Recommendation for a first DSLR+lens

[night86mare]

so the price diff between crop lenses and ff lenses is not that much it seems.

what do u guys think?

yes, but whether the ff lens you are buying is maximizing the potential of your ff body, is another thing altogether.

you might as well say that an old film 50mm manual f/1.8 costs way cheaper on ebay than a spanking new autofocus 50mm f/1.8. it does, but there are lenses and there are lenses.

you are talking about good glass for crop frame lenses here, the 11-16 f/2.8 is extremely sharp, so are most third party equivalent offerings of standard zoom lens.

btw, an equivalent of ff 24-70 for aps-c will be 17-50 from tamron, that costs $600+.

 

[kaixiang]

someone offered a 1st gen Sony DSLR body for S$230 already via private msg. quite an affordable option, except that i'll need to try out my existing Minolta lenses first to see if i they are really worth keeping (they are quite old), or should i just switch to a new lens system.

Remember that age is not a good gauge of lens quality. The 135mm stf is considered one of a kind. Even the 50mm f/1.7 is pretty good. I use really old lens with my camera in case you are wondering if anyone else is doing it. Anyways, remember to check the shutter count before you make the purchase.

 

[sfoto100]

yes, but whether the ff lens you are buying is maximizing the potential of your ff body, is another thing altogether.

you might as well say that an old film 50mm manual f/1.8 costs way cheaper on ebay than a spanking new autofocus 50mm f/1.8. it does, but there are lenses and there are lenses.

you are talking about good glass for crop frame lenses here, the 11-16 f/2.8 is extremely sharp, so are most third party equivalent offerings of standard zoom lens.

btw, an equivalent of ff 24-70 for aps-c will be 17-50 from tamron, that costs $600+.

hi nightmare

so u mean those sigma lenses i mentioned won't maximize a FF body whereas the tokina 11-16 and the tamron 17-50 will?

 

[night86mare]

hi nightmare

so u mean those sigma lenses i mentioned won't maximize a FF body whereas the tokina 11-16 and the tamron 17-50 will?

erm, i don't think the 17-50 or 11-16 can be used on ff body.

basically the 17-50 and 11-16 are lenses which push the limits of a crop body, with current status quo, they are all very sharp.. certainly not the sharpest available, but given the price of the 17-50, i don't think we should be asking for more.

what i meant is that you should separate the notion that made for full frame lenses are all expensive, or all sharp.. same as normal digital (i.e. for crop frame body) lenses, there are different grades of film lenses..

 

[tehzeh]

Come on, give him a break. Don't pick bones with a kid la. He's got a chip on his shoulder, let him be. Most kids in puberty are all like that.

I am as old as him, fyi. Lol. And at 17 this year, puberty shouldn't affect him anymore.

Anw, back to topic.

TS, I have observed that some canon lenses with the IS are quite expensive. For e.g. , EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM's list price is 2.4k while EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM's list price is 3.6k. The price difference is pretty huge and to me, I think that the image stabilization is very important.

 

[nathaniel]

I am as old as him, fyi. Lol. And at 17 this year, puberty shouldn't affect him anymore.

Anw, back to topic.

TS, I have observed that some canon lenses with the IS are quite expensive. For e.g. , EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM's list price is 2.4k while EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM's list price is 3.6k. The price difference is pretty huge and to me, I think that the image stabilization is very important.

yes, they are expensive... but for these two, it's partly because they are "L" series lenses, partly because they are f/2.8 throughout the zoom range and maybe some other factors. Some IS lenses are significantly cheaper and could have smaller price differences (e.g. the kit lens with IS shouldn't be terribly more expensive than the previous kit lens w/o IS, which I assume has been discontinued).

 

[nathaniel]

Yup. I agree and I would be one of the rioters.

Which is why I don't go with the often used argument of "not getting EFS lenses now, because FF is the future". I think its a silly approach or maybe its a subconscious justification of the BBB syndrome.

