Steve'sDigicams

Mazen · Oct 28, 2006, 8:50 PM

Hey all, im considering buying a Nikon D50, i'm still very confused whether i buy a D50 (which i really like in size and all) or a Canon Rebel XT or XTi...i'd like help on that, and about the D50 what lenses are better Nikon or Sigma or Tamron?
Thanks

JimC · Oct 28, 2006, 9:01 PM

You really have to take each lens on a case by case basis.

All of the major manufacturers have very good quality lenses, and relatively low quality lenses.

One lens may be better suited for a given task versus another, too (focal range, brightness, focus speed, size, weight, ergonomics, and more).

We have some dedidated Canon and Nikon Lens Forums here that you may want to visit to get some tips on what to look for, once you've narrowed down your camera choice.

Mazen · Oct 28, 2006, 9:04 PM

Ok! perfect....well but i thought like Nikon lenses were a little "high-end" compared to sigma and tamron...cuz i thought those were VERY commercial leanses?am i right or it's still a relative thing considering diferent aspects?
thanks again

JimC · Oct 28, 2006, 9:44 PM

You have to take each lens on a case by case basis. ;-)

Nikon has some relatively low quality lenses. So, do the other manufacturers.

Nikon has some great lenses. So, do the other manufacturers.

You'll see big differences between lenses within a manufacturer (construction quality, ergonomics, focus speed, distortion, chromatic aberrations, sharpness at wide open apertures, sharpness at smaller apertures, resistance to flare, contrast, brightness, size, weight, cost and more).

You can't expect a $100 lens to perform like a $2000 lens.

Does that mean that a lower cost lens can't work for you? It depends on the conditions you plan on using it in, the purpose of the images, your expectations of quality and more.

In better light, it may take a trained eye to even notice the differences between images generated by a lower quality versus higher quality lens, and most lenses are a little sharper if they are stopped down some (not used at their largest available apertures). In more extreme conditions, you may need a better lens though.

All of the manufacturers offer a pretty good variety of lenses at a variety of price points.

Some are better suited to one task versus another.

Also, you may not want the highest quality lens you can find, even if you can afford it. Things like size and weight come into the equation, too. A brighter lens is usually larger and heavier for a given focal range.

Convenience comes into the equation. For example, the greater the difference between wide and long, the more compromises a manufacturer usually makes. The highest quality lenses are usually primes (non-zoom). But, depending on what you're shooting, a zoom may be much more practical. lol Many users have a variety of lenses.

Conditions can play a big role. For example, you may not want to try and use a low cost 70-200mm f/4-5.6 zoom to take photos of night sports. A lens that's down to f/5.6 on it's long end is just not suited to that task, because it's not bright enough. So you'd end up with more motion blur in images, reducing the number of acceptable images you get.

So, a larger and heavier zoom than can maintain f/2.8 (which is 4 times as bright as f/5.6) throughout it's focal range is a good idea.

Any lens choice is a compromise.

DougJGreen · Oct 28, 2006, 10:33 PM

I do not believe that the new Carl Zeiss 1700mm f4.0 lens is a compromise in any way. Not in speed, not in size (it weighs 500 pounds), not in cost (if you have to ask, you can't afford it).

JimC wrote:

Quote:

Any lens choice is a compromise.

JimC · Oct 28, 2006, 10:49 PM

The rumoured price tag I saw that someone is payiing for this lens was into the 7 figure range, too (from someone that discussed the lens with them).

But, they've pulled their post about the price (it was mentioned on another forum and the post mentioning it seems to have been removed, even though the thread about the lens remains there). The person that made the post was the site owner, not just a new member spreading rumours. But, they did qualify it with "rumoured price tag" originally. lol

DougJGreen · Oct 29, 2006, 1:09 AM

Well, if you buy lenses like prime beef, by the pound, it would be fairly priced at $1 Million for a > 500 lb. lens. That's just under $2000 a pound, which is pretty typical for fast pro glass.

DRGSin · Nov 21, 2006, 2:53 PM

DougJGreen wrote:

Quote:

Well, if you buy lenses like prime beef, by the pound, it would be fairly priced at $1 Million for a > 500 lb. lens. That's just under $2000 a pound, which is pretty typical for fast pro glass.

