To all the Photographers out there....Help please

[emorphien]

For the Nikon route, consider the D-80 or higher if you want superb glass for super cheap. It gives you the best value in the long run if you are after top notch image acquisition ability on the cheap due to it having full extended backwards compatibility with many old lenses - unlike the cheaper models which require much more modern lens systems, which means much more expensive glass! I refuse to use kit or consumer lenses on a SLR/DSLR. With the D-80 you can go on eBay and buy great old pro-glass for pennies on the dollar of what a modern lens of equal quality/specs would cost. So what if the lens has a few light scratches or marks on it's body from being around for 15 years? As long as the glass is perfect, that's all that matters!

-Chris

It is amazing, depending on what you shoot and under what conditions you shoot, how little scratches or even cracks in certain elements of a lens may have no real noticeable effect on your images. I certainly don't want to scratch or crack my lenses (nor should anyone!), but I have used plenty over the years and many times it really doesn't impact image quality.

I agree that the forums on dpreview.com are terrible, but don't discount the site for reviews. They have some of the most thorough reviews I've read on any website relating to consumer purchases. They also give some great ideas on products.

Their reviews can be quite good, although I don't treat them as gospel as many do. I don't fully agree with some of their methods and of course, they can screw things up or get bad samples.

My point was clear, the VR II lenses ARE one stop better than both IS and VR lenses.

The tricky thing there is that while the VRII is one stop better than VR, they're rated as "4 stop" capable; Canon has IS which is 3 stop (older designs) and 4 stop (newer designs) but they didn't bother renaming it to IS II. At this point, considering how long IS has been around from Canon, they'd probably be up to IS III anyway.

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

The tricky thing there is that while the VRII is one stop better than VR, they're rated as "4 stop" capable; Canon has IS which is 3 stop (older designs) and 4 stop (newer designs) but they didn't bother renaming it to IS II. At this point, considering how long IS has been around from Canon, they'd probably be up to IS III anyway.

Well, see I didn't know that ... I thought Canon only had one version of IS. I've been out of Canon stuff for about 2 years, so I assume the 'new' IS popped up since then.

And you're definately right, little specs or scratches on lens glass is usually a non-issue. One of my sharpest lenses is a really rough looking Nikon 80-200 AF-S, it has a ton of little scratches on the end element and specs throughout the inside elements ... but it produces amazing pics across it's range. I've had 2 Nikon 70-200 VR's, 2 80-200 AF-S (including this one), 1 80-200 AF-D, 2 Sigma 70-200 HSM. So I know how the best lenses of that range perform ... and it's this really rough copy that's the best performer of them all. Go figure.

 

[emorphien]

Well, see I didn't know that ... I thought Canon only had one version of IS. I've been out of Canon stuff for about 2 years, so I assume the 'new' IS popped up since then.

Canon IS has been around what now, 10 or 12 years? (Honestly I haven't a clue but I think it's in that ballpark) It has definitely evolved over the years and I think it wasn't until Nikon started competing with VR that they started specifying or making a big deal of how many stops the mechanisms were good for. Right now the newest lenses are all getting 4 stops I believe but some older designs (like the 70-200 2.8 IS, the 100-400 you mentioned previously) are still 3 stop.

And you're definately right, little specs or scratches on lens glass is usually a non-issue. One of my sharpest lenses is a really rough looking Nikon 80-200 AF-S, it has a ton of little scratches on the end element and specs throughout the inside elements ... but it produces amazing pics across it's range. I've had 2 Nikon 70-200 VR's, 2 80-200 AF-S (including this one), 1 80-200 AF-D, 2 Sigma 70-200 HSM. So I know how the best lenses of that range perform ... and it's this really rough copy that's the best performer of them all. Go figure.

I've heard the Nikon 70-200 VR, while a great performer on the DX bodies, falls off badly on a full frame. I don't know anyone that has one though and that's a lens I've not used. On the other hand the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS provides fairly uniform performance on a full frame, but supposedly isn't as sharp at the center. So I've heard... and seen in a few tests. I'm still using my old 70-200 non IS model. Predates all this IS nonsense!

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

I've heard the Nikon 70-200 VR, while a great performer on the DX bodies, falls off badly on a full frame. I don't know anyone that has one though and that's a lens I've not used. On the other hand the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS provides fairly uniform performance on a full frame, but supposedly isn't as sharp at the center. So I've heard... and seen in a few tests. I'm still using my old 70-200 non IS model. Predates all this IS nonsense!

Maybe, I haven't tried. I have a D3 and my 80-200 AF-S works well on it, normal vignetting that Photoshop easily removes. I don't have a Nikon 70-200 VR anymore, but I'll keep that in mind next time I'm out on a gig ... there's always somebody next to me with one, and I'll take a few test shots with it.

Know what the absolute sharpest and most saturated lens I've ever owned is? This will be a shocker ... a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that I had recalibrated by the factory (they did it for free). It literally is sharper at 50mm/2.8 than my 50mm f/1.4 is stopped down to 2.8. And it has just ridiculous contrast and saturation.

I'm a Pro Sports shooter, so I know longer lenses ... and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 is my favorite sports lens ever.

So I kinda get a giggle when people try and compare Nikon vs. Canon lenses. Some of the best lenses on the market are 3rd party.

I just used the new Tokina 11-16/2.8 the other day, I think it might be the one that persuades me sell my Nikon 12-24/4. Another incredibly good 3rd party lens.

 

[emorphien]

I know two different people with the Tokina 11-16 2.8. One for Canon, one for Nikon. It really does look to be a very nice lens both optically and in build.

The Nikon 14-24 2.8 is an amazing lens, but I couldn't see myself ever owning it (if I shot Nikon) because it has no filter thread. If I was going to limit myself like that I'd rather just have the much cheaper Sigma 12-24 which also works on full frame which I may get down the road.

I do approach Sigma with some trepidation these days, their QC is not as good as the other third party brands or the "name" brands. My second 30 1.4 is good but I have read plenty about many of their other lenses. I also know someone with the 50-150 2.8 and he doesn't want to upgrade to the supposedly better new version because his current lens is great and he's worried about dealing with bad copies. If Sigma could get their QC under control they'd be killing since they have a lot of unique lenses.

As for longer lenses, the longest I have is the 70-200 2.8! I don't generally need much tele reach for my landscapes, architecture and the other things I shoot but I have used a variety of tele zooms and primes. I wouldn't mind shooting more sporting events, it's kind of fun, I just don't generally get time to do so.