Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 142
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    First you say you weren't talking about quality but just price. then you direct us towards reviews and i can only assume you are referring to the quality here as we do not need reviews for prices.
    And now you are talking about price again since it has already been established that similar quality lenses by Nikon and Canon are priced comparably.

    Have you made up your mind what it is that you are arguing about?
    And it's not like Minolta made bad lenses, so why shouldn't we use Minolta glass?
    Tamron and Sigma are cheap alternatives as well. Hopefully Tokina will join in as well.
    Ideally we would all want a full Sony/CZ lineup but none of us here are Pros so we only have selective Sony glass lineup.
    So you're saying that price and performance aren't connected?

    You're saying that it's normal for Sony shooters to shoot almost completely third-party glass up and down the lineup unless you're talking about top-end pro glass, when EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER provides reasonable (and generally superior) alternatives at every competing price point?

    My original argument - Sony can't compete with other manufacturers from a price/performance standpoint.

    -You've already said you can't afford to shoot Sony glass.
    -dr4gon has already said that he shoots third-party because he can't afford to shoot Sony glass.
    -Every other shooter from different manufacturers tends to shoot first-party because from a price-performance standpoint, first-party glass is the best choice (seriously, check out other's people's gear lists).

    But hey, please, continue to prove my point with statements like this:

    Ideally we would all want a full Sony/CZ lineup but none of us here are Pros so we only have selective Sony glass lineup.
    The idea that only "pros" shoot first-party glass is more than faintly ridiculous.
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Since you know so much about Sony glass, what lenses specifically are you comparing here?

    And are you saying every hobbyist here walks around with a Canon or Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 L quality glass?
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post
    Uh, okay, so price is or isn't a factor? I'm wondering what your argument is here. There is no "price/performance" metric without "price".

    Okay, I'll give an example from my neck of the woods:

    At the step-up standard zoom category, Olympus users have a choice of the Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54 F2.8-3.5, or the slightly cheaper Sigma 18-50 F2.8, which has been universally lauded as an excellent lens (and is a full stop faster at the longest zoom setting).

    Yet probably 90%+ users choose the Zuiko. Why? It's a better quality lens, in the same range, for much the same price.
    To make this clear, price definitely is a factor. But at some point, you realize the diminishing return from spending $xxx more for a simliar piece of glass, and thus the price/performance (VALUE) decreases.

    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post
    So you're saying that price and performance aren't connected?

    You're saying that it's normal for Sony shooters to shoot almost completely third-party glass up and down the lineup unless you're talking about top-end pro glass, when EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER provides reasonable (and generally superior) alternatives at every competing price point?

    My original argument - Sony can't compete with other manufacturers from a price/performance standpoint.

    -You've already said you can't afford to shoot Sony glass.
    -dr4gon has already said that he shoots third-party because he can't afford to shoot Sony glass.
    -Every other shooter from different manufacturers tends to shoot first-party because from a price-performance standpoint, first-party glass is the best choice (seriously, check out other's people's gear lists).

    But hey, please, continue to prove my point with statements like this:



    The idea that only "pros" shoot first-party glass is more than faintly ridiculous.
    Again, we have chosen the best value glass for what is within our budget constraints. I have no doubt that given an alternative, first party glass are usually the best. At one point, I got a 90mm Tamron F/2.8 macro, because that was what I could afford. Now it's been replaced by the superior Sony 100mm F/2.8 Macro. Is the Tamron a bad lens, no. Is the Sony worth it, yes in my opinion because now I see what the difference gets you. So price/performance may be higher (or diminishes) with more expensive lenses, but ultimately our budget dictates what we can afford.

    In the fall, I plan on re-examining my lineup and move towards first party glass. It will not be a cheap endeavor, but I'm confident it will help me get better shots in the future and allow me to do more.

    But to your previous point which you have not addressed:

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82
    Since you know so much about Sony glass, what lenses specifically are you comparing here?

    And are you saying every hobbyist here walks around with a Canon or Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 L quality glass?
    What Sony lenses are overpriced and/or not up to par.
    Last edited by dr4gon; 08-06-2009 at 01:34 PM.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    What Sony lenses are overpriced and/or not up to par.
    I thought we were pontificating about how FF shooters are the only serious photographers out there, of course I thought the only serious photographers were those out there shooting with view cameras...

    Now we are talking about glass somehow.
    Not necessarily overpriced, but definitely higher priced in almost every instance.

    A few examples from the B&H catalogue:
    High end lenses, pro quality
    Canon 100-400 $1400(includes IS)
    Sony 70-400 $1599

    Canon 24-70L $1270
    Sony 24-70CZ $1599

    Canon 300 f/2.8 $4100(includes IS)
    Sony 300 f/2.8 $6299

    Canon 70-200 $1899(includes IS)
    Sony 70-200 $1799

    Sony does beat the Canon in the 70-200 by $100 right now Canon is offering a $200 rebate which brings even that lens under the price of the Sony.

    I have done a much broader comparison on this and pretty much across the board a Sony lens will cost more than the comparable Canon lens. The Canon lenses with IS will often cost much less than the comparable Sony lens without IS.

    I am pretty sure that is why the majority of Sony shooters on this board are shooting third party or legacy Minolta lenses. In that case in body IS will save you quite a bit of money. When you turn toward pro investments, the Sony system starts becoming exponentially more expensive.

    Dr4gon you have shown quite a bit of talent with on this board and I enjoy looking at your work. The move to 1st party glass will only improve your photography.

    Elisha
    Even looking farther down in Sony's lineup, the price comparisons hold.

    Canon 18-55 kit $155(includes IS)
    Sony 18-55 kit $199

    Canon 50mm $115
    Sony 50mm $149

    Canon 55-250 $255(includes IS)
    Sony 55-200 $229

    Canon 75-300 $159
    Sony 75-300 $249

    I walk around with what I can afford. And yes my bag has a Canon 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 80-200 f/2.8L, 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS in it. So yes I walk around with some pretty good glass.

    I started with much less, I worked my way up to this. Canon offers quite and assortment ranging from the Kit type lenses to full pro lenses and a lot in between.

    There are excellent choices from third party to first party, from kit to pro, and everything in between. I have shot exclusively with Canon after having mucho trouble with 3rd party offerings from Sigma and Tamron. I recently gave Tammy another chance and sorry to say, the lens went right back.

    Canon offers me much more choice in mid range glass than Sony does now, in fact Sony pretty much offers kit type solutions and then pro type solutions with very little in between.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    I thought we were pontificating about how FF shooters are the only serious photographers out there, of course I thought the only serious photographers were those out there shooting with view cameras...

    Now we are talking about glass somehow.
    Not necessarily overpriced, but definitely higher priced in almost every instance.

    A few examples from the B&H catalogue:
    High end lenses, pro quality
    Canon 100-400 $1400(includes IS)
    Sony 70-400 $1599

    Canon 24-70L $1270
    Sony 24-70CZ $1599

    Canon 300 f/2.8 $4100(includes IS)
    Sony 300 f/2.8 $6299

    Canon 70-200 $1899(includes IS)
    Sony 70-200 $1799

    Sony does beat the Canon in the 70-200 by $100 right now Canon is offering a $200 rebate which brings even that lens under the price of the Sony.

    I have done a much broader comparison on this and pretty much across the board a Sony lens will cost more than the comparable Canon lens. The Canon lenses with IS will often cost much less than the comparable Sony lens without IS.

    I am pretty sure that is why the majority of Sony shooters on this board are shooting third party or legacy Minolta lenses. In that case in body IS will save you quite a bit of money. When you turn toward pro investments, the Sony system starts becoming exponentially more expensive.

    Dr4gon you have shown quite a bit of talent with on this board and I enjoy looking at your work. The move to 1st party glass will only improve your photography.

    Elisha
    Even looking farther down in Sony's lineup, the price comparisons hold.

    Canon 18-55 kit $155(includes IS)
    Sony 18-55 kit $199

    Canon 50mm $115
    Sony 50mm $149

    Canon 55-250 $255(includes IS)
    Sony 55-200 $229

    Canon 75-300 $159
    Sony 75-300 $249

    I walk around with what I can afford. And yes my bag has a Canon 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 80-200 f/2.8L, 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS in it. So yes I walk around with some pretty good glass.

    I started with much less, I worked my way up to this. Canon offers quite and assortment ranging from the Kit type lenses to full pro lenses and a lot in between.

    There are excellent choices from third party to first party, from kit to pro, and everything in between. I have shot exclusively with Canon after having mucho trouble with 3rd party offerings from Sigma and Tamron. I recently gave Tammy another chance and sorry to say, the lens went right back.

    Canon offers me much more choice in mid range glass than Sony does now, in fact Sony pretty much offers kit type solutions and then pro type solutions with very little in between.
    No doubt, no doubt Canon is a whole lot cheaper!

    I made this comparison a little while back with the 3 systems and since then, Nikon has gotten more expensive, Sony has changed a tiny amount (some up, some down) and Canon has gotten lower with their current rebates. Bodies aside, Canon glass is a steal. By the way, what bodies do you have to go along with that glass? I can't quite tell if you have a FF or not, could go either way lol.

    edit: nvm I see your profile now.


