|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: D-SLR Lens and Accessory Choices
|
|
|
|
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-30-2007 10:49 AM
Mark, -You must have had a very bad day, trying the 30D. It's the without doubt best camera, You can get to the price.
I do not want to go into a religions war Nikon vs. Canon, but with experience from Canon T70, T90, EOS 600 and 650, I have never been more happy with any slr than this one, -taking 18.000+ shots since last april !
It was a chok, getting the 1,6 crop witch cost me a couple of new lenses to cover everything, but at the same time, You can't hide now, even when running very fast....
I use my 30D with the following glas, having no complaints on any of them:
EF-S 10-22 3,5 - EF 24-70 2,8L (great !!) - Ef 70-200 2,8 L IS (Even greater -- and heavier...) - EF 180 2,8 L Macro (Yummi !) - EF 300 2,8 L IS (as bringing Your DP70 with You, but worth the effort) plus 1,4 and 2x Extenders. I've got, what I need, and do not wish to try other brands. -All of these are honestly recommended ! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Per
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-30-2007 01:33 PM
I don't think the Canon versus Nikon thing is quite that simple.
As far as lenses go, judgment really must be centered exclusively on the specific kind of lens being considered, not a broad-sweeping judgment of brand name. Both Canon and Nikon have some outstanding lenses, and they have others that aren't so great either. Every lens has its trade-offs as well.
I can't judge Nikkor lenses, but when it comes to Canon's stuff the buyer needs to read a lot of reviews and other feedback from forums (like those at Digital Photography Review) before buying.
After long consideration, I chose to buy these Canon L-series lenses:
The big white and black model is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L without IS. Since I do much of my photo work from a tripod I didn't feel the extra $500 was worth it. And a number of reviews suggest the "non-IS" version is actually sharper. I'm really pleased with the image quality of the lens. Judging from feedback of others, Canon seems very consistent with making great copies of this lens. The same isn't so true for the more expensive "IS" version.
The smaller lens is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L. It's also very good. Overall it doesn't have quite as razor sharp of image quality as the longer lens, but it's still sharp and the vivid color quality just makes my "kit" lens seem like a cheap piece of crap. I'm using the hell out of it though, in part as an attempt to expose any weaknesses that might be in the lens. If I feel like it needs to be re-calibrated I'll send it in while it's still covered under warranty. Some people have encountered bad copies of the 24-70L.
Probably the one area where Canon does deserve some very heated criticism is their rebates. They hired some company called "Young America" to handle their rebate program. This company has a very widely known policy of screwing with customers. The attorney generals from two different states have filed law suits against Young America over this crap. I have $190 due back in "doubled rebates" for the two lenses I purchased. Most people say you often have to go back and forth with that company and even make calls directly to Canon's customer service in order to get your check. I am prepared to do just that. Canon would be doing themselves a favor by firing Young America and either getting rid of the rebates entirely or making them "instant" at the time of the sale.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-30-2007 06:25 PM
OK, then: I have not been with You for quite some time - and definitely not since I went digital. The upload process is new to me, but if i manage, I would like to show You a couple of photos, I took last november, attending the farewell-tour of good, old german party-king, James Last. "The Last Tour", some smart-ass called it on the poster, but the old chap himself wispered, when I got close enough to have my portrait "We'll be back in a couple of years, -if I can...!" So much for farewell... -Four days after the end of "The Last Tour", I bought tickets for two James Last concerts in Royal Albert Hall, London for september 2007. Pics from concert in CampusHalle, Flensburg, Germany.
So many journalists went berserk and wrote page after page about Rolling Stones going on tour, being sixty. James Last is 77 years old now, but within ten minutes the roof was about to go off the building. We got 3 full hours of everything from soft pop, over solid rock, U2 and a brass version of "Over the Rainbow", leaving no eye dry... Well: Even if he's had his part of ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif) and scotch, Mr Last has not been climbing Coconut Palms
These pictures are all taken with the Canon EF 70-200 2,8L IS - from behind raw no. 45 or standing direct in front of the stage. 
 
Last - that is - after Last - an example from the EF 300 2,8L IS with 2x Extender. -The explanation, why passengers sometímes believe, trains on smaller danish railroads have octave, not round wheels.... The small (116 seat) German Duewag Railcar is about 250 meter (750 feet) away.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-31-2007 10:54 PM
I dunno how valid debates are on 1970s lenses for 35mm film cameras with fixed focal lengths and either manual or shutter-priority and then compare them to current lenses for digital cameras that are often zooms.