Thats hilarious! Those of us that are passionate about our work, hobby or whatever photography may be to each of us will go to any length and mean to justify it. Do you mind if I use your quote for my next purchase? I loved it!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Oct 28, 2006, 8:50 PM	#1
Mazen Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 24	Hey all, im considering buying a Nikon D50, i'm still very confused whether i buy a D50 (which i really like in size and all) or a Canon Rebel XT or XTi...i'd like help on that, and about the D50 what lenses are better Nikon or Sigma or Tamron? Thanks

Oct 28, 2006, 9:01 PM	#2
JimC Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Savannah, GA (USA) Posts: 22,378	You really have to take each lens on a case by case basis. All of the major manufacturers have very good quality lenses, and relatively low quality lenses. One lens may be better suited for a given task versus another, too (focal range, brightness, focus speed, size, weight, ergonomics, and more). We have some dedidated Canon and Nikon Lens Forums here that you may want to visit to get some tips on what to look for, once you've narrowed down your camera choice.

Oct 28, 2006, 9:04 PM	#3
Mazen Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 24	Ok! perfect....well but i thought like Nikon lenses were a little "high-end" compared to sigma and tamron...cuz i thought those were VERY commercial leanses?am i right or it's still a relative thing considering diferent aspects? thanks again

Oct 28, 2006, 9:44 PM	#4
JimC Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Savannah, GA (USA) Posts: 22,378	You have to take each lens on a case by case basis. ;-) Nikon has some relatively low quality lenses. So, do the other manufacturers. Nikon has some great lenses. So, do the other manufacturers. You'll see big differences between lenses within a manufacturer (construction quality, ergonomics, focus speed, distortion, chromatic aberrations, sharpness at wide open apertures, sharpness at smaller apertures, resistance to flare, contrast, brightness, size, weight, cost and more). You can't expect a $100 lens to perform like a $2000 lens. Does that mean that a lower cost lens can't work for you? It depends on the conditions you plan on using it in, the purpose of the images, your expectations of quality and more. In better light, it may take a trained eye to even notice the differences between images generated by a lower quality versus higher quality lens, and most lenses are a little sharper if they are stopped down some (not used at their largest available apertures). In more extreme conditions, you may need a better lens though. All of the manufacturers offer a pretty good variety of lenses at a variety of price points. Some are better suited to one task versus another. Also, you may not want the highest quality lens you can find, even if you can afford it. Things like size and weight come into the equation, too. A brighter lens is usually larger and heavier for a given focal range. Convenience comes into the equation. For example, the greater the difference between wide and long, the more compromises a manufacturer usually makes. The highest quality lenses are usually primes (non-zoom). But, depending on what you're shooting, a zoom may be much more practical. lol Many users have a variety of lenses. Conditions can play a big role. For example, you may not want to try and use a low cost 70-200mm f/4-5.6 zoom to take photos of night sports. A lens that's down to f/5.6 on it's long end is just not suited to that task, because it's not bright enough. So you'd end up with more motion blur in images, reducing the number of acceptable images you get. So, a larger and heavier zoom than can maintain f/2.8 (which is 4 times as bright as f/5.6) throughout it's focal range is a good idea. Any lens choice is a compromise.

Oct 28, 2006, 10:49 PM	#6
JimC Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Savannah, GA (USA) Posts: 22,378	The rumoured price tag I saw that someone is payiing for this lens was into the 7 figure range, too (from someone that discussed the lens with them). But, they've pulled their post about the price (it was mentioned on another forum and the post mentioning it seems to have been removed, even though the thread about the lens remains there). The person that made the post was the site owner, not just a new member spreading rumours. But, they did qualify it with "rumoured price tag" originally. lol

Oct 29, 2006, 1:09 AM	#7
DougJGreen Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 198	Well, if you buy lenses like prime beef, by the pound, it would be fairly priced at $1 Million for a > 500 lb. lens. That's just under $2000 a pound, which is pretty typical for fast pro glass.