Dye P
Is there a lot of Difference between Canon 24-70 mm f/2.8 & Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens besides the price? I'm newbie in photography and my friend recommended 24-70 f/2.8 lens for my canon, I'm just wondering If It's worth it to invest twice the amount of Sigma lens. Thanks
Answer
If this is your first DSLR, you might hold off on dropping anywhere from $450-$1450 on a lens that you aren't yet sure you really need. You didn't mention which Canon you have. I mention this because that may be a factor in your decision. Specifically, are you shooting a 1.3x crop or full-frame camera such as the 5D/5DMarkII or andy of the 1D/1Ds series? If the answer is no and you're shooting a 1.6x crop-body such as a Rebel T2i(EOS 550D), 50D or 7D, then a 24-70mm f/2.8 may not be the best choice. That said, if you're talking about the older Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG zoom that Sigma lists for around $750 (actual street price is closer to $500), then I've owned and shot it and offer a direct comparison to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM I currently own and use on both my 7D and my 5D Mark II. Iâve also used them on a Canon 40D that I recently sold.
As mentioned above, I currently shoot the Canon lens and prefer it to the Sigma. Iâve shot these lenses side-by-side on the same cameras. Iâve actually owned two copies of the Sigma. The first one I purchased several years ago for use on a Canon 40D. While I liked the lens overall at the time, it had focusing issues and wouldnât autofocus properly on my 40D. It worked great as a manual focus lens though. Because of the AF issues on my 40D, I eventually sold that lens to buy the EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which actually was a more useful lens given the 1.6x crop factor on cameras like my old 40D or the 7D I own today. To be fair, a friend of mine who (unlike me) is a professional photographer, continues to shoot the Sigma today on his 40D and 7D and neither he nor his clients has been disappointed. He is however, evaluating the possibility of moving to the Canon lens due to image quality.
The differences in build quality are fairly obvious when you handle both lenses. The Canon does focus faster and is almost silent where as the Sigma seems slow and can be readily heard grinding away across a small room. The Canon also offers full-time manual focus capability where as the Sigma has a clutch that must be engaged. The Canonâs hood is superior in that it works at both ends of the lensâ zoom range where as the Sigmaâs only offers a benefit at the short end of its zoom range as is true of most lens hoods. Both lenses have the rather odd tendency to physically extend their barrels when zoomed âoutâ to 24mm but, this is specifically why the Canon comes with a much larger, longer hood. And curiously, the Sigma requires 82mm filters that are a bit more expensive than the 77mm filters required for the Canon lens. For many people, all of these differences add up to little more than subtle luxuries that simply do not justify the higher price of the Canon. Thatâs a personal call and I was certainly of the same mindset when I bought my second copy of the Sigma but, after three years, Iâd matured a bit as a photographer and started noticing more things I didnât like about the Sigmaâs image quality.
Image quality is admittedly subjective but, typically very important to photographers. This is where the Canon has a visible edge in my opinion. Neither of the two copies of the Sigma lens Iâve owned offered the same degree of sharpness and clarity across the frame as the Canon. The Canon, I think, renders colors more accurately too. Iâve shot a dozen different Sigma lenses in addition to the two Iâve owned and I swear they all have the same weird yellow color cast to them. I also realize now that the Sigma is simply more prone to flare and ghosts when bright light sources were in frame or just out of frame than the Canon. And finally there is the issue of getting what you paid for. While both the Canon and Sigma are supposed to be 24-70mm lenses, one of them is clearly wrong. Specifically, the Sigma does not appear to be quite as âwideâ at 24mm as the Canon and visibly shows more barrel distortion. At the opposite end of the zoom range, the Sigma doesnât seem to be quite as âlong.â In fact, Iâd say Sigmaâs 24-70mm is closer to a 26-68mm zoom and Iâm not the only person who has made such observations. With all this said, Sigma does offer a newer 24-70mm f/2.8 that by all accounts is much better than their previous lens and closer in performance to the Canon lens but still cheaper. It may be worth a look.