I can tell you, my first serious camera was a Canon AE-1 before they became quite popular. I did quite well with it and even won a photo contest (which netted my dad a new suit worth several hundred dollars in 1970s money (it was a fathers day photo contest)...I liked that camera a lot.
However, I noticed pictures taken on Nikons (or Licas) seemed to have that "snap" as Mark calls it that my photos didn't...so....I worked all summer to buy a Nikon F2a (25th anniversary model), Nikkors 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/2.8. That is the camera and lenses I've used ever since for most all of my photos. The camera and lenses really do look better than the Canon equivalents (or Vivitar, which I had some for the Canon...the 70-200 zoom with Macro feature was just too much bang for the buck to pass up). About the only time I used the Canon after I had the Nikon was when I wanted to have two types of film handy and loaded (different speeds, tungsetn vs daylight, B/W vs Color...etc).
I even had my cameras tested...oddly enough I found that the Nikon with a mechanical shutter was more accurate than the Canon with an electronic timer. Furthermore, the Nikon was more even in light uniformity across the aperture...the Canon hot-spotted (this was a test on the camera, no lens). I don't remember the machine that did the testing but it was done by Strauss Photo and the same machine measured both cameras.
So given all that...yes I agree with Mark that in the 1970s and 1980s, Nikon beats Canon in every respect in terms of camera and glass. I still would not apply that to 2007 using different camera bodies, different mediums, different lens series.
As I am now approaching the concept of buying a digital SLR (my boy is now over 1 and my desire to record these little events are going beyond the digital point-n-shoots...I would instinctively lean towards Nikon....after all I have Nikon lenses that should work on new Nikon Digital cameras and I like the lenses...Nikon has always pleased me in the past. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the concept of Canon (also have some of those lenses) or others.
Then again, I might just say screw it load up the Ol' F2a with film and record his events the old fashioned way...the pictures will look better and last longer...I can always scan them in for sharing...oooo....the thought of cranking up my darkroom again, and for color no less (Bessler 23CII w/color head, EL Nikkors and up to 16" x 20" paper, gives me goosebumps!
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-01-2007 12:22 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
I dunno how valid debates are on 1970s lenses for 35mm film cameras with fixed focal lengths and either manual or shutter-priority and then compare them to current lenses for digital cameras that are often zooms.
That was one thought which occurred to me as well when Mark was making his comparisons between Canon and Nikon gear. The newer EF lenses and bodies are different. I kind of wish they weren't because my father has some really good Canon F-1 gear and some really good lenses that go with it. He bought the F-1 body from a photo-journalist friend of his named Bill Foley he met in Beirut (I used the same camera body in art school). There's a really nice 100mm prime lens in that collection. Sadly, I'm pretty sure those old lenses won't fit my Digital Rebel XTi body.
One of the reasons I bought into the Canon line of equipment is for the wider range of equipment, larger user base, and better overall range of camera bodies. The Nikon D2X is not quite the same in comparison to Canon's EOS 5D or EOS 1D series. I'm starting out with a Digital Rebel body, but I plan to move up to one of those "full frame" sensor bodies pretty soon.
I briefly considered the Nikon D200, but after looking closer at it and what I would be getting for the money I chose differently. That camera's sensor is just too noisy for my liking, a lot more noisy than Canon's sensors at the same ISO settings. And certainly too noisy for the much higher price. I was disappointed by that because the Nikon D200 has a built-in intervalometer that makes it possible to shoot time lapse sequences. It's a very cool feature that should be in a lot more cameras.
On Nikon, I really have nothing against their line of equipment. Back in the "analog" days when I was still in art school, I was lusting after a Nikon F4s -especially since my side job during senior year was working at Olden Camera in Herald Square and being in very close proximity to those nice camera bodies.
There is one thing I find very curious. If Nikon's gear is so much better than anything Canon makes, why aren't all the professionals who use D-SLR gear going with Nikon alone? I see a high prevalence of Canon bodies and lenses at high profile news and sporting events. That wouldn't make any sense if Canon's gear is really as inferior as what is being stated in this thread.
[ 02-01-2007, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic