Also would appreciate info on Nikon's 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR lenses
@tirediron .... I just checked the 18-70 on the net but it seems as if it's not VR like the 18-200
Printable View
Also would appreciate info on Nikon's 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR lenses
@tirediron .... I just checked the 18-70 on the net but it seems as if it's not VR like the 18-200
how does the Sigma 18-200 OS compare?
What can I say, I am a Canon lover. So I would go with the 40D. You are correct. I expect the prices to go down even LOWER on the 40D since the 50D is coming out soon. I would go with the Canon as I think you can get a wide variety of third party lenses and Canon lenses. From what I understand, the Canon glass is cheaper than Nikon glass.
I would go with the 40d body and get a third party lens.
The Tamaron 28 to 75 is an excellent all around lens with a fixed 2.8. Some people complain that the 28 is not wide enough.
You could also go with the 17 to 50 and the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS.
A lot of people like the 17 to 50 and I have heard good things about the 55 to 250 too
If you want to know more about Canon go to:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
True, but do you really need a VR lens? I've been using the original image-stabilization system since the early 80s... it's called a tripod. Yes I know that sounds a little sarcastic, but the simple fact is, for the average user, in most conditions, VR/IS/Whatever is unnecessary, especially given the high-ISO performance of modern DSLRs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
Look for lenses that have the best optiecal quality. If they happen to be VR, that's a bonus, if not, who cares? Personally, I go out of my way to look for lenses that don't have VR built in, as I see it as one more thing to break.
The stabilizing is actually pretty good. If I am shooting at 200mm, I can see a definite difference... but only at about 1/5 to 1/60 shutterspeed, and even then... I only notice a profound difference at about 1/5 to 1/25 shutterspeed. It doesn't really help after 1/60... well maybe it does but I haven't really noticed but I am one of those guys that stands right, holds the camera right, breathes right, etc... I think the balancing really helps shooting a little faster on the fly though. You don't have to breathe right, etc.
Besides, I can only hand shoot at about 1/5 anyway with or without balance and without the balance I have to shoot a few in succession and one of them come out good. With the balance, it usually comes out great.
According to Popular Photography, the Sony 350A has a faster autofocus system and metering than the Canon 40D. The 50D I don't think has been reviewed yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
Tegan
Today, I visited a store, inquired about the D90 and the store said that if I placed an order the D90 will be delivered in a few days [but don't know if I should order it without feeling it in my hands] .... then I checked out the 40D with the 17-85 lens and boy this thing is a beauty and feels solid. the view through the viewfinder is amazing. i guess 40D uses the pentaprism [D90 has pentaprism too]
below are the approximate price calculations:
D90 body = 1100
D40 body = 1000 to 1100
Now add similar lenses for price comparison,
D90 w/ 16-85 VR = 1800
40D w/ 17-85 IS = 1400 to 1500
50D w/ 17-85 IS = 1800
D90 w/ 18-200 VR = 1800
50D w/ the new 18-200 = 2000
My budget is around 1500 so that gets me
D90 w/ 18-105 lens [kit] = 1350-1450
40D w/ the 17-85 lens [kit] = 1400-1500
Advantages [from the top of my head]:
D90: More features, More pixels, 11 point AF, better LCD, HD Video, higher ISO range, HDMI output, 2 years Canada warranty .... and Chase Jarvis and friend's recommendation :p
40D: comparatively better lens wrt budget, faster FPS, Better body construction with Magnesium alloy casing
And as I learned from this forum, this is also about buying into a system so am evaluating .... Other option is to get something like the XSi w/ 17-85 IS for around 1100 or a good Nikon lens with a basic body
The 17-50 with fixed F2.8 sounds good and they even have the 18-200! do they have image stabilization? .... And how would you rate lenses from Tokina and Sigma?Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio_e
WOW !!!! Sounds like an easy question but it's not. Putting all lenses in one category from a particular manufacturer does not work. (good/bad).Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
I can only share you my experience.
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Had it did not like it. You can pick a used one up for $50
Canon 28 to 105.. It not a bad lens at all. Used goes for about 160
Sigma 70 to 300 ..Again not a bad lens buit I found it not to focus fast
Canon 28 to 135 IS..Personally I did not like it but they are quite a few people who do. You can get a used one for about 260 and new for 315.
I have the 70 to 200 F4 L... SWEET !!!!!!! lens..fast focus..great color. About 550 new
I have very happy with the tamron 28 to 75.. great lens ..highly regarded and priced right
I have the Sigma 10-22 This fill in my wide angle.. Another nice lens
I also have the Canon 85 1.8.. Another nice Canon lens.. Sharp and fast
I can get by without IS but thats just me.
On a budget, you can get a new 40D using microsift live and get 6% cash back. $816 for a new 40D free shipping.. Leaves you some extra cash for a nice lens.
I would go for a used Tammy 17 to 50 on the Canon forum and the back it up with a new 55 to 200 IS later on :)
OHH Tokina and Sigma both make nice lenses. You have to do you research. Yes they do have IS..It is just called something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
Sigma calls it OS
Tamron calls it VC
Good luck This stuff can make you head spin !!