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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 17, 2008, 6:54 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
So what's the point? Well simply that a blanket statement of "It's cheaper to put IS in the body than in every lens." doesn't really apply when you are talking about the high-end telephoto lenses. The Sony and Olympus lenses are actually MORE expensive. They may be (probably are) optically superior, but don't choose Sony or Olympus because in-body IS is going to save money. At the top end it's not!
I tend to agree with what peripatetic wrote, but again one can not use a blanket statement when it relates to the Oly:
1. While it's true that an Olympus 300mm f2.8 might cost £4770, but this lens however is actually equivalent to a 600mm f/2.8 in Canon or Nikon mounts so if one looks under this context, the Oly 300mm is actually a big saving on the high-end telephoto! Plus this lens is not only faster by 1-stop but it's actually lot lighter and handholdable than a 600mm f/4 which always requires a tripod...
2. Ditto with the 35-100 f/2 where there's no equivalent in the Canon and Nikon mounts for an aperture of f/2 in this zoom range...


As to the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G (or 300mm f2.8 G) thoses lenses were always historically more expensive than the Canon/Nikon conterpart. This was before IS (or even digital) especially in the Minolta 70-200 f/2.8 case where it was reknown to produce the best bokeh and and one of the very 1st lens to sport SSM (ultrasonic) at the time... They didn't make any change since (an probably why Minolta went belly up), but Sony did lower the price a bit recently so will see, of everyone they should know how to be competitive...

-> IMO the biggest advantage with in body IS/VR is to level the playing field with 3rd party lenses where every lenses will then have IS or VR when its built-in to the body - Not so with Canon or Nikon (imagine everyone's 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8 for example get stabilized) :sad:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 7:07 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Peripatetic makes an excellent point. The blanket statement that it's cheaper when it's in body is becoming less and less true. Besides the telephoto end being very expensive (even more so usng peri's examples), Nikon and canon are now releasing affordable VR glass at the consumer level. The 55-200 and 18-55 are both vr enabled and both cost less than $279 us each. Lenses are pretty much a one time purchase that you'll be able to use perhaps the rest of your life with care. Bodies are interchangeable, and even disposable. I'll be changing bodies more than lenses over the years. One could argue that by buying IS lenses your getting IS for your system and it's a one time purchase, but you have to buy IS everytime you get a new body if you go with one of the body based IS/OS cameras.

Of course you can't just apply blanket statements, and that goes both ways. Not every top end tele lens from Sony or Oly is necessarily more expensive. Especially with Sony and Pentax, you've got plenty of older lenses available relatively cheap that will get the benefits of stabilization. However, I don't think you should limit or base your entire purchase just on in body vs in lens stabiliation. In terms of costs, the initial body purchase is just the tip of the iceberg (look at this article--- http://www.bythom.com/iceberg.htm)
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 7:26 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Lenses are pretty much a one time purchase that you'll be able to use perhaps the rest of your life with care.
While this is true - This is also a double edge sword...
As we know image stabilization technology change quite a bit - We're now what... 3rd generation already?
-> The IS get upgraded with new bodies (and sometime the AF screwdrive too like on the D300). Some of my older IS or USM lenses (i.e. 85mm f/1.2L for example) do not benefit from this when they're stuck in the lens
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 7:53 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Lenses are pretty much a one time purchase that you'll be able to use perhaps the rest of your life with care.
While this is true - This is also a double edge sword...
As we know image stabilization technology change quite a bit - We're now what... 3rd generation already?
-> The IS get upgraded with new bodies (and sometime the AF screwdrive too like on the D300). Some of my older IS or USM lenses (i.e. 85mm f/1.2L for example) do not benefit from this when they're stuck in the lens
And camera bodies can change mounts making lenses obsolete as well. I guess the point there is always going to be some uncertainity as to what the future holds. Which brings us back to buying into a system that handles the way you want it to, with the features and accessories that enbable you to get the shots you want. One feature is not a make or break....a collection of features is what is important.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 8:03 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
My conclusion - really is that you have to look at the whole system. What do you want from the combination of ergonomics, camera features, available lenses, flash, software, support network, etc. Try to get an idea of what your likely end-point is and choose a system on that basis taking into account cost and quality.
Without a doubt. And that's why I always warn that Sony and Olympus lenses can be very expensive, but not for reasons that have anything to do with IS. Minolta has always had some of the finest lenses available, with or without the help of their long-time partner Carl Zeiss. And that tradition continues with Sony and their long-time partner Carl Zeiss.

To be sure, Canon and Nikon both have some really fine lenses, certainly at least as good as some of Minolta's best, possiblly even on par with the products of Carl Zeiss.

But what I said was "IS lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive."

I don't think that anyone would deny that the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is bigger, heavierand more expensive than it's non-IS counterpart.

But any cross brand comparisons can have the effect of dragging other factors into the mix without giving them their due.

So lets keep it simple.

Sigma's 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OSis bigger (79mm x 100mm), heavier (610g) and more expensive ($440)than thenon-IS version (70mm x 78mm, 405g, $379.)

Tamron's 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC is bigger (78mm x 99mm), heaver (555g) and more expensiove ($600)than the non-IS version (73mm x 84mm, 440g, $400.)

I think I've shown that my statement is accurate, and while I agree that the total system price is a major consideration, there are strengths and weaknesses in every product line. I think your comparison exploits some of those weaknesses in order to make your point, while ignoring the strengths.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 10:30 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
I think I've shown that my statement is accurate, and while I agree that the total system price is a major consideration, there are strengths and weaknesses in every product line. I think your comparison exploits some of those weaknesses in order to make your point, while ignoring the strengths.
Not at all. I don't dispute that it's true in a general sense - never did - just read again what I wrote.

For any given lens adding an extra element and the stabilisation motors will add size and weight, and generally cost too. That much is clear.

I just wanted to point out that although one might therefore infer from your statement that you can save money by going with in-body IS, it is not always the case. There are more factors to consider when comparing systems and simply assuming that in-body IS will make your lens purchases cheaper is not correct.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 11:22 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
JohnGaltNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 102
Default

Thanks to Peripatetic, NHL, RJSeeney and, of course, TCav for this round.

This discussion should probably be published as an article somewhere. Every response in this thread has been a hugely useful and mostly different aspect of the topic. The responses are perfect for somebody like me, who has done a lot of research on the disparate parts of the DSLR but hasn't been able to synthesize it all into a cohesive body of knowledge.

Great job people. Please keep going and thank you all again.


JohnGaltNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 12:10 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

One more point I'd like to make is that the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and the Tamron 70-200/2.8, both fine lenses by all accounts, are available for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony. The Sigma costs $799 while the Tamron costs $699, regardless of the mount.

When these lenses are mounted to a Pentax or Sony, the system is stabilized. When they are mounted to a Canon or a Nikon, it is not. The costs are the same, but you get more for your money with IS in the body.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 3:53 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

John-

I use the Nikon 70-200mmVR lens with my Nikon D-40 & D-40X, and I have been quite pleased with it. It produces excellent results.The lenswas less than $(US) 500.00, which fit my budget while producing excellent IQ.

Sarah Joyce (in new Zealand today)
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 4:24 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
When these lenses are mounted to a Pentax or Sony, the system is stabilized. When they are mounted to a Canon or a Nikon, it is not. The costs are the same, but you get more for your money with IS in the body.
Exactly!

Every single lens mounted on an IS-body will have image stabilization
BTW - if you mounted that same Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM on an Oly body you'll get a 140-400 f/2.8 image stabilized equivalent zoom!
-> Has anyone check the price of a 400 f/2.8 or its weight lately?
NHL 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 9:54 PM.