    Dr4gon you have shown quite a bit of talent with on this board and I enjoy looking at your work. The move to 1st party glass will only improve your photography.
    Thanks, I really appreciate that! I've learned so much here, elsewhere, and just by practicing.
    Last edited by dr4gon; 08-06-2009 at 03:37 PM.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    This thread seems to have degenerated into yet another "Lets knock Sony" session mainly on price so far as I can see with a measure of condescension thrown into the mix.
    I think we can all accept that Canon are the least expensive but there is little difference compared to Nikon.
    Do I care? No I do not. Until Sony picked up the pieces it looked like all my Legacy Minolta collection was just a bunch of nostalgic junk.
    Sony saved me 1000's of ($$$) so do I care if their lenses are a bit more costly, absolutely not.
    The 100 or $200 price difference on a high end lens is meaningless anyway. My car depreciates more than that in a month. If you amortise the purchase price over 20 years (not unreasonable given that I have 30 year old lenses still going strong) that's an ownership cost of $90 per year for an 1800 lens. I could live with that.

    Someone said "The Canon lenses with IS will often cost much less than the comparable Sony lens without IS. I am pretty sure that is why the majority of Sony shooters on this board are shooting third party or legacy Minolta lenses." .

    In my opinion, this is clearly erroneous. Take a couple of examples. The popular 70-200mm and 24-70mm zoom range (prices from Warehouse Express) ...

    1999 Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens
    1195 Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
    3194 total

    1550 Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM
    999 Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM Lens
    2549 total

    1289 Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T*
    1195 Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
    2484 total

    Now look at Tamron ...

    649 Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Di LD SP AF (IF)
    349 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 SP AF Di Lens
    998

    The price diffences are relatively small and it therefore seems pretty ludicrous to espouse the notion that price is the major reason "why the majority of Sony shooters" don't use Sony lenses.
    If you can afford the "First Party" lens' then you will simply stump up for any of the three Brands, any price difference is small beer especially when amortised.
    If you can't afford those prices and many cannot, you may well turn to Tamron.
    I'm sure that if you look at the Canon forum you will find many people using third party lenses for the same cost related reasons.

    It's totally pointless to knock Sony on it's pricing policy; what do you say about their pricing policy on FF cameras? It's easy to forget that only three years have gone by since Sony picked up the pieces of Minolta from the mess Konica left behind. We don't yet know their overall strategy so maybe we should reserve judgement.

    Talking about Minolta. Elisha received some negative comment for using Minolta glass rather than Sony. Go figure! As far as I am concerned Sony is just the latest name for Minolta and any "Minolta Glass" counts as "First Party" glass in my book.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Thumbs up Restoring balance to the Universe

    Okay ... now that were done with "up your --- with a piece of glass", let's return to:

    Destination: Full Frame
    ,


    where this discussion belongs. I know the 'now' desperate APS-C shooters are going to feel rather left out, when the migration begins. I kind of felt inklings when the A900 came out ... and as tempted as I was, last year ... I held back.

    Full Frame has the unique ability to return what was an EFFECTIVELY "normal" lens back to its originally designed wide-angle format. Instead of a silly 42mm (44mm w/ Canon) response from a lens with "28mm" stamped on it ... you are actually going to get 28mm. How about that?

    That wonderful 20mm becomes 20mm. Things actually mean something, again. You don't suffer from "effective" focal length, anymore.

    Yeah ... a real down side to moving the art back. I don't think so.

    We can all breathe easier, as lenses open up and you can, once again, get what you used to get out of your 35-film SLR.

    RETURN TO THE FOLD! Your "APS-C adventure" is finally coming to an end.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    didnt take long for you to get back to your pretentious self.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Question The APS-C Adventure: How big does it get?

    Just to clear up or head off confusion ... here is an illustrated sensor comparison of what you will get over the APS-C "wonderland" and other available sensors ... and, as an added bonus, just what Medium Format sensor can provide.


    Name:  Sensor-Comparison.jpg
Views: 58
Size:  99.7 KB

    The "best" part ... "Full Frame" means FULL FRAME ... no more, "Guess what effective length" you get with a lens. EVERYBODY gets the same. No more crop crap!

    Another aspect of it all, is that with the Full Frame SONY DSLR ... with "Super SteadyShot Inside" your PRIMEs (I mean the <200mm ones <- Canon buffs) and MACRO lenses don't shake as much.

    EDIT: My thanks to Ryan for his posting from Pop Photo, describing and taking up the argument 'Full Frame vs ...' Is it for the masses? Who cares? "Is it for me?" should be the ONLY important question being asked. Who's art is it, anyway?
    Last edited by DonSchap; 08-07-2009 at 07:15 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Cool OP's prerogative

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    didnt take long for you to get back to your pretentious self.
    You had your say, pal ... time to get back to the "serious" discussion.

    "Affordable" Full Frame ... the time is at hand.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 08-07-2009 at 06:58 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •