Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Fan boys ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Thumbs down Fan boys ...

    There comes a time when the quality of the shot is at odds with the quantity of ready cash you have in your pocket.

    Basically, when it comes to photography, if you do not use decent enough equipment, no matter how great you are with a camera ... there will always exist a gaping margin for improvement that some critic is going to point out, because you did not use this or that piece of high-end optic.

    There are a number of "serious-spending" users to make your laying claim to a decent enough shot almost impossible because you did not use the manufacturer's high-end glass. Argument abounds that unless it has the "label" ... you cannot get a truly exceptional shot.

    Personally, I say "HOGWASH!" I am of the belief that you can certainly produce excellent work with "acceptable" level glass ... and it does not have to be the prime manufacturer's stuff, either.

    If your efforts are at the point where you have to inspect your work at 300% or better to determine the quality of the shot,
    Name:  stop stop.gif
Views: 153
Size:  12.1 KB I contest that you are simply looking too hard for flaws. What is the point, in the end? If you are selling the work, that is one thing, but if it is for your own edification ... try to enjoy taking the composition ... rather than inspecting it for edge focus flaws.

    Lighten up! You certainly can enjoy this craft without buying into all the hype concerning high-end glass. For one thing, not only is it expensive ... it downright heavy to lug around. Before you buy your next lens, do some research on the class of the lens and various alternative lenses that are out there, before plunking down $1500.

    A case in point is the SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM 82mm (28 oz) versus the SONY 24-70mm f/2.8 CZ 77mm (33 oz). After a couple of reviews, these two lenses are nearly identical in performance ... yet the Zeiss lens is almost twice the cost of the SIGMA.

    Sorry ... I'm not a fan boy ... the SIGMA gets the job, lighter and for less cost.
    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Sorry ... I'm not a fan boy ...
    lol i think someone stole Don's username and password.
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    "Rooz" this was directed more toward another Board, rather than our own. I just wanted to see where it may lead.

    As much as I have not liked SIGMA, in the past ... they came up with a winner in this particular zoom lens.
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    the sigma is quite highly regarded, thats true. 82mm filters though...ouch.

    i wouldnt expect the performance to be the same though no matter what anyone tells you. i've run the sigma and tamron against the nikon 24-70 and they are chalk and cheese. i'd imagine the same would be true against the zeiss which is just as good as the nikkor. rememebr mtf is only 1 TINY part of the equation.
    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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    but which has a better resale value?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Your pockets are empty because you've spent it on multiple copies of same focal length mediocre glass. Choose wisely my friend. You continue to search for the grail with low cost glass, but $200 to $400 here and there for "inexpensive" glass adds up to the cost of the known quantity "expensive" glass. And yes Virginia there is difference, slight in a lot of cases, but it's there.

    The Sigma is a darn good lens, many Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are good lenses. I am pulling this out of my @$$ but I would hazard a guess they are probably 90-95% of the CZ or other first party lenses. That makes them a good value. When you get to a lens of high quality, even from the 3rd party manufacturers the cost of the lens goes up significantly. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens is Sharp Sharp Sharp and competes very well with 1st party glass, it's cost? $2900. But AFIK it's the only f/2.8 with that kind of zoom range. It was fully in the running when I was looking for a long zoom, I didn't buy it, why? Not because it wasn't first party, but because it cost too much. I bought first party instead, it was cheaper.
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    I wonder when Sony is going to finally dump Zeiss, because that relationship has probably moved way beyond where it's good for Sony.
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post
    I wonder when Sony is going to finally dump Zeiss, because that relationship has probably moved way beyond where it's good for Sony.
    They won't. If they lose CZ, they may buy a bigger stake in Tamron.
    If they do, then Sony will have to ramp up R&D and manufacture their own lenses.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    If they do, then Sony will have to ramp up R&D and manufacture their own lenses.
    Well, they're already are doing that - Sony's been pushing their own "G" series lenses over Zeiss-branded stuff for a while now. I'm pretty sure Sony also knows the value of building up their own brand name instead of giving money to another company.

    The thing is, this isn't a "strategic partnership" - Zeiss forced the contract on Sony after Sony got caught violating some of Zeiss' lens patents in the early 2000s (I'm pretty sure Sony didn't do it knowingly, though).

    Don't get me wrong, Zeiss has made some very, very nice lenses for the Sony system, but if Sony is in it for the long term (and you would hope so), they need the Sony G brand name to stand on it's own, like Canon L, or Nikkor, or Zuiko.
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    If they were smart, they would start re-manufacturing all the old G Minolta glass with updated digital coating and SSM.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

Posting Permissions

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