If this is your first DSLR, you might hold off on dropping anywhere from $450-$1450 on a lens that you aren't yet sure you really need. You didn't mention which Canon you have. I mention this because that may be a factor in your decision. Specifically, are you shooting a 1.3x crop or full-frame camera such as the 5D/5DMarkII or andy of the 1D/1Ds series? If the answer is no and you're shooting a 1.6x crop-body such as a Rebel T2i(EOS 550D), 50D or 7D, then a 24-70mm f/2.8 may not be the best choice. That said, if you're talking about the older Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG zoom that Sigma lists for around $750 (actual street price is closer to $500), then I've owned and shot it and offer a direct comparison to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM I currently own and use on both my 7D and my 5D Mark II. Iâve also used them on a Canon 40D that I recently sold.
As mentioned above, I currently shoot the Canon lens and prefer it to the Sigma. Iâve shot these lenses side-by-side on the same cameras. Iâve actually owned two copies of the Sigma. The first one I purchased several years ago for use on a Canon 40D. While I liked the lens overall at the time, it had focusing issues and wouldnât autofocus properly on my 40D. It worked great as a manual focus lens though. Because of the AF issues on my 40D, I eventually sold that lens to buy the EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which actually was a more useful lens given the 1.6x crop factor on cameras like my old 40D or the 7D I own today. To be fair, a friend of mine who (unlike me) is a professional photographer, continues to shoot the Sigma today on his 40D and 7D and neither he nor his clients has been disappointed. He is however, evaluating the possibility of moving to the Canon lens due to image quality.
The differences in build quality are fairly obvious when you handle both lenses. The Canon does focus faster and is almost silent where as the Sigma seems slow and can be readily heard grinding away across a small room. The Canon also offers full-time manual focus capability where as the Sigma has a clutch that must be engaged. The Canonâs hood is superior in that it works at both ends of the lensâ zoom range where as the Sigmaâs only offers a benefit at the short end of its zoom range as is true of most lens hoods. Both lenses have the rather odd tendency to physically extend their barrels when zoomed âoutâ to 24mm but, this is specifically why the Canon comes with a much larger, longer hood. And curiously, the Sigma requires 82mm filters that are a bit more expensive than the 77mm filters required for the Canon lens. For many people, all of these differences add up to little more than subtle luxuries that simply do not justify the higher price of the Canon. Thatâs a personal call and I was certainly of the same mindset when I bought my second copy of the Sigma but, after three years, Iâd matured a bit as a photographer and started noticing more things I didnât like about the Sigmaâs image quality.
Image quality is admittedly subjective but, typically very important to photographers. This is where the Canon has a visible edge in my opinion. Neither of the two copies of the Sigma lens Iâve owned offered the same degree of sharpness and clarity across the frame as the Canon. The Canon, I think, renders colors more accurately too. Iâve shot a dozen different Sigma lenses in addition to the two Iâve owned and I swear they all have the same weird yellow color cast to them. I also realize now that the Sigma is simply more prone to flare and ghosts when bright light sources were in frame or just out of frame than the Canon. And finally there is the issue of getting what you paid for. While both the Canon and Sigma are supposed to be 24-70mm lenses, one of them is clearly wrong. Specifically, the Sigma does not appear to be quite as âwideâ at 24mm as the Canon and visibly shows more barrel distortion. At the opposite end of the zoom range, the Sigma doesnât seem to be quite as âlong.â In fact, Iâd say Sigmaâs 24-70mm is closer to a 26-68mm zoom and Iâm not the only person who has made such observations. With all this said, Sigma does offer a newer 24-70mm f/2.8 that by all accounts is much better than their previous lens and closer in performance to the Canon lens but still cheaper. It may be worth a look.
What camera features are most important to get good quality photos?
Adrianne
I'm hoping not to spend a lot, maybe something in the $300-or-less range, but I want a new camera for family and around-the-house photos. I have my little Olympus that's compact/waterproof/shockproof/etc. which is great for photos on-the-go when I'm out, but we're expecting a baby and I want better quality photos that what my current camera can do to capture the early years.
I'm hoping for something pretty well dummy-proof - I'm no pro photographer. :) I just need to know which features to look for (and if you have a specific model recommendation, that's great too) so that when I go to comparison-shop, I understand which features are most important and translate to the best quality photos. Like, you see pictures from multiple people from a wedding, for example, and even though they're all basically the same shot of the same event, someone's camera just takes WAY better pictures. I want to own THAT camera. LOL! Now how do I find it?
Any help is much-appreciated!!
$300 is what I can sell my husband on. If a good quality camera is going to be more, then I just have to have a really good argument. :)
The reason I have it in my head that the camera makes such a big difference is when my sister brings her big old Olympus over (it's 4.0 megapixels - top of the line about a decade ago, LOL) I can take fantastic photos with it, especially in natural light. She paid $400 for it back when digital cameras were first available. My camera (a P & S Olympus that I paid around $250 for) doesn't come anywhere close to the quality, even with more than double the megapixels, and doesn't handle sunshine that well either. I want what she has - but she doesn't know anything about cameras either, she just lucked out that it takes such great shots!
Just figured someone else would know more about what I should be shopping for. :) Thanks for the input - and any more suggestions are definitely welcome!!
Answer
You could get a used DSLR for $300:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=15488&N=4294182649
I would stick with a condition rating of 8 or better but the Canon Rebel at a 7 might not be bad. I would just call them and ask about what the condition is specifically. And keep in mind that a 6MP DSLR is better in every way than a 12MP compact.
But the big question is, do you want a DSLR? They are bigger and heavier. You either need more than one lens to cover the same range you can get with a compact, or you need a bigger, heavier and more expensive lens that still only delivers about 18mm to 250mm. That is an impressive range, but you can get 24-560mm or so in a compact. I love my DSLR and don't see myself using a compact, but DSLRs aren't for everyone. It is definitely something to think about.
I would suggest you skip the simple compacts if you really want a quality camera for photographing your new baby. Besides, you already have one in the Olympus. My suggestion would be a bridge camera which has the funtionality of a DSLR but in a smaller package. These cameras can get pretty expenseve too, so you might want to adjust your budget, like fhotoace suggested to about $400. That really gives you a lot of options for a nice camera.
As to what is important, manual and semi-manual controls are very important. Manual, shutter priority and aperture priority allow you to take control. There are scene modes, like portrait mode, but these are completely automatic and use a set standard of settings that you can't change. So you have no control over depth of field. With aperture priority you can change the aperture and alter the depth of field. With shutter priority, you can choose a long shutter speed to blur motion or water and it is difficult to do that with only automatic controls. And manual focus is a must for options. Auto-focus has its advantages but I like having the option of manual focus too.
I would want a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 which gives you better low-light capabilities and more options on restricting depth of field. You will actually have a range for this and you want the higher of the two numbers to be as low as possible as well. So with a long zoom range like most bridge cameras have, a max aperture range of f/2.8-f/5.6 would be very good.
Those are the deal-breakers for me. Without those options I wouldn't be interested. The following features are just extra:
-Image stabilization-gives you more hand-held shooting ability.
-Zoom range of at least 28mm-200mm-gives you the ability to shoot just about everything.
-Minimum shutter speed of at least 15 seconds, but 30 seconds would be better and allow shooting light trails. The bulb setting is also nice to have.
-Maximum shutter speed of 1/2000 which you may need when using a very large aperture on a very bright day.
-An uncompressed format like TIFF or RAW which gives you higher quality files
-External flash capable
A few things that don't really matter:
-Digital zoom-it is completely useless, just forget that its there
-How many MP-8MP, 10MP, 12MP, it doesn't really make a huge difference, the big tradeoff is that you might get more resolution with more MP but you also get more noise so how many MP is something that I wouldn't worry about-choose the camera based on the other features.
Try this features search:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
One other thing I will say, it isn't the camera that makes a great photo. Obviously the camera is important. If it weren't we wouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses. But no matter how nice a camera is, if the photographer doesn't know how to use it, they won't get any better results than if they used a disposable camera.
I can guarantee the photos you mention where they are taken of the same event but some are just so much better than others, those were taken by people who know how to use their cameras and who have at least a fundamental knowledge of the technical side of photography.
Photography isn't just an art, it is also a science and you have to spend some time learning the science no matter how talented you are artistically. Study exposure and depth of field. Also learn how to use the meter in your camera. If you put in the time to learn you will see an improvement no matter which camera you are using.
You could get a used DSLR for $300:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C0&ci=15488&N=4294182649
I would stick with a condition rating of 8 or better but the Canon Rebel at a 7 might not be bad. I would just call them and ask about what the condition is specifically. And keep in mind that a 6MP DSLR is better in every way than a 12MP compact.
But the big question is, do you want a DSLR? They are bigger and heavier. You either need more than one lens to cover the same range you can get with a compact, or you need a bigger, heavier and more expensive lens that still only delivers about 18mm to 250mm. That is an impressive range, but you can get 24-560mm or so in a compact. I love my DSLR and don't see myself using a compact, but DSLRs aren't for everyone. It is definitely something to think about.
I would suggest you skip the simple compacts if you really want a quality camera for photographing your new baby. Besides, you already have one in the Olympus. My suggestion would be a bridge camera which has the funtionality of a DSLR but in a smaller package. These cameras can get pretty expenseve too, so you might want to adjust your budget, like fhotoace suggested to about $400. That really gives you a lot of options for a nice camera.
As to what is important, manual and semi-manual controls are very important. Manual, shutter priority and aperture priority allow you to take control. There are scene modes, like portrait mode, but these are completely automatic and use a set standard of settings that you can't change. So you have no control over depth of field. With aperture priority you can change the aperture and alter the depth of field. With shutter priority, you can choose a long shutter speed to blur motion or water and it is difficult to do that with only automatic controls. And manual focus is a must for options. Auto-focus has its advantages but I like having the option of manual focus too.
I would want a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 which gives you better low-light capabilities and more options on restricting depth of field. You will actually have a range for this and you want the higher of the two numbers to be as low as possible as well. So with a long zoom range like most bridge cameras have, a max aperture range of f/2.8-f/5.6 would be very good.
Those are the deal-breakers for me. Without those options I wouldn't be interested. The following features are just extra:
-Image stabilization-gives you more hand-held shooting ability.
-Zoom range of at least 28mm-200mm-gives you the ability to shoot just about everything.
-Minimum shutter speed of at least 15 seconds, but 30 seconds would be better and allow shooting light trails. The bulb setting is also nice to have.
-Maximum shutter speed of 1/2000 which you may need when using a very large aperture on a very bright day.
-An uncompressed format like TIFF or RAW which gives you higher quality files
-External flash capable
A few things that don't really matter:
-Digital zoom-it is completely useless, just forget that its there
-How many MP-8MP, 10MP, 12MP, it doesn't really make a huge difference, the big tradeoff is that you might get more resolution with more MP but you also get more noise so how many MP is something that I wouldn't worry about-choose the camera based on the other features.
Try this features search:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
One other thing I will say, it isn't the camera that makes a great photo. Obviously the camera is important. If it weren't we wouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses. But no matter how nice a camera is, if the photographer doesn't know how to use it, they won't get any better results than if they used a disposable camera.
I can guarantee the photos you mention where they are taken of the same event but some are just so much better than others, those were taken by people who know how to use their cameras and who have at least a fundamental knowledge of the technical side of photography.
Photography isn't just an art, it is also a science and you have to spend some time learning the science no matter how talented you are artistically. Study exposure and depth of field. Also learn how to use the meter in your camera. If you put in the time to learn you will see an improvement no matter which camera you are using.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment