Digital SLR and lens comparisons;

[Benjamin_T]

If I should be going for a walk around solution that should be able to handle a variety of situations, which one do you think will be the best choice? (Feel free to add your own ideas too)

The Canon EOS 30D kit (With the Canon EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6).

The Nikon D80 kit (With the Nikkor AF-S 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6G ED).

Or the Canon EOS 400D/XTi body only with the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8.

What is your suggestion/opinion?

My budget is at US$1500 & below.

As you know, I shoot landscapes, architectures, & interiors too, although it doesn't matter that I don't have the absolute "BEST" fit for them.

[coldrain]

Hmm... the body has to be seem separate from the lens choice...

There are three main issues with the walk around lens question.
Price
Quality
Range (also has to do with convenience)

For price, a kit lens can't be beat. Quality wise of course they can. The Nikon 18-135 kitlens seems to be attractive, but the distortion of this lens is quite horrible (in my opinion). It barrel-distorts bad at 18mm, like the Nikon 18-70, Nikon 18-200 VR and Canon 17-85 IS. And at medium and long focal lengths it has quite pronounced pin cushion distortion. Also it vignets and has CA issues.
So from an IQ stand point I would avoid this one.
The 18-55 kit lens from Canon does not have these issues, but it needs to be stopped down to about f8 to be sharp. And it has a little lack of contrast.

So... I would opt for the "quality" choice... a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro has my vote ahead of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II, for a few reasons: it edges out the Tamron a bit IQ wise (distortion at wide angle is not as funky, less CA, a bit cheaper too and a macro setting).
The Tokina 16-50 f2.8 is an unknown to me for now.

If you happen to like a longer reach and do not want to switch lenses, I would look at the cheap Sigma 18-125 if you want to save money (it is half the price of that Nikon 18-135) or Sigma 18-200.

Which body you would prefer is totally up to you. I would prefer the 30D's handling and feel, and I would prefer the XTi's weight and size. I also prefer the Canon CMOS output to the Sony/Nikon CCD output of the D80, but this is also personal and subjective.

[DonSchap]

Best and cheapest walkaround combination that will also give you anti-shake (a most excellent and desirable option)

This about covers all the bases, except low-light:


SONY A100 Alpha
TAMRON AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF)


You basically wind up with a lightweight lens (only 15 oz) that gives you both wide-angle and telephoto ... and the best zoom stretch between them, 13.8x.

The SONY A100 has a 10.2 MP sensor, the same one as used in the D80, on which it actually costs significantly more and you do not get the anti-shake feature of the SONY.

If you want one lens that goes from "first" to "third" and back to "second base" for the triple play ... this 18-250 is the one. Reasonable focus speed, 18-inch minimum focal distance and sharp-looking centers.

If you're looking for high IQ ... then the focal range will have to be broken up into several lenses, to maximize the effectiveness of the glass.

Again, this is another approach ;)

[swgod98]

For an everyday walk around camera, I'd probably take the XTi. I'm just not too keen on it's handling and viewfinder. The 30D is simply too big/heavy for this (opinion, of course), though it is probably the best camera of the three. I wish Canon would make a 30D style model the size of Nikon's D80!!

Because of this, the D80 seems to be the perfect mix.

As coldrain mentioned, lenses are a different issue altogether...And just for the record, I'll put the 18-135 up against any of the lenses mentioned in this thread. In fact, it's the only kit lens that is sharp throughout the image and when wide open. Combine that with the range you get, and the little features nobody mentions, such as MF override, silent high speed motor, internal focus, yadda yadda, and it's definitely a contender!

50mm simply isn't far enough for outdoor photography IMO.

But, I wouldn't exactly suggest it (the 18-135) for anyone doing architecture shots. Because, while vingetting is hardly something to be concerned about, distortion is (IMO).

I like that Don mentioned the Tamron, but I'm not too keen on it.

[mcenut]

I'd suggest a good quality point and shoot camera for a walk around setup. Basically they are lighter and less obvious. I was never troubled when I'd take photo shoot lunches when I carried my Canon PowerShot. But I was hassled all the time by rent-a-cops when I'd carry my DSLR.

[Djzleite]

Sony A100 is doing a good work here. D80 became out of question in the end, the price and features didn´t justify the diference.
Steadyshot works nice. Yeah, let´s check the price ...

[Benjamin_T]

Wow, some fantastic responses guys.

Keep them coming! :)

How is it that the excellent Nikkor 18-135mm kit lens can be bad? I though it offers the best bang for the buck according to every professional reviews out there! (Like SLRgear.com and photozone.de etc...)

And I thought that the Canon kit lens was kind of...bad? :D (Sorry, can't resist it :P) But I like the Canon EOS 30D though. (That's why)

As an aside,

Wouldn't the Pentax K10D be the better choice over the Sony A100 dSLR-Alpha?

Sorry, in a rush for now! I'll be back later!

See you guys!!

[some guy]

sticking the efs 18-55 lens on the 30d would do it no justice. If u're gonna get a 30d go body-only. There are other neat dSLR like the k10d or the A100.

[swgod98]

How is it that the excellent Nikkor 18-135mm kit lens can be bad?

It is actually a very good lens. It is very sharp. It has manual focus override (which many lenses lack). The front lens element stays put (meaning you can use circular polarizers). It has an internal focus motor (means it's silent and fast). And it has great range!

The "bad" part of it is due to the distortion, which is slightly worse than the average lens (which already has some). And it has CA problems under certain conditions.

Though vingetting is present in some images, it is the easiest problem to correct for (and you don't have to sacrifice image quality to do so).

So ya...it can easily be mistaken for a bad lens. It's just a matter of where your priorities lie.

[Benjamin_T]

So... I would opt for the "quality" choice... a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro has my vote ahead of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II, for a few reasons: it edges out the Tamron a bit IQ wise (distortion at wide angle is not as funky, less CA, a bit cheaper too and a macro setting).


I agree that the Macro feature of the Sigma is an advantage over the Tamron, but I don't think that it has the advantage in the optical area over the Tamron according to here. (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28m_nikon/index.htm)

A quote from the review:

Verdict
Generally the Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro delivered a solid performance but without being any better than the competition. The resolution results are generally very fine except at 18mm where the extreme border performance leaves something to be desired below f/5.6. Distortions as well as CAs are about in line with the rest of the gang. Typical for most dedicated APS-C lenses the vignetting could be a little better at wide-open aperture. The build quality and handling of the Sigma is fine. The Sigma offers lots of bangs for your bucks but the comparable Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP seems to be a better alternative.

Just my findings that's all.

Best and cheapest walkaround combination that will also give you anti-shake (a most excellent and desirable option)

This about covers all the bases, except low-light:

SONY A100 Alpha
TAMRON AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF)

You basically wind up with a lightweight lens (only 15 oz) that gives you both wide-angle and telephoto ... and the best zoom stretch between them, 13.8x.

The SONY A100 has a 10.2 MP sensor, the same one as used in the D80, on which it actually costs significantly more and you do not get the anti-shake feature of the SONY.

If you want one lens that goes from "first" to "third" and back to "second base" for the triple play ... this 18-250 is the one. Reasonable focus speed, 18-inch minimum focal distance and sharp-looking centers.

If you're looking for high IQ ... then the focal range will have to be broken up into several lenses, to maximize the effectiveness of the glass.

Again, this is another approach

I would like to read a "professional" review of that Tamron zoom lens before I would lay down my cash for one. :)

I'd suggest a good quality point and shoot camera for a walk around setup. Basically they are lighter and less obvious. I was never troubled when I'd take photo shoot lunches when I carried my Canon PowerShot. But I was hassled all the time by rent-a-cops when I'd carry my DSLR.

Perhaps the Sigma DP1 digital rangfinder would do fine. :) But I would never buy it without reading a professional review of it.

It is actually a very good lens. It is very sharp. It has manual focus override (which many lenses lack). The front lens element stays put (meaning you can use circular polarizers). It has an internal focus motor (means it's silent and fast). And it has great range!

The "bad" part of it is due to the distortion, which is slightly worse than the average lens (which already has some). And it has CA problems under certain conditions.

Though vingetting is present in some images, it is the easiest problem to correct for (and you don't have to sacrifice image quality to do so).

So ya...it can easily be mistaken for a bad lens. It's just a matter of where your priorities lie.

