Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 21, 2006, 11:12 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Why would anyone think Sony should price their lens cheaper than Canon, especially if they are equal or exceed them in optical quality?
I am not syaing they should make them cheaper. You are the one always showing how much cheaper non-canon brand bodiesare. I am simply stating that one has to take into account the lenses along with the body and see which system is cheaper.

Add top quality glass (super-teles) to in body IS cameras and they lot more expensive than say canon bodies with super-tele lenses with IS in the lens.

Sigma makes some good glass but they don't have anything which I need like:

300/400 f2.8 IS

400 f5.6

500/600 f4 IS

I know 120-300 f2.8 is good but it is still not like 300 f2.8 IS. Sigma does have anice 300-800 though which no one else has. Just wish they put some IS on it.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2006, 11:22 AM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
I know 120-300 f2.8 is good but it is still not like 300 f2.8 IS.
True. Too bad it costs an extra $2000 to get the added quality of the Canon 300mm.

Tough to justify unless you're making enough profit for a good ROI on that $2000 investment. I still agree with you though.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2006, 12:31 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

Go look at - www.dpreview.com - and read about Nikon about to announce their 2nd DSLR with 8.2MP in 20 days, or go to:

www.nikonimaging.com/global Most think it will be the replacement for the D70/70s

I am aware that the D200 has noise issues at ISO's over 400(or is it 800?) & the Canons do better at ISO 1600, but hey, IF Canon can make a 10.2 or 11 or 12MP DSLR body with low noise at high ISO's, then great! But let's get the show going. I was told by someone that the reason the 30D was not a 10.2 MP camera that Chuck Westfall said that if the used the current sensor in the 30D & made it 10.2MP the only glass that would yield any decent images would be 'L' glass only.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2006, 4:02 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Hows does increasing MP decrease optical quality? I think the main issue was that the ISO performance would drop if they just added more MP without doing anything else to the sensor.

And in photozone, the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS is one of the sharpest lenses for the XT, beating some of the L's.

If you sit down and think about it, it makes sense. The 17-55 weighs around 700 grams. The 24-70 L weighs around 900. I'd say most of the difference is in the build quality. You have plastic on one and metal alloy on the other. The filter size on the 17-55 is 77mm, the same as the 24-70 L. So in the end, you have around the same amount of glass in both lenses, one that's been optimized for a smaller sensor, and one that's been optimized for a larger sensor(or film). Which one would perform better? This brings me to another one of my gripes with Canon: not "L"ing the 17-55.

If you advertise a lens as having "L" optics, then you might as well make it an L all together. Did Canon think their professional customers would be too stupid to know that this lens is an EF-s and can't use it on their Mks and 5Ds? Or do they really want L's to be only FF? In that case, why did they "L" up their Pro1 P&S?

I don't mind having a 1.6x body. I like the tele side more, and the 17-55 proves that you can produce superior images with an APS-C sensor.

If Canon really wanted to upset a good portion of their customers, they'll drop the price of a FF low enough for (even more) people to switch over. This certainly looks inevitable with the recent release of the 5D. Now Canon gave hope to the average user to move up to FF. So what happens? The sales for EF-s lenses go down and thus encourages Canon to 1) Slow development of EF-s lenses and 2) invest more into FF.

What does FF really give you? All I can see is a higher pixel count (without risking ISO performance) and overall improvement in ISO. But really, this can be done with smaller sensors. Just look at the P&S and their tiny sensors. They would not be able to have 6-8MP if the ISO performance didn't improve over the years. You give it time, and people find ways of shoving more MP into a camera and reduce the noise at higher ISO settings.

The only thing left for canon to do is to point at the 50-or-so EF lenses which consists of their L's and have been optimized for FF (but can still be used on APS-c). Then Canon points at the 5 EF-s lenses for APS-c sensors (but can't be used on FF). It's obvious what the general consumer would go for but if it was me, I'd rather have the same amount of glass in L lenses to be optimized for APS-c sensors.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2006, 7:34 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
Sigma makes some good glass but they don't have anything which I need like:

300/400 f2.8 IS

400 f5.6

500/600 f4 IS

I know 120-300 f2.8 is good but it is still not like 300 f2.8 IS. Sigma does have anice 300-800 though which no one else has. Just wish they put some IS on it.
Let's face it - How many people buy the 500-600 f/4 or 300-400 f/2.8?
The folks who buy theses lenses are the exception and not the rule. They would not buy a Sony/Pentax even if they're given away!!!

The potential Sony owners are recent upgrader from the P&S and trading up to a dSLR is already a big expense, let alone other ancilliary equipments like the required heavy duty tripod or gymbal/heads to support theses massive lenses - $4000 on 1 lens alone? Forget it - Theses are hobbyist with a family (and diapers bag) to enjoy I don't think they appreciate the labor required to get everything into the field yet :-)

-> Sigma did make an excellent 400 f/5.6, but they discontinued because the 100-300 f/4 zoom exceeds it in optical performance with a 1.4x teleconverter on.
-> The 300 f/2.8 prime is also made by many manyfacturers including Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma and not just the 120-300 f/2.8 so all theses 'more affordable' lenses will now have IS with the body.

This is what a typical system would cost (for the average Joe): :idea:
Note the EF-s 10-22 won't have IS, neither the kit lens nor any macro or other standard primes in the Canon "system"
* Theses selected lenses (all will have IS with the body) are also to match or exceed the Canon's in optical performances according to: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2006, 7:48 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:
Quote:
And in photozone, the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS is one of the sharpest lenses for the XT, beating some of the L's.
Exactly!

I have the opportunity to trade up to the 5D but instead opt for the 1D MrkIIN... for the better AF performance and speed

Full frame is great for more dynamic range, but if one looks at the L lenses to make use of the wider angle and extra resolution, but almost in all cases the EF-s or 3rd party 'digital' lenses outperform the L in resolution -> especially at the peripherals so where's the gain?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2006, 7:58 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
but almost in all cases the EF-s or 3rd party 'digital' lenses outperform the L in resolution -> especially at the peripherals so where's the gain?
Not that I disagree, but how do those EF-S and third party digital lenses perform on your 1.3 crop Mk II N?

That's their downside in the Canon system. They're great products but with 3 different sensor sizes in canon's lineup and these lenses only working on one of them, that's a small problem IMO
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2006, 9:52 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

JohnG:

EF-s lenses only work with the following cameras:

Digital Rebel; Rebel XT; 20D & 30D - so what was Canon thinking - when they left the owners of the D60 & 10D "out in the cold" so to speak - the EF-s equivalent lenses by Sigma, Tamron & Tokina all work with the D60s(I presume the D30)'s all the way up to the 30D, but none work on the 1.3x crop bodies.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2006, 10:10 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
Not that I disagree, but how do those EF-S and third party digital lenses perform on your 1.3 crop Mk II N?
... and that's the other bonus going for 3rd party 'digital' lenses: The Tamron and Tokina are designed to work on full-frame - The 18-125 Sigma (which is superior in every respect optically to the EF-s 17-85) for example works on both my 10D and 1D mrkII

-> the EF-s just won't fit at all on either one !!! :evil:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2006, 2:12 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Now that's good info to know!!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 AM.