Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have finally settled on getting a sony a700 slr - any reasons not to get it.
- Thread starter macgrl
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you're going to buy consumer lenses, I don't know why you just don't go for the Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 VC, which is more practical.
But then, why are you getting a 40D-class camera?
But I wouldn't get any Canon Rebel or Nikon D40/D40x/D60.
You can get cheaper cameras with built-in stabilization from other vendors and
make one of the lenses an f/2.8 if you go third-party.
But then, why are you getting a 40D-class camera?
But I wouldn't get any Canon Rebel or Nikon D40/D40x/D60.
You can get cheaper cameras with built-in stabilization from other vendors and
make one of the lenses an f/2.8 if you go third-party.
The A700 that the OP was originally sold on features 40D performance, AND built in image stabilization. It's a no brainer IMO!
SLC
I am also going to get Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS Zoom Lens and a EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens I believe that this should cover what I want to shot and gives a good starting point for my lens collection
instead of the 17-85, get a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50 macro. if you don't want third-party, then just stick with the 18-55 IS.
and in-camera stabilization isn't as effective is in-lens, in case anyone doesn't know. of course, you have to pay for that effectiveness.
We know (those of us who are advocating in camera stabilization), but Sony's have been tested to gain an advantage as high as 3.5 stops, while even the best lens based units are only going to give at maximum a stop better. And you've got to pay for each lens that you want stabilized. It's really not a huge difference in performance (not enough to sway me at least) but it is a huge difference in price in the long run.
SLC