Which 70-200 Lens?
- Thread starter GerryD
- Start date
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
of course it does.... I never once said it wouldnt.. in fact in every post I have gone to the trouble of saying what a good lens the sigma is... I never said it wouldnt crop fine did I ?
Thats exactly the problem with sigma and sigma users.. what I said and what you just did!
im just trying to work out why the canon would give a better crop thats all..
Is that not though pretty much the definition of the law of diminishing returns? It's like AV gear - you can pay many times the amount for a component that sounds just slightly better than a basic one for a few hundred pounds. Can this possibly be worth it? Guess it comes down to each individual and their wallets to determine the value to them individually.
The argument is less of an issue when you are talking about a 1p sweet vs. a nicer tasting 2p sweet - no one spends too long debating that decision. In the same way, a billionaire probably might not waste too much of his time deliberating when there is a 'better' lens option available, even if it is twice as much. For those of us with more modest amounts of disposable income, it can be more of a difficult choice!
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,426
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Haaa well i replied to what you posted.. not what you where thinking
To answer what you where thinking then...I have no idea "why"... I aint that techie.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,426
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
If you took a cheap an nasty lens.. the worse one you could find... took a picture and then with same camera took one wiht the most expensive L lens.. which would be the better picture? A) neither as both same B) The L lens... if B) then the argument that its down to the camera surely falls flat on its face?
I am not suggesting a sigma is A) just the same concept wiht parameters moved up
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
KIPAX said:If you took a cheap an nasty lens.. the worse one you could find... took a picture and then with same camera took one wiht the most expensive L lens.. which would be the better picture? A) neither as both same B) The L lens... if B) then the argument that its down to the camera surely falls flat on its face?
I am not suggesting a sigma is A) just the same concept wiht parameters moved up
But then as long as both lenses are in focus and sharp then the same raw data would be recorded by the sensor (barring maybe contrast differences from different optics)? Sorry I just don't get it (I'm actually quite confused lol)
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,426
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
So your saying a cheap and nasty lens will be as good as a prime L lens?
Lets take it to extremes to prove the point..
heres a 400mm lens.. it cost 75 quid
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sunagor-4...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item2ebecc3455
are you seriously suggesting that this can produce the same quality as a 400mm canon L ?
Of course your not.. so its not the camera its the lens... thus change the paramters from the stupidly wide one I give above and......its the lens
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
KIPAX said:
Just typed out a reply and lost it, heres the abridged version..
Same body, same conditions, same settings, both lenses focusing accurately. How does one crop of an image end up "better", discounting any lens characteristics like different contrast?
Genuine question, no troll.
(Posted without seeing the edit)
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,426
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
All I am saying is.. two different lens on the same camera can and will produce two different results in quality.. quality effects crop.. again not as wide as the example above but that was just to prove the point
thats in my experience...
