|
#31
11-14-2005, 07:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Lenses for Canon
What I mean is that even if an improvement on the 20D comes out the 20D will still be making the same quality shots. it will be obsolete by comparison, but thats fine. I dont care, as long as I move up to a DSLR finally.
|
|
#33
11-14-2005, 08:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Lenses for Canon
You can also look in Seoul for a used Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 L...in China a good used copy costs as much as a new 17-40 f/4 but you do get advantage of a lower f-stop. Used is an option as well if you want to save cash...I think the 85mm that Francis has he got on the used market (correct me if I'm wrong).
As for the Sigma 18-50mm...very cheap here in China...tried a copy...wasn't too happy. I had to stop it down to f/4 to get decent pictures...so why not just get the 17-40 which is great wide-open anyway? Plus the Sigma is only a digital mount lens...in 3 to 4 years when you will want to upgrade (and at that time full-frame from Canon will be even cheaper) perhaps to a full frame camera you will have to replace the lenses as well. Something to think about. But do look for the 17-35mm...a great lens at a great price.
|
|
#34
11-14-2005, 08:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 28mm or 35mm
Hi, Filip. More like 56mm. May fit his/your purpose, of course, but we must remember that some of the members comments on FredM forum (others too), mentionned here, relate to full frame (not 1.6 crop) cameras. they really mean 35mm.
--------------------------------------------- I think he was talking about a new lens for his 20D...correct me if I'm wrong but a 20D is a 1.6x crop camera, right? So, yeah, the 35 becomes a nice 50-something prime.
|
|
#36
11-14-2005, 01:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 28mm or 35mm
Hi Filip,
Don't agree a bit, Sigma EX have answome lenses, and for the price they must be put in the bag for the choices For the same price you can choose a whatever canon f4 or a sigma f2.8 ... well, it deservs at least a thought. the 2 f/stops make some diference
|
|
#37
11-14-2005, 02:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 28mm or 35mm
I also support the Canon decision, it is much better to save and wait than to take risks. The first time I tried a Sigma lens on my previous Canon Rebel, I got an error message on my lcd screen...that scared me, so I never went for any other brand, than Canon.
Regarding the digital obsolency, it may sound harsh, but it is true. Digital cameras are like this, we may start to love them, and they lose their market value in a snap. They can still give you years of good pictures but if you try to sell them nobody may pay your sentimental value. That happened with my Minolta Z1, I still have it, and I still use it! It is the first of my collection of antiques digital cameras. Lenses on the other hand, have a long lifetime, and they retain their value. K.
|
|
#40
11-14-2005, 02:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 28mm or 35mm
Very true, my last digi was a Sony 717. Though not an SLR and a bit slow on the AF at times, that was an awesome camera. You just can't argue with Zeiss glass. I was fortunate enough to get mine right after 828 came, so did not have to pay more than $550 (display model at local shop.) My dad now uses it, though I really miss that camera sometimes. Fortunately, it has a good home. Gave it to my Dad. Not as flexible or fast as my 20d, but I have to use a prime to get equal quality of sharpness. I wish Zeiss would make some 3rd party lenses for the canon. That may change when I get some L glass in the early part of next year. When I upgrade in a few years I am hoping to have my wife knowledgeable enough that she will use my 20d instead of a point and shoot. She has a good eye for composition, but her eyes tend to gloss over when I get even a bit technical. I have heard good things about that 30mm though. Would love to hear more testimonials. Well, off to class I go.
Grav
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
