The sigma 24-70 is nice, and the Tamron 18-250 is also very highly regarded, as is the 17-50 (and no need to pay for IS).
Sony or Canon?
- Thread starter Navy
- Start date
The sigma 24-70 is nice, and the Tamron 18-250 is also very highly regarded, as is the 17-50 (and no need to pay for IS).
500mm f/4 about to be released. Other than that, Sony also has the 300mm f/2.8, and there's still the Minolta lenses and the Tamron and Sigma long zooms (like the "bigma").
Sony also has the only 500mm f/8 mirror lens with autofocus.
it a well built,sharp and reasonably priced lens:thumbsup:
Definitely not bad, excellent travel lens.
Those were my exact sentiments when I was making the decision between the a550 and a D90. In the end, the in-body stabilisation won me over. Most of the 3rd party lenses with VC or OS cost a whole lot more than their standard counterparts.
if u are rich and u wan good lens, u should be choosing Sony already.
Carl Zeiss autofocus lens! But it cost a shitload though.
But if u can afford it, its one of the best lens u can hv. Reviews already shown that CZ 24-70 is the best 24-70 lens among the 3 brands (Sony, Nikon and Canon), and the CZ 135mm f1.8 is one of the sharpest lens of all systems...
Sony has 300mm 2.8 and 500mm G f4 leh . While I agree canon has more tua pao but those are really speciality lens for pro use. Sony isn't totally lacking as well.
Its branded under Minolta...
Sony has 300mm f2.8, minolta has 400mm f4.5, 600mm f4, and Sony will be releasing a 500mm f4, and not to mention sony/minolta has the worlds lightest and smallest 500mm AF lens, the Sony/Mionolta autofocus 500mm reflex.
but i am not rich, that's the problem u see... one thing i like about Canon is that they have cheaper lenses... for example, for 85 mm, they have a cheaper one and an very expensive one... 70-200 they have 5 lenses...
and one factor for me is that since my first camera is EOS 500d, if i get a sony body, i cannot share lens...
anyway, now i don't even have budget for the $2600 alpha 850... although it is cheapest FF, 2600 + is still a big sum for me... i will use my 500d for the time being .. and i have purchased some canon lenses liao.. so i am stuck to canon liao..
anyway , i am no fan boy of any system... i am a consumer only.. but i do have preferences of course..
The more I read the more I'm inclined to A550, especially so with the current price promo
I never did regret getting the a550, especially after i decided to settle for 3rd party lenses (student so no money to get all those expensive CZ lenses :bsmilie
. where else can you get a stabilised 70-200 f2.8 for under 1.4k firsthand?but i am not rich, that's the problem u see... one thing i like about Canon is that they have cheaper lenses... for example, for 85 mm, they have a cheaper one and an very expensive one... 70-200 they have 5 lenses...
and one factor for me is that since my first camera is EOS 500d, if i get a sony body, i cannot share lens...
anyway, now i don't even have budget for the $2600 alpha 850... although it is cheapest FF, 2600 + is still a big sum for me... i will use my 500d for the time being .. and i have purchased some canon lenses liao.. so i am stuck to canon liao..
anyway , i am no fan boy of any system... i am a consumer only.. but i do have preferences of course..
Actually one of the reason I didn't go for canon or nikon is that they seems to have a lot of lenses and copies but in fact only one type is usable . They got so e of their legacy ones with no inbuilt motor etc vr non vr and I get very confused.
In fact when my fren buy lens for his 500d he also aim for only for ef-s . While I agree for the primes Sony line up currently are more for the pros with it's cz series. But Sony is releasing 85 f2.8 and 35m 1.8 which will be priced at affordable ranges compared to cz .
I also like you don't really favor systems . But I see the innovation behind Sony and the legacy of minolta so I thought I ll go for Sony . I was close to paying for 40d or 450d until I see the twin lens kit offer for a350 and 15 mins handling with it .
that's was some time back le heh
Last edited:
but i am not rich, that's the problem u see... one thing i like about Canon is that they have cheaper lenses... for example, for 85 mm, they have a cheaper one and an very expensive one... 70-200 they have 5 lenses...
and one factor for me is that since my first camera is EOS 500d, if i get a sony body, i cannot share lens...
anyway, now i don't even have budget for the $2600 alpha 850... although it is cheapest FF, 2600 + is still a big sum for me... i will use my 500d for the time being .. and i have purchased some canon lenses liao.. so i am stuck to canon liao..
anyway , i am no fan boy of any system... i am a consumer only.. but i do have preferences of course..
thats where u r wrong again.
For equivilant Canon lenses, the Sony ones will be abit cheaper, EXCEPT for canon's 50mm f1.8. Other similar lenses, Sony ones usually cheaper by abit. And not to mention Minolta ones will be even cheaper....
Of cos u hv to compare Canon's stabalised lens vs Sony lenses, since Sony lenses are considered "stabalized" already. So when comparing price, sony lenses should be compared with equivilant Canon's IS lenses, then u will see Sony will give u more savings.
I think the savings are more obvious when you compare the offerings of the 3rd party company. The tamron 17-50 costs roughly $600 whilst the 17-50vc averages $900
comparing minolta vs Canon 2nd hand lenses also can spot a big savings
How true! who can forget the beloved beer can :bsmilie::bsmilie:
ismokeweed79
Senior Member
best 123
maxwell207
New Member
u want the most from your money just get A550 . its $799 recently .. both 550D & D90 over 1k+ .. u can buy 1 flash already
Are u sure u need all these long range super expensive lenses?
Even if c/n have hundreds of lenses avail, are you going to buy/need them all?
I would say the most 2-3 for normal shoots unless you going pro.
Similar threads