I personally think Canon won't drop the EF-S range and that there will always be a market for it, although i know at least 2 people who are not so sure... and if there has ever been a riot, there ought to have been one with Canon's 1987 introduction of the EF-mount that made previous lenses obsolete.

 

[night86mare]

I personally think Canon won't drop the EF-S range and that there will always be a market for it, although i know at least 2 people who are not so sure... and if there has ever been a riot, there ought to have been one with Canon's 1987 introduction of the EF-mount that made previous lenses obsolete.

i think at that time not that many people had slrs......

 

[sfoto100]

if riot will occur, that means there is a demand... and it means $ making opportunity, and camera makers will not ignore it.

crop , if they will die, will die slowly, not suddenly...

 

[tehzeh]

yes, they are expensive... but for these two, it's partly because they are "L" series lenses, partly because they are f/2.8 throughout the zoom range and maybe some other factors. Some IS lenses are significantly cheaper and could have smaller price differences (e.g. the kit lens with IS shouldn't be terribly more expensive than the previous kit lens w/o IS, which I assume has been discontinued).

Very true.

 

[sfoto100]

erm, i don't think the 17-50 or 11-16 can be used on ff body.

basically the 17-50 and 11-16 are lenses which push the limits of a crop body, with current status quo, they are all very sharp.. certainly not the sharpest available, but given the price of the 17-50, i don't think we should be asking for more.

what i meant is that you should separate the notion that made for full frame lenses are all expensive, or all sharp.. same as normal digital (i.e. for crop frame body) lenses, there are different grades of film lenses..

hi

been thinking of what u have posted.

so basically u r saying the 2 sigma lens that i mentioned - sigma 24-70 and sigma 12-24 are not as sharp as the tokina 11-16 and the tamron?

in short, i will get better iq using a crop body with tokina 11-16 and tamron 17-50 than using a FF with the sigma?

you use the graphs from sites like photozone.de to make a conclusion?

i am always interested in learning how to compare lens - so pls do advice.

tks alot

 

[chanalb]

someone offered a 1st gen Sony DSLR body for S$230 already via private msg. quite an affordable option, except that i'll need to try out my existing Minolta lenses first to see if i they are really worth keeping (they are quite old), or should i just switch to a new lens system.

I have a 2nd generation Sony...A300. I don't find the quality of my pictures any worse than those taken using equivalent models of Nikon or Canon. But since it is using CCD so the noise level is higher than those using CMOS. I can't comment about A100 because I never used before but for A200 or A300, if you can get a good price, ergonomics and picture quality is not a problem.

For the pros, I think it is best to stick with FF canikon because other makes at this time just don't have the range of lenses. But if it is for hobby, I think crop is more convenient (and I don't think it will die out). Sony A500 or A550 has excellent high ISO performance, good ergnomics, and interesting features like Auto HDR and 5 to 7fps. For taking baby pics and general travel photography, the Sony lenses that I think would be suitable for you would be the 16-105mm (travel) and 50F1.8 (baby)

 

[kaixiang]

hi

been thinking of what u have posted.

so basically u r saying the 2 sigma lens that i mentioned - sigma 24-70 and sigma 12-24 are not as sharp as the tokina 11-16 and the tamron?

in short, i will get better iq using a crop body with tokina 11-16 and tamron 17-50 than using a FF with the sigma?

you use the graphs from sites like photozone.de to make a conclusion?

i am always interested in learning how to compare lens - so pls do advice.

tks alot

No no, he means that one should not generalize that ff or crop lens are sharper. Most lens are sharpest in the center region, so ff lens have an advantage in that area. However, something like a 17-50 f/2.8 can be sharper than a lower quality ff lens.

Unless you are a commercial photographer trying to squeeze every last bit of contrast and resoultion out of an image for fine prints, I think there is something called 'sharp enough'. IMHO, test charts are not as useful as a subjective comparison of the photos produced. If you can't tell the difference, it is 'sharp enough'. Also, it is easy to tell the difference when you put 2 photos side by side and compare but how many people are going to look at your photos and say, i think the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 will make this photo look better at 28mm f/5.6 than the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8?

Having said that, I do understand that most people are only going to own lens that do not cover the same focal length and it is important to get the best you can with your hard earned $$. For that I suggest learning to read MTF charts rather than reviews. Most of us read the conclusion of lens review but reviews give an overview which might not accurately represent how you use the lens. For example, I don't care about chromatic aberration at f/16 since I hardly stop down beyond f/8 99% of the time. Wide Open sharpness is important for maybe <5% of the pictures i take, so it doesn't deserve as much weightage as how the lens performs stopped down 1-2 stops.

For more information on reading MTF charts, I suggest reading the following:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml

 

[night86mare]

yes, kaixiang got what i meant. sorry if i wasn't clear.

 

[sfoto100]

tk kaixiang an nightmare,

i read further...

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/lens-test-faq


Q: What aspects cannot be tested ?
A: The most important aspect that cannot be tested at the moment is contrast. Subjectively a lens with great contrast but rather mediocre resolution looks more snappy, maybe even sharper than a low-contrast lens with a high resolution. However, living in the digital age we can boost contrast (to some degree) via an imaging application today. Beyond contrast there's no quantitative way to classify the characteristic of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur), the degree of flare and the performance variations across the focus range.


yes kaixiang..
looking at the pics produced is the ultimate test...

tks

 

[JW73]

Any DSLR body with a cheap but sharp 50mm (there are expensive to cheap one but they are v sharp and bright) etc is great for babies. As babies are indoor most of the time (1st year) and u may be afraid of using too much flash. This lens is a good starter.


U can just get any zoom lens(depending on budget) for other general stuff.



For brands, u better do ur own research..we tend to recommend some brands base on our preference.

James

 

[JW73]

how come no one here has mentioned the fact that sony alpha has in-body stabilisation, so it doesn't need is lens?

same for olympus, pentax, etc... there's a reason why the users of that group scoff at expensive is lenses because any lens on their camera = is lens.

Nothing personal, but Olympus entry level E series has no built-in stabilsator. Only DIGITAL IMAGE STABILIZATION which is adjusting it's ISO n shutter speed to prevent shake

 

[tehzeh]

Any DSLR body with a cheap but sharp 50mm (there are expensive to cheap one but they are v sharp and bright) etc is great for babies. As babies are indoor most of the time (1st year) and u may be afraid of using too much flash. This lens is a good starter.


U can just get any zoom lens(depending on budget) for other general stuff.



For brands, u better do ur own research..we tend to recommend some brands base on our preference.

James

I agree. You can just get the body and a 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4. These are the lenses that will let you see what real photography is, via the cheap way~

 

[nathaniel]

Just visited the Sony gallery at Paragon. Looks like a good place to try out camera+lens combinations, including their 50mm f/1.4 fixed lens. noticed their 70-200mm f/2.8 was > $3k. I'm wondering if Canon's showroom at Funan has hands-on models... same for Nikon/Pentax/Olympus. Thought it's a nice way to get a rough idea of what the camera/lens combinations do (renting out lenses might be more realistic but would cost money though).

 

[kaixiang]

Just visited the Sony gallery at Paragon. Looks like a good place to try out camera+lens combinations, including their 50mm f/1.4 fixed lens. noticed their 70-200mm f/2.8 was > $3k. I'm wondering if Canon's showroom at Funan has hands-on models... same for Nikon/Pentax/Olympus. Thought it's a nice way to get a rough idea of what the camera/lens combinations do (renting out lenses might be more realistic but would cost money though).

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Testing the camera hands on is more useful than all the technical readings. That is when you realize that all cameras can take good photos and usability in terms or ergonomics and interface will play a bigger part in using the camera. You can use Canon hands on at Canon, Vivocity and other brands at the Harvey Norman there.