kalokeri
larger than 35mm
ruben said:
Maybe that´s the big mistake an amateur could or should make.
If you believe the word saying you can´t use a lens designed for film on a digital slr you start investing in so called "designed for digital" lenses. If you do use the old lenses you´ll find out that there´s no big difference. A good lens from the old days gives good quality with digital slr, too.
This Sigma 1,4/30 maybe designed for digital but so far no one ever proved that it´s better than the EF 1,8/28 Canon is offering.
Thomas
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
It is half a stop faster.kalokeri said:
However that wouldn't be worth it for me against the lack of possibility of using it on film. If you get a Canon DSLR and all sorts of expensive chunks of glass anyway, you might just as well get a film EOS as well; if you have to get used to electronic cameras, why not reuse that for a film camera too if you're at it anyway. I'll probably get a DSLR at some time during 2008, and currently (as long as no one shows me an adapter to use Leica R lenses on Pentax) it looks like a 40D plus the 28/1.8 as a standard lens, plus either an EF-M again (which can be had for 20 EUR or so and is actually a pretty decent camera) or an EOS 10 which won't cost much more than 50 EUR.
Lord Fluff
Established
Rubin - you are reminding me of when CD came out and lots of headphones started appearing with "For Digital" printed on them.
You may want to check out the Fred Miranda forum for this kind of info - there are a lot of user-based reviews over there. Sigma are notorious for QC issues - some have had very good experiences, others have had to return lenses repeatedly; just luck of the draw really.
You may want to check out the Fred Miranda forum for this kind of info - there are a lot of user-based reviews over there. Sigma are notorious for QC issues - some have had very good experiences, others have had to return lenses repeatedly; just luck of the draw really.
kalokeri
larger than 35mm
Sorry, Philipp,
the Sigma maybe faster but that doesn´t mean it´s sharper, offers more contrast - in other words: gives the better optical quality. That´s what I was trying to say.
Thomas
the Sigma maybe faster but that doesn´t mean it´s sharper, offers more contrast - in other words: gives the better optical quality. That´s what I was trying to say.
Thomas
wintoid
Back to film
rxmd said:
That's me, plus a 50mm f/1.4. FWIW I have owned the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in the past, as well as the Canon 35mm f/1.4L. The Sigma is an outstanding piece of glass, but I had focus problems with it so it went back. I also felt it wasn't sharp across the frame, whereas the Canon 28mm lens is definitely sharp across the frame. I live at f/2.2 on the 28mm and actually don't miss the 35L or the Sigma at all.
minoltist7
pussy photographer
sitemistic said:
Whole /1.8 line from Sigma is very good and price-wise: 20/1.4, 24/1.8 and 28/1.8
on the downside is it's size (really HUIGE comparing to "normal" size expected from primes)
28/1.8 can be a sort of "prime" for DSLR, being a 40mm equivalent for 1,5x crop
consumed
-
<rant>
Wow. That was a lot of uneducated nonsense from the original poster...
First of all: I have owned the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Three of them actually. Two of them were front focusing, the last one were decent (and I'm being diplomatic here). Now I own the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and the 24mm f/1.4 L. Let me tell you: They ****ing rock. The Sigma is nice enough, if you can find one that works properly, but I have no use for a $400 lens with severe quality issues.
As for "Digital only lenses", what the **** are you talking about?!? Yes, there are lenses made for crop cameras, but you know that these are still made out of glass, right? (Judging from the OP's posts I might be making a huge assumption here...). They are not made out of silicone. And there are plenty of full frame dSLR's out there right now, and they can't use these crop lenses (EF-S) either. I'm sure Canon will release new versions of current lenses once they find a way to improve on the lens design, at least they have the R&D budgets to do so. To correct myself: They do this all the time.
I think the best thing for you to do would be to stop recommending ANYTHING to your nephew - you obviously lack the most basic understanding on the subject, which you have repeatedly proven in this thread.
</rant>
Wow. That was a lot of uneducated nonsense from the original poster...
First of all: I have owned the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Three of them actually. Two of them were front focusing, the last one were decent (and I'm being diplomatic here). Now I own the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and the 24mm f/1.4 L. Let me tell you: They ****ing rock. The Sigma is nice enough, if you can find one that works properly, but I have no use for a $400 lens with severe quality issues.
As for "Digital only lenses", what the **** are you talking about?!? Yes, there are lenses made for crop cameras, but you know that these are still made out of glass, right? (Judging from the OP's posts I might be making a huge assumption here...). They are not made out of silicone. And there are plenty of full frame dSLR's out there right now, and they can't use these crop lenses (EF-S) either. I'm sure Canon will release new versions of current lenses once they find a way to improve on the lens design, at least they have the R&D budgets to do so. To correct myself: They do this all the time.
I think the best thing for you to do would be to stop recommending ANYTHING to your nephew - you obviously lack the most basic understanding on the subject, which you have repeatedly proven in this thread.
</rant>
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
Ok, Canon EF mount lenses (whether prime or zoom) are designed for use on a full frame senser or 35mm film (Canon still sell the 1v 35mm film camera), they are not "digital" lenses. EF-S mount lenses are designed for use on the 1.6 crop cameras only and could be considered a digital lens (although they are no different to a 35mm half frame lens in any sense). In fact, consider crop cameras to be half-frame...ruben said:
Ok, as far as a nice zoom lens for a crop, look at the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS lens. It has very good image quality. Otherwise a Sigma 30mm 1.4 prime works well, though you may need to try several samples (my one is fine). Check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ and you can see user comments about all the main suppliers of lenses in the Canon world (also Nikon to).
Camera markets have changed a lot from the 60s to the present, bodies are much more expensive to design and manufacture (it's no longer just a light proof box, but a portable computer system bolted to the back of a sensor), and the amateur end of the market moves very fast (Canon release a new xxxD body every 18 months). However the main actors in the field (Canon and Nikon) still have very good systems, with a lot of accessories and peripherals. Add in the third party stuff, and it rivals any of the classic camera systems... the other actors (Penatx, Sony, Olympus, etc) are smaller players and have smaller systems, but they're getting better with time.
So dial back the paranoid " they're all out to get our money" thing... they're businesses, of course they after our money (along with Leica and Zeiss to), but they're not trying to screw they'er customers over for the evil pleasure of it.
Cheers
Matt
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
That was harsh.consumed said:
rolleistef
Well-known
I have to say that the 18-55 sold with my K100D is perfectly decent. Of course it cannot compete with a 50 1.7 SMC but it's perfect for everyday photography. Zoom are for evryday photo and pro photos and primes for art and Photography with a big P. What do you think?