The main thing to remember (as I learned the hard way) when you buy a Canon camera - is if you want the best quality pictures out of it, you MUST pay a premium and get their "S Series" lenses. Their regular lenses are sub-standard, as are the lenses you get when you buy "pre-packaged" cameras (with multiple lenses) from retailers like Costco.
Hope this helps!
The S-Series lenses is not Canons premium lenses. All it tells the photographer is that the lens is meant for APS-C (H) type cameras.
The way to know a premium lens from canon if it has the a red ring or has L on the lens.
One way to know Nikon premium lenses if it has a golden ring or N on the lens.
The only APS-H camera body I am aware of is the 1D. You risk damaging something if you try to fit an EF-S lens on a 1D. It requires EF lenses.
EF-S lenses seemingly all have a protrusion that fits inside the camera body which might interfere with the larger mirrors in APS_H and full frame bodies. The protrusion also prevents use with teleconverters. And, their image circle is too small even for APS-H.
With the way Canon is setup it's very confusing. All I know if the camera has a red dot then it can take EF lenses, If the camera has a red dot and a white square then the camera takes EF, and EF-S lenses.
Anyway why give 1D IV a APS-H crop and not go full frame.
Because it is for sports? Because they could get the performance they were looking for with the sensor they used? Money? Some things you only learn by attending the developer's meetings and I did not.
I don't know how I feel about the 1D X, it seems like they are putting everything in one basket and I'm not so sure that is ideal. Time will tell. From the specs, I don't think I will be trading in my 1Ds for one.
Whats wrong with the 1DX, I mean besides the bottoms layout. I'm sure there is a reason why they did it, they do have around 4 years to come out with something better and they probably have some thing in mind.
I believe what he was saying is how to know identify a quality lens from a manufacture.
But yes Carl Zeiss does produce excellent glass, but dont forget Fujifilm also produces lenses just as good as C.Z if not better.
Ok, in that case I want a Fujinon XA87, that has a zoom range of 13.2-1150mm F/2.4-5.8 for my Nikon. That way I will never have to worry about getting any other lens, did I forget to mention that this lens has a built in 2x extender. And has some amazing quality glass.
The reason why you would get a manufacturer lens is because it will work best with their camera, for instance C.Z only offers manual focus for Nikon or any other brand, Sigma lenses do not come close to what Nikon can offer for there camera users in terms of speed, quality, reliability.
Good luck getting a Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, whatever to outperform a Nikon 70-200 or Canon or any other lens for that mater (24-70, 50, 85, 600, etc).
One benefit that I see using a C.Z if you are not in a hurry and or doing video other then that very limited use in this high paced world of photography.
Manufacturer (Nikon/ Canon) lenses will always be better then what other 3rd partly lens manufacturer can offer over all.
' I don't really care if it "works best with their camera",' is a curious notion. The lens is part of a system and the body is the rest of that system. If they don't match, the resulting photos will not be as good as they can be.
There are many different types of photography and the needs of a studio photographer shooting still life are radically different to the needs of a sports photographer shooting football or auto racing. The studio still life photographer has time to mess with focus and lighting, can tether to a computer and can do endless retakes if desired. The sports photographer either nails it or misses it and there is no retake opportunity, the whole system (lens, camera, flash & photographer) has to work together, flawlessly.
From time to time I hear about lenses lasting. I am old enough to have lived through a complete change in Canon's lens line up, and most of a second significant change with their version II lenses. I still have a couple of FD lenses with my old film bodies. I have a mix of EF lenses, some are version I and some are version II. Carl Zeiss may have a reputation built over a century and may be into all kinds of optics as are Canon and Nikon but a fashion photographer may only be as good as his last shoot and a lens manufacturer may only be as good as their last product. Digital sensors are not film and this realization has driven Canon to bring out redesigned version II lenses that work better with sensors. It is reasonable to assume that other lens companies would have to tweak their designs to account for the engineering differences as well, so unless the lens was redesigned in the digital era, it probably will not perform in the system as well as the newer glass, regardless of reputation.
In the defense of Sigma, I own one of their "superzoom" lenses and it performs just as well as Canon or Nikon superzoom lenses for half the cost. They get a bad reputation because they're reverse engineer their lenses to fit on Canon/Nikon bodies instead of being licensed to manufacture them to fit so older models experience glitches. Also, Sigma produces a 70-200 that performs just as well as the Canon/Nikon lenses and a 120-300mm F2.8 that is unmatched.
Sigma also make a dSLR body priced in the same range as Canon's 1 series
Wow, 2 cameras in less than a month. The new D800 has been annoounced. It is 36MP camera and half the price of the D4.
D4 is fast and has high ISO, but the D800 is the more impressive camera at twice the pixels and half the price.