Minolta's AF 17-35mm f/3.5 G

[Seeto]

i have a friend who went to Nepal and there were 2 person there wif cameras. one with a idiot proof compact and another with high tech SLR and guess who came back with better pictures?? YES... the one with the idiot proof camera. the camera does not make the photographer. it's the photographer's skills that makes him/her good. Like they say, the bad workman blames his tools.

Matt

 

[dannynys]

Hi Seeto,
I have no doubts about that skills plays the most important part in any picture. Who is gonna ask about what brand is the camera except the exposure settings? However, I do believe SLR does produce better quality pictures? I think everyone who owns a SLR knows what they are buying for. Why people switch to SLR when there is idiot-proof camera? Why people wants to lug their heavy lenses and camera bodies?

Third party lens makers are definitely providing the needs for most SLR owners with a cheaper alternative. With the high prices of original lenses, this gap is filled up by third party lenses who comes up with affordable lenses.

Distortion is more like a defective inherit of wide angle lenses. I agree that no one has escape from this problems for the major brands.

The cost of gluing a few pieces of plastic is probably very cheap but the know-how of gluing costs more than that. This is probably one of the selling point of the lens maker also. You are paying for the know-how to produce a good quality lens. I am not saying Sigma don't produce good lenses but ever wonder why Minolta or any other major brands managed to sell their lenses? Do you think they intentionally raise the price so that people can't afford the lenses?

I do own the sigma 17-35mm EX lens before, I am just speaking from my experience that it is not sharp. You can think otherwise also. : )

:gbounce:

 

[TME]

Originally posted by dannynys
Hi Seeto,
I have no doubts about that skills plays the most important part in any picture. Who is gonna ask about what brand is the camera except the exposure settings? However, I do believe SLR does produce better quality pictures? I think everyone who owns a SLR knows what they are buying for. Why people switch to SLR when there is idiot-proof camera? Why people wants to lug their heavy lenses and camera bodies?

Third party lens makers are definitely providing the needs for most SLR owners with a cheaper alternative. With the high prices of original lenses, this gap is filled up by third party lenses who comes up with affordable lenses.

Distortion is more like a defective inherit of wide angle lenses. I agree that no one has escape from this problems for the major brands.

The cost of gluing a few pieces of plastic is probably very cheap but the know-how of gluing costs more than that. This is probably one of the selling point of the lens maker also. You are paying for the know-how to produce a good quality lens. I am not saying Sigma don't produce good lenses but ever wonder why Minolta or any other major brands managed to sell their lenses? Do you think they intentionally raise the price so that people can't afford the lenses?

I do own the sigma 17-35mm EX lens before, I am just speaking from my experience that it is not sharp. You can think otherwise also. : )

:gbounce:

The SLR provides greater flexibility but it does not mean that the glass found on a automatic is inferior to that found on the SLR. In the final analysis, the camera body (SLR or otherwise) is just a light tight box...... it's the lens and the photorapher that dictates the quality of the pictures. People switch to SLR gear to afford themselves the greater flexibility and range. But if u are talking of quality of the photography, then all things being equal (i.e. lens and photographer and within range of settings of both cameras), both shots will be equal in quality ...........

 

[munfai]

often it seems that the problem with lenses is quality control. pro-grade minolta, canon and nikon lenses are subject to more stringent quality control, thus the higher yield of 'good' lenses.

no doubt sigma, tokina and tamron are capable of making extremely good lenses, but they're reputation is hurt by poor QC. so if you're unlucky, you might get a Sigma that's optically lousy, otherwise if Lady Luck favours you, you'll have a gem of a lens at 1/3rd the price of an equivalent Minolta, Canon, or Nikon.

Either way, we shouldn't go round saying that ALL sigmas or tokinas are lousy.