|
Not logged in [Login - Register] |
You Are Not Registered Or Not Logged In |
Corsa Sport » Message Board » Off Day » Snap Day » DSLR Lens Manufacturers » Post Reply
|
ed |
posted on 24th Apr 13 at 07:47 |
The best thing to do is check the reviews of the lens you're looking at. With the Tameron zoom lens I've got, there are some very slight imperfections (I can't remember the correct term for what happens) right at the edge of the photos you take with it and the only reason I know they're there is because of a review comparing it with a Nikon equivalent. For me it didn't matter and in reality I don't notice it. | |
whitter45 |
posted on 22nd Apr 13 at 09:37 |
quote: this It will depend what lens you are looking at - i.e wide angle, zoom etc as each type has preferred makers What I find is that the likes of Nikon and Canon are normally the best but the difference in price is sometimes hard to justify People want to say they have such a lens and do not use it to the potential or often enough to warrant having it | |
Balling |
posted on 22nd Apr 13 at 09:08 |
quote:No, not much at all. Usually one has a slight advantage over the other and you'll need to read reviews to find out which. There's a lot of brand snobbery in photography though, so be prepared to defend choosing a third party lens. As said, third party lenses drop in resale value, so there's usually some good second hand deals to be made. | |
Rob E |
posted on 21st Apr 13 at 22:20 |
I upgraded my kit lens to a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC and its unbelievably sharp for the price. I think I paid about £350 new for it. They can be picked up used for around the £180 mark | |
corb |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:38 |
More thinking about stuff like Le Mans night shots which I WILL! get round to one day. | |
andy1868 |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:32 |
i probably should have put that in my answer too, just because something is cheaper doesn't make it a bad lens, just because there is a bigger badder brother doesn't therefore make it shite. Buy the best you can afford, skill goes further than expensive equipment. A bland photo taken with a £4000 camera is the same as a bland photo taken with a £300 camera. | |
Cavey |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:10 |
I've taken some great pictures with my Tamron 70-300, that cost 120, obviously there is better, but for the price its great. | |
andy1868 |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:07 |
might need a gym membership too, that would weigh a frigging tonne :lol: | |
corb |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:05 |
and a decent mortgage advisor to help me fund it | |
corb |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:05 |
I'm all over the place tbh! A lens which would drop down to f1.2 with a focal length of 15 - 400mm would be ideal :) | |
andy1868 |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 15:02 |
yes i'm pretty sure alot of people would say there is alot of difference i'm afraid, this is "normally" mirrored in the price. An expensive Sigma is likely to be better than a lower end Nikon/Canon for example. People tend to say the manufacturer's own lens are better quality than the 3rd party ones but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule. | |
corb |
posted on 19th Apr 13 at 14:56 |
Is there much difference in Lens quality between something like say, Tamron, Sigma, Canon..... If they offer a lens with similar properties to each other? |