggles, etc - even programmable buttons) usually also better viewfinders, more informative status LCDs, less shutter lag, viewfinder blackout, bigger buffers, etc. Control placement seems far better to me as well, and the deign of the buttons goes far beyond the simple round dimples canon likes to use.

Look for the little things, like the raised edges around the sides of the status LCD on most nikons, to protect it from scuffs and scratches. They also include screen covers, and have quick-release spring loaded CF / battery doors, unlike the snap open/manual canon types. For me anyways, it's clear that Nikon puts a lot more time into designing their cameras. As far as the D200 goes, it can do a stunning amount of things most people aren't even aware of - like an internal intervalometer (tell it when to start shooting, how many shots to take, what framerate, for how long, and leave it be. % remaining battery information (look at the difference in battery graphs between the cameras as well, the D200 has 7 steps, most non-pro canons have 2.. unless you count "dead/off" as one of them) weather sealed body, 4 custom programmable menu modes, 4 custom programmable shooting modes, programmable function button on the front of the camera (in addition to almost every button being a "hybrid" if you decide to program it that way in the menus.) Even the focus system has modes like closest-subject priority, 7-area wide AF, variable (programmable) tracking, acquisition, fall-off, and more.

So, keep an eye out for the little things when you pick them up for yourself. There are a lot of things that make one camera much more of a pleasure to use than another camera - most of which you won't notice when you simple pick it up for a few minutes in a store.

 

[Father Jack]

Both Nikon and Canon lenses are great, but personally I think Canon lenses have the edge.



FJ

 

[coldrain]

Can you please stop repeating this misinformation? The 18-135 is actually one of the sharpest zoom lenses Nikon make. It does indeed have other problems, but sharpness is not one of them.

To be frank coldrain, I think your photography is pretty good but your measurbating is really tiring to read. My advice would be to spend less time arguing about camera gear on here and more time taking good photos

Woops, I stepped on some long Nikon toes again.

You may like the 18-135 is you want, fine. But not everybody will agree with you. Take forinstance the very godo camera review from Jeff Keller over at dcresource.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d80-review/

"Here's our distortion test, and I naturally used the 18 - 135 mm kit lens for this one. There's strong barrel distortion at the wide end of the lens, and you can see the real world effect of this in shots like this. The chart also shows some vignetting (dark corners), and I saw this pop up in a real world photo as well (example)."

"The only real complaint I have about the D80's photo quality is that photos are on the soft side, especially when you're using a not-so-great lens like the 18-135 kit lens. I noticed a substantial improvement in sharpness when I used a 50 mm "prime" lens. The cliché "you get what you pay for" holds true with lenses -- at least most of the time."

"Photo quality is excellent, especially with a decent lens. The D80 took well-exposed photos with consumer-friendly saturated colors, very low noise, and minimal purple fringing. Photos were soft straight out of the camera (and the so-so 18-135 kit lens doesn't help matters), but you can adjust the in-camera sharpening if that bothers you. I didn't find redeye to be a problem, but if you encounter it you can use the built-in redeye removal tool to get rid of it."

When you look at the example photos from his review you quickly can see why he was not all that impressed with that lens. And when Jeff Keller actually complains about how a lens performs, you can be sure it is below average.

Ken Rockwell on the other hand finds the lens to be sharp.... but he notices these wonderful traits:
"It has a lot of distortion, if you care. ... The distortion at the wide end can't be removed completely in Photoshop CS2's lens distortion filter."

"It has a lot of side color fringing at the very wide and telephoto ends of the zoom range which you will see in prints."

"Expensive for what you get."

He gives no examples, so his claim for sharpness (clearly lacking in Jeff Keller's sample) are hard to verify.

Thom Hogan again appears to have a sharp sample?
But he doesn't like some things about it:
"Light falloff: Vignetting is clearly there at all focal lengths, and it doesn't get fully controlled until about f/8 for 18-24mm and f/11 for everything else. The worst case light falloff is at 18mm and f/3.5, where the corners can be as much as a stop lower in value than the center. But there's a good two-thirds of a stop falloff at every focal length at maximum aperture. Overall, a disappointing performance."

Chromatic aberration: Chromatic aberration is also a problem with this lens. At the widest and longest focal lengths, chromatic aberration is seen near the center of the image as well as the edges, and is more prevalent than on other recent Nikkors. From 50 to 100mm, the results are better, with the center of the frame being mostly free from color fringing and the edges less impacted than at other focal lengths. Still, not an impressive performance.

Distortion: Distortion performance is average. At 18mm, there is significant barrel distortion that gets into the visible range (>1%). Curiously, there's no marked focal length that's free from linear distortion, as by the time you get to 24mm the lens is already producing pincushion distortion, which remains relatively constant up through 135mm. The pincushioning isn't particularly high (~0.7% with peaks in as much as 1%), but it's present pretty much throughout the focal range.

"Variable aperture. The big issue is that at 70mm this is already an f/5.6 lens, which means that autofocus in low light can be compromised."

So on one side you have the SLRgear "review", on the other side not all that positive experiences by Jeff Keller, Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell.
If we attribute Jeff Keller's "softness" partly to CA, all three seem to have a big issue with this. SLRgear claims some heavy CA problems too:
"Chromatic aberration varies in a complex fashion as you zoom the lens. At wide angle, both maximum and average CA is fairly high, meaning that the CA extends fairly far into the image area (something confirmed in our real-world shooting with it). In middle focal lengths, maximum CA is even higher, but the average is quite low, meaning that the high CA is confined to the extreme edges and corners of the focal plane. Overall CA is lowest at about 105mm, but increases to higher values at 135mm, particularly when the lens is stopped down."