I am just curious about the Nikkor AF 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5G ED. This lens have THREE E.D. (Extra low dispersion) glass elements in it. (The most I've ever come across, whereabout the newer Nikkor 18-135mm lens only have one.) The results are obvious with the lowest CA and purple fringing characteristics I've ever come across! (So low as to be a non issue.) I figured out that the light rays must be remarkably/accurately well focused on to the image sensor plane with the Nikkor 18-70mm lens.

I agree with you that the new Nikkor AF 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6G ED zoom lens is a very good long zoom lens though, and a great value when purchased with the Nikon D80.

:)

[coldrain]

benjamin, read through the thread about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 from Rooz in teh Nikon DSLR forum.
You will find 3 sources there, where you can see why I think the Sigma is the better idea.

Just one little thing to point out again: The Sigma and Tamron were not tested side by side, there were months between the tests. If you delve into the figures yourself, you may come to a different conclusion.

[Benjamin_T]

benjamin, read through the thread about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 from Rooz in teh Nikon DSLR forum.
You will find 3 sources there, where you can see why I think the Sigma is the better idea.

Just one little thing to point out again: The Sigma and Tamron were not tested side by side, there were months between the tests. If you delve into the figures yourself, you may come to a different conclusion.

Like what...?

[coldrain]

Like what was shown in that thread I mentioned?

It would not hurt to read the stuff...
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30461

Like: why did the reviewer conclude the Tamron should be preferred?
Overal the Tamron is less sharp.
The Tamron has some quite severe CA, the Sigma a lot less.
The Tamron has odd distortion of the focal plane.
The Sigma is a bit better built.

Do YOU know why the reviewer put the Tamron ahead when you actually read the reviews, figures and data? And when you look at actual results?

[Benjamin_T]

Basically the Tamron features better border sharpness, and the Sigma features better center sharpness according to the data's.

The Vignetting and CA values of the Sigma are also better.

All this are just general conclusions, though the specifics are in the data's itself.

[Logan7]

I would like to read a "professional" review of that Tamron zoom lens before I would lay down my cash for one. :)



Like this?

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

[mjsneddon]

Here are a few combinations to consider:

Canon XT with Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC OS, at a cost of approximately $1,060.

Canon XTi with the Sigma lens listed above, approximate cost = $1,230.

Canon 20D with this same lens, estimated cost = $1,600.

or

Canon 30D with the same lens, for about $1,670.

The Sigma lens has an excellent zoom range for a walk-around lens. And the stabilization feature is a plus. I have no experience with this lens so can not vouch for its quality.

I have a 20D which is not a lot different than the (newer) 30D. I have enjoyed it very much. It offers excellent low-light / high ISO performance.

Just my thoughts.

Have a good day.

[Benjamin_T]

Like this?

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

Actually I meant the Tamron 18-250mm. ;)

[Rooz]

i personally don't think the 18-250 is a good choice. you are better off with one of the 2.8 lens' coldrain has already mentioned, (also in the thread he linked to), and then get the 70-300mm later. you can do that regardess of the body you end up choosing.

does that blow your budget ? sure it will. but the beauty of DSLR is that they have interchangable lens' so you can grow with the system. you want a killer lens you said in another thread, well the 18-250 is certainly flexible with it's great range but it is far from a killer lens. to me it is a budget-driven comprimise.

be patient and invest in better quality glass. if you've saved and waited this long to jump in the deep end, why comprimise so severly on glass now when if you wait a while longer you can invest in better performing glass later.

just my 2c.

[Robert Besen]

It's a budget AND CONVENIENCE driven compromise.

[Rooz]

its more of an IQ comprimise.

[DonSchap]

Look, the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 can hold its own ... and with some of the great glass I have, I use it quite frequently to solve "convenience issues." It shoots adequately enough to serve as a good alternative lens ... and if it is all you can spring for ... you are still well served.

You must bear in mind what it was designed for ... UTILITY. All bases covered. That's it. It's not a miracle lens ... it's the one-lens-solution for the beginner and the vacation lens when you're not interested in carrying four tons of equipment bag.

It seriously makes the SONY A100 a terrific solution for just about any situation, short of indoor telephoto (buy an external flash, and you have that solved, too).

23815

So, you can go on about severe IQ if you must, but we're not spending thousands ... just a mere $500 for the entire range (wide-angle to telephoto).

Reach in your wallet and show me the money! For $500 ... it shows it is still hangin' in there. You could do a lot worse ... like an 18-70mm kit lens. Now, there's a joke for IQ. :cool: