|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
kapai
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 102
Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:28 pm
|  |
Have you tried the new Zuiko 12-60 lens I use it on my E-330 & it is a great lens |
|
gep
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 358
Location: hurricane alley
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:22 pm
| |
another vote for d80 with 16-whatever vr. great combo. these days you have lots of good choices. |
|
sholderfield
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 856
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:12 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | doing landscapes, VR on a tripod will be useless. Pls get primes,Put the money into glass.The 20mm2.8 or the 24 2.8 Both D Glass.Stay away from zooms if it's not 2.8 glass.Thats all I got for ya.Just My opinion because I've used and owned them. |
Interesting Laurin. I have invested in Canon... all L glass, but I own all zooms. I own 3 zooms from 17mm to 200mm plus I have a 2x doubler. I also own the 100mmm Macro that is not an L lens, but is a quite nice lens. I have suspected that I should be using primes... is there really a noticeable difference? Don't give me your usual Nikon prejudice.... I know your feelings on that subject. Remember my good friend Jeff is a Nikon shooter so I get an earful of that all the time as it is. But what about primes vs zooms. How big of a difference is there? Thanks. |
|
dtphoto
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 579
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:18 pm
| |
Zooms are simply not as "crisp" because of the extra lens elements in a zoom. From that I mean it may lack a bit of snap, or contrast. Although, some Nikon zooms have *great* contrast... and a good prime, like the 85, will cost more than a zoom.
A good example, most DPs in motion pictures shoot only with primes, occasionally, and only if they can't get the same effect without it, does a DP use a zoom.
With prime lenses, you're feet become the zoom... |
|
sholderfield
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 856
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:33 pm
| |
| dtphoto wrote: | Zooms are simply not as "crisp" because of the extra lens elements in a zoom. From that I mean it may lack a bit of snap, or contrast. Although, some Nikon zooms have *great* contrast... and a good prime, like the 85, will cost more than a zoom.
A good example, most DPs in motion pictures shoot only with primes, occasionally, and only if they can't get the same effect without it, does a DP use a zoom.
With prime lenses, you're feet become the zoom... |
Thanks... Laurin? I'm asking about noticeable difference. I get the crisp quality dtphoto is talking about. I get that crisp look at times it seems with my zooms, but not always. I thought it was just exposure. I mean we are talking about $2,000.00 lenses here. I really am interested. Thanks. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19017
Location: Books and Class Info, www.rindersmithphotography.com or, www.rinderart.com
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:02 am
| |
| dtphoto wrote: | Zooms are simply not as "crisp" because of the extra lens elements in a zoom. From that I mean it may lack a bit of snap, or contrast. Although, some Nikon zooms have *great* contrast... and a good prime, like the 85, will cost more than a zoom.
A good example, most DPs in motion pictures shoot only with primes, occasionally, and only if they can't get the same effect without it, does a DP use a zoom.
With prime lenses, you're feet become the zoom... |
I totally agree. In a perfect world and one without money issues, primes are so much better, I cant tell ya.I hardly ever reccommend zooms to anyone that is serious, not semi serious but serious!! and Thats very rare on this site. They cost more and there is a reason. True pros that specialize in certain things use primes..............always. You want closer? You walk, Simple as that. Every company makes 3 different types of glass. One for the snapshooters, another for the semi snap shooters and the top Glass. Primes are for the people above that. Trouble is, you carry more stuff. Im going to say something Now that will cause some to go nuts..... Canon Is softer than nikon. It's a known fact and after testing It is true. Because of friendships and where I live I get to play and take home just about everything That comes out. Canon Has a softer image than Nikon. Plain and simple. Nikon is harder edged than canon. Other than that no difference. Primes are better glass Period from either company.If you cant see the difference then It wont matter. and for stock? it probably wont matter anyway. I and tons of other people have written volumes about this over the years. Prime lense's are much better than zooms. In conclusion, If you have the choice, Buy primes every time.Hope that covers it. Off to Monument valley in 5 hrs with 5 Women students. Lucky me. And where the reunion should have been. LOL. Take care , talk in 6 days. |
|
john330
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 146
Location: Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:40 am
| |
Funny that I read this.
Two weeks ago I switched from Oly to Canon. :)
Have had an e-330 in the past, and last used a e-510.
And got the same questions from everyone, which I had to defend: Why?
Oly is a rather small brand compared to C & N, but everybody looks weird when one steps over to the dark side. Maybe everybody is jealous? :D
For me there were other reasons than for you, but a few touch eachother.
I bought a Canon 40D + 24-70/f2.8L USM. But that is not something you want to carry around whne you're hiking.
Lots of success finding your holy grail... |
|
sholderfield
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 856
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:41 am
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | dtphoto wrote: | Zooms are simply not as "crisp" because of the extra lens elements in a zoom. From that I mean it may lack a bit of snap, or contrast. Although, some Nikon zooms have *great* contrast... and a good prime, like the 85, will cost more than a zoom.
A good example, most DPs in motion pictures shoot only with primes, occasionally, and only if they can't get the same effect without it, does a DP use a zoom.
With prime lenses, you're feet become the zoom... |
I totally agree. In a perfect world and one without money issues, primes are so much better, I cant tell ya.I hardly ever reccommend zooms to anyone that is serious, not semi serious but serious!! and Thats very rare on this site. They cost more and there is a reason. True pros that specialize in certain things use primes..............always. You want closer? You walk, Simple as that. Every company makes 3 different types of glass. One for the snapshooters, another for the semi snap shooters and the top Glass. Primes are for the people above that. Trouble is, you carry more stuff. Im going to say something Now that will cause some to go nuts..... Canon Is softer than nikon. It's a known fact and after testing It is true. Because of friendships and where I live I get to play and take home just about everything That comes out. Canon Has a softer image than Nikon. Plain and simple. Nikon is harder edged than canon. Other than that no difference. Primes are better glass Period from either company.If you cant see the difference then It wont matter. and for stock? it probably wont matter anyway. I and tons of other people have written volumes about this over the years. Prime lense's are much better than zooms. In conclusion, If you have the choice, Buy primes every time.Hope that covers it. Off to Monument valley in 5 hrs with 5 Women students. Lucky me. And where the reunion should have been. LOL. Take care , talk in 6 days. |
Well at least you didn't mince words. Thanks and have a great trip. I knew you couldn't tell me anything without telling me Nikon is better! Thanks Laurin. |
|
kwest
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 123
Location: Adelaide
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:13 am
| |
Sony a350? |
|
sholderfield
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 856
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:24 am
| |
By the way, I own Canon because of the price to get the 5D's Full Frame Sensor and because of the great complete full system that goes with it, (Nikon has the same great system but you pay more for the full frame sensor... recent offering.) Just my take on the controversy. Having seen my friend Jeff Banke's results, I can't say that either Nikon or Canon is sharper than the other, although I have had some issues relating to sharpness and that's why I asked the question I asked in this thread. Thanks. |
|
janza
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:02 am
| |
I would definitely look for D200/D300 or then Canon 5D. I own both D200 and D300 and I can say D200 is on par with D300 at 95% of time. With Canon 5D you get full frame which I consider as an advantage in your case since you do landscape stuff. There are quite many good wide angle lenses available for good price, both new and used.
Cheers,
-Janne |
|
hougaard
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: South Africa
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:17 am
| |
| mirwin wrote: | | get the D80 with the new 16-85mm VR lens that just came out, and pick up a good nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime, that's the best $100 you'll ever spend. i know you can do all that for under 2500. and yes, someone mentioned the D50, i have two of those too, love them, but i really love my D80 and it's 10.2MP unlike the D50's |
Don't buy old technology. You'll regret it within a year. Go for a camera that's been released in the past year at least. The 40D is perfect for what you want. Get that plus a 17-40mm and You''l have some left for a 50mm 1.8. I'm not gonna list all the perks. It's Canon. Not so much for the body. Body's have to replaced inevitably. But Canon L glass is an investment. |
|
xlabrador
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Moscow, Russia
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:39 am
| |
| hougaard wrote: | | The 40D is perfect for what you want. Get that plus a 17-40mm.. |
I tried three "17-40"s and I wasn't stunned with the result, especially in the corners. In fact, it did average on 5d and quite well on 400d, but not much better, than 17-85 (which has 5x Zoom + IS and 1,5 times cheapier).
So the lenses I have snapped 90% of time are 24-70 on 5d and 17-85 on 400d.
For the wide angle I have Sigma 12-24, that does quite good on 5d and very good (but not so wide) on 400d. And for the long range I bought 70-200/2.8 + 2x extender.
And I know, Nikon is sharper than Canon due to its AntiAlias filter, but it results in more frequent demosaic artifacts on tiny regular structures (like fabrics, distant fences, bricklayings, etc.). So it cuts both ways, and I choose the one that's softer :)
So my advice would be 5d + 24-70.
Good luck with your choice! |
|
holgs
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 91
Location: South America
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:47 am
| |
Just curios about the lenses that you're using at the moment?
I currently shoot mostly with an E510/ 11-22mm combination, but also travel with the 35mm and 40-150mm lenses. This set up is significantly lighter than competing systems with equivalent quality glass, and if I ever felt that I needed something wider I'd probably go with the 7-14, but for most situations I'm perfectly happy with the 11-22mm. |
|
therion256
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 56
Location: Acton, MA, USA
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:50 am
| |
I really loved my 24 and 20mm Nikkor 2.8 primes (especially the 20mm.) They worked pretty well, and with some care and stopping down, make awesome photos. I got them because that's all I could afford at the time for fast quality lenses. I had a chance to get the Nikon's 14-24 2.8, and it defeats the 20 and 24 handily in sharpness and CA (and in $$$$.) I wouldn't get a zoom unless it was a constant 2.8. Only thing I miss about the 20mm is the unobtrusive size...this 14-24 is a monster of a lens.
Nikon seriously needs to update the wide-angle 2.8 primes (20,24,28, etc.)...not necessarily to put in VR and all that new-fangled stuff, but update the lens formulas to work better with digital.
Though now that I'm with a D300, I have a tinge of wonder as to how the 20 would be with the D300's automatic CA correction...
My 50 1.4 has a permanent place in my arsenal...
| rinder99 wrote: | | doing landscapes, VR on a tripod will be useless. Pls get primes,Put the money into glass.The 20mm2.8 or the 24 2.8 Both D Glass.Stay away from zooms if it's not 2.8 glass.Thats all I got for ya.Just My opinion because I've used and owned them. |
|
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Submitters
|
