Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 1, 2007, 11:15 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 105
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
While Sigma and Tamron do produce some really good lenses, some of which are on par with the offerings from Canon and Nikon, some real junk also comes out with their name on it.
Well, according to the detailed review I mentioned (no, it's not online) the Tamron and Sigma handsomely beat the Nikon, Canon, Sony 70-300 low end lenses, also the Olympus 40-150 although I'm not sure why that was in the test as it only has 2/3 the reach of the others. You have to spend a lot of money to beat the Sigma and Tamron 70-300 lenses.
SteveB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2007, 12:59 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I know that the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro and the Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro are fine lenses, and compare favorably with some offerings from Canon and Nikon. But they should not be confused with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro (non-APO) or the Tamron 75-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Macro (non-Di), which are priced lower still, and are, if not inferior to the offerings from Canon and Nikon, then certainly on par with them. So, the truth is, the 'cheap' Sigma and Tamron lenses did not beat the seeminglyequivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon. The lenses that did are at least one step up from the 'cheap' lenses.

I was not disputing the findings of the magazine you quoted. I was just cautioning the OP about blindly accepting such broad statements as "The Tamron and Sigma cheap 70-300mm lenses beat ALL the camera manufacturers lenses at anywhere near their prices ... ". That kind of statement sticks with people, and the truth usually falls short of the expectations it might inspire.

And the Olympus 40-150 would have been included because 4/3 dSLRs have a 2.0x Crop Factor which gives the 40-150 an angle of view equivalent to an 80-300mm lens on a 35mm film SLR. To be fair, because of the 1.5x Crop factor on a Nikon, the 70-300 would have an angle of view equivalent to a 105-450mm lens on a 35mm film SLR. So it would have been more correct for them to include the Olympus50-200mm, but then they wouldn't be comparing low priced telephoto zooms.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2007, 12:35 AM   #13
Member
 
Island Brook Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 30
Default

Well I got the standard Pentax K100d I was going to purchase the super version but I was told by a local source that dust removal systems are mostly useless....anyway not the point...the point is I got the K100D for 569 and tax canadain with the kit lens....

I am so happy that and some old SMC fixed 50mm.....Aperture 1.4 to 22 that I bought with a Pentax KM camera for a buck at a flea market 2 yrs ago works on the pentax just fine...I just have to tell the camera that it's "50mm" for the shake reduction to work.....

I think I'm really going to enjoy learning this camera....

Here is a pic I took 6 hours after camera purchase with the old fixed lens...Manual settings including a custom white balance setting.....

A bitout of focus...but I think I moved slightly and with such a shallow depth...well you know... : )

f stop 1.4

shutter was either 20 or 30



Attached Images
 
Island Brook Trout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2007, 12:35 AM   #14
Member
 
Island Brook Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 30
Default

How rude...sorry....thanks for the help and advice : )

Mike


Island Brook Trout 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 11:00 PM.