Performance Issue: Canon Lenses or Camera Body Causing Softer Focus
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 14 Jul 2010 13:20 On Jul 14, 3:56 am, SneakyP <48umof...(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote: > Looking for recomendations on stepping up from that horrid 18-55mm zoom kit > lens in a Canon to a decent zoom lens for a sharper picture. Problem is, > what is the better option? Get the Lens that has a quality of acceptable > sharpness in that particular camera body, or get the camera with better > sensor capabilities? > > My strategy was to always go with investing in lenses first, before even > having a looksee at what else is there to buy in a camera body. > > I use the Canon Rebel XS, so my range may be limited, but I still want to > have upwards mobility for the lenses. IOW - is that sharpness the best I > can expect from this camera body, or does it get ridiculously steeper in > price as a better zoom lens is found? > > -- > SneakyP > To email me, you know what to do. Sell the old kit lens for $50-$60 on Ebay, and get the latest one, about $120.00.
From: David J Taylor on 14 Jul 2010 14:18 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d84r36dq36r4318e5his0v7pq7vo8d0luf(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:05:49 +0100, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >> >>Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses >>than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does >>with >>its "L" lenses. > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Nikon has a range of > consumer-grade lenses and a range of professional lenses, just like > Canon. > > The pro lenses are perhaps not as clearly designated as Canon's "L" > series. However, anyone who can afford to buy them knows *exactly* > which ones they are. I don't think that Nikon have a two-tier system, but obviously, some of their lenses are better than others and I feel they offer a range of quality, not simply "L" and "non-L". Do you feel that Nikon offers better value than Canon in medium priced lenses? David
From: Peter on 14 Jul 2010 15:37 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i1kv18$uhh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > I don't think that Nikon have a two-tier system, but obviously, some of > their lenses are better than others and I feel they offer a range of > quality, not simply "L" and "non-L". Do you feel that Nikon offers better > value than Canon in medium priced lenses? > The dollar value is about equal. If you are willing to give up VR you will get even better value. Both make some very fine optics. -- Peter
From: Bruce on 14 Jul 2010 18:13 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:18:15 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:d84r36dq36r4318e5his0v7pq7vo8d0luf(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:05:49 +0100, "David J Taylor" >> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses >>>than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does >>>with >>>its "L" lenses. >> >> >> Nothing could be further from the truth. Nikon has a range of >> consumer-grade lenses and a range of professional lenses, just like >> Canon. >> >> The pro lenses are perhaps not as clearly designated as Canon's "L" >> series. However, anyone who can afford to buy them knows *exactly* >> which ones they are. > >I don't think that Nikon have a two-tier system Then we disagree. And L doesn't mean "professional". All it means the lens has at least one exotic glass element. Almost all Canon professional lenses are L lenses, but not all L lenses are professional lenses. In exactly the same way, you will find the letters "ED" on some very ordinary Nikkors. >, but obviously, some of >their lenses are better than others and I feel they offer a range of >quality, not simply "L" and "non-L". Neither Canon nor Nikon has a range of lenses that is polarised into "good" and "bad". But they both have a consumer range and a professional range. Obviously, there is something of a grey area in the middle with some consumer-grade lenses producing better results than their prices might suggest, but with both brands, the build quality makes for a pretty clear divide between the two ranges. >Do you feel that Nikon offers better >value than Canon in medium priced lenses? No, they are probably about the same. Nikon definitely has the edge in wide angle zoom lenses, but in standard, medium telephoto and long telephoto lenses (fixed focal length and zoom) there is not much to choose between them, and I would suggest that Canon still has the edge in some areas. For example, the Canon EF 24-105mm L IS and 70-200mm f/4 L IS are outstanding mid-priced lenses. Nikon has nothing to compete with either of them; the AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IFED and AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D are particularly weak performers, to the point of being embarrassing because of high distortion and CA and poor edge performance unless stopped way down. The comparatively inexpensive Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 performs better than either of them! So, to sum up, both companies have consumer and professional lens ranges. If you think they overlap, look at the build quality. That will tell you far more about which range they are in than "L" or "ED" badges.
From: David Ruether on 14 Jul 2010 19:11
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:t5cs36hc8r5240pstkpv4depss9gl38gfs(a)4ax.com... > For example, the Canon EF 24-105mm L IS and 70-200mm f/4 L IS are > outstanding mid-priced lenses. Nikon has nothing to compete with > either of them; the AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IFED and AF > Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D are particularly weak performers, to the point > of being embarrassing because of high distortion and CA and poor edge > performance unless stopped way down. The comparatively inexpensive > Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 performs better than either of them! If one is willing to "step back in time" a bit, the 24-120mm non-VR was a decent performer from f5.6, and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G was very good to the corners even wide open (although linear distortion was high), and it was reasonably compact and inexpensive. I think Nikon should have kept that FF lens and dumped the other two... 'Course, as you noted, when it comes to the fast Nikkor wide and super-wide zooms, Nikon pretty much stands alone in image quality (but moderately-priced they aren't!). BTW, the 28mm-105mm f3.5-4.5 was a very decent inexpensive Nikkor, with unusually low linear distortion for a zoom... --DR |