"Probing deeper though, it became evident that the 18-135's sharpness came at some cost in other areas, particularly geometric distortion and light falloff in the corners, commonly (if somewhat incorrectly) referred to as vignetting. Geometric distortion swings very rapidly from significant (1.17%) barrel distortion at 18mm to pretty pronounced (0.67%) pincushion distortion at 24mm. Pincushion increases to a high of 0.97% at 35mm, and then decreases gradually, reaching 0.66% at 135mm."

Another review from a user that finds it soft, like Jeff Keller:
http://www.epinions.com/content_281999871620

I don't know about you, but I am not going to advice a lens with to my eyes diappointing performance (see for instance the samples in Jeff Keller's review) and that seems to have many faults (see above reviews and opinions).

 

[dllavaneras]

To be honest with you (and I'm a little surprised I'm going to be the first to say this) I would do exactly the opposite of what the OP mentioned as far as picking the lenses THEN deciding what camera to get.

This may work for some peope, but for me it just doesn't do it. I like to shoot extreme macros, and Canon has the only true extreme macro lens I've seen. AFAIK, Nikon's macro lenses only go up to 1:1, while there's a Canon lens that goes up to 5X. I agree (to some extent) with your comments about handling and design on the Nikons, nut I've picked up a 30D and it's just great to handle. I didn't like the D80 so much. It's a pretty subjective topic.

 

[drlunanerd]

Woops, I stepped on some long Nikon toes again.

Not at all. Just like you, I don't own this lens and wouldn't recommend it either. Just correcting your repeated false claim that it's not sharp, when the vast majority of reviews and owner's opinions, including the ones you've just quoted, say it is sharp. So Jeff says a prime lens is sharper than a zoom - no **** Sherlock, what an insightful review! Everyone else says it's sharp - for a zoom.

 

[coldrain]

I also do not at all agree with the "choose a body first, the lenses are less important" mantra.
Not at all, actually.

The most important parts for making a good photo, in order, are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lens.
3. The camera body.

And the most important aspect to a camera body, in my opinion, is one thing... the sensor. This determines the smoothness of skin tone variations, smoothness of shadow areas, some detail level, and especially how it performs at high ISO in regards to noise, detail loss due to noise reduction, and contrast loss due to noise and noise reduction.

Not how confusing, and complex you can make an AF system without making it actually better (Nikon D200).

The lens will be a very big factor in what a photo looks like, in subtle but important ways, most of the time giving it a certain "snap" without you knowing/understanding exactly WHY the photo has something special.
My dad was an optics expert somewhat, he had dealings with Nikon for lenses of prototype silicon lithogarphy machines for Philips in the early/mid 1970's. He was very particular in lens choices, and that shows in a lot of the photographes he made. His Nikkormat FTn didn't have AF, didn't have weather sealing, wasn't the size of a 1kilo sugar pack, didn't even have a "grip", and yet photos taken with certain lenses have something special.

And that is the most important thing. That is why I myself chose a Canon 350D about 2 years ago, for its sensor, mirror lock up, size and weight, and the lens line up from Canon. I wanted a light high quality zoom lens, and Canon was the only one offering such a lens (70-200 f4 IS USM). Now this has gotten competition in the Canon 70-300 IS USM. And in future, when I can afford it, I want to get some serious L prime lenses... and Canon's L lens line up is very impressive.

So... that is what my choice was based on... lens lineup (lenses stay with you for decades... cameras keep on changing), sensor performance, and small size/weight so I can put it an a small back pack with some lenses thrown in too, and take it everywhere.

 

[dllavaneras]

The most important parts for making a good photo, in order, are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lens.
3. The camera body.

And LIGHT! Never forget the light

 

[Father Jack]

Can you please stop repeating this misinformation? The 18-135 is actually one of the sharpest zoom lenses Nikon make[/URL]

I'm not well into photography but if this is true and the reviews say this lens is poor ........ what does this say about the rest of the Nikon lens line-up?



FJ

 

[drlunanerd]

I'm not well into photography but if this is true and the reviews say this lens is poor ........ what does this say about the rest of the Nikon lens line-up?
FJ

Ha ha. I'll spell it out - the lens is sharp, but it's got problems like excessive chromatic aberration, distortion etc. Sharpness is only one facet of a lens's performance.

Do yourself a favour and read the reviews yourself, not something that someone on here says in trying to prove their superior measurbating

 

[Father Jack]

Ha ha. I'll spell it out - the lens is sharp, but it's got problems like excessive chromatic aberration, distortion etc. Sharpness is only one facet of a lens's performance.

Do yourself a favour and read the reviews yourself, not something that someone on here says in trying to prove their superior measurbating

Sorry I assumed that if a lens suffers from chromatic aberration and distortion that means it is poor.

By reviewers I was referring to the people who reviewed the lens, not posters on this forum.


FJ

 

[Jay42]

You will get a ton of info on this topic. I could offer you specific advice on what to buy, etc. but you will have more of than than you need.


My one piece of advice is to put a significant amount of your budget towards a decent lens. It is often tempting to stretch for a high priced body and wind up disappointed with the performance from the lousy kit lens. For example, if your budget is $1000, try and put aside at least $500 of that towards a decent lens (say the Canon 17-40 f/4 L or the 70-200 f/4 L) and leave $400-$500 for a used rebel XT body (great camera). Remember, if you are looking to get into photography, you will want to upgrade pretty much any body you get in 5 or so years anyway. Better off just getting into it with a modest body with a good quality lens that you will keep for 30+ years.