[Ricin]

買唔起小白, 又想買支大光圈TELE比部300D, 搵咩代替好?

圖麗 ATX 80-200 F2.8 ($39XX 永成)
騰龍 SP AF 70-210 F2.8 ($47XX 萬成)
適馬 70-200 EX F2.8 ($52XX 鐳射)

邊支好D, 如果想買水貨去邊度好? 係唔係平好多?

定係索性買小小白仲好? 請幫忙. 謝謝!

[老叟]

圖麗最平,但係質素唔輸蝕過佢地,逆光就差D!!
數碼機唔同菲林機,因為有入射角度問題,所以大光圈未必好!!
買小小白喇,平D,輕D,影得自在D,不過依家缺貨都幾嚴重噃!!

[6x4.5]

Let me post something from Popular Photography, US (I did post this elsewhere before)

Zoom Lenses: Cheap vs. Expensive
By Peter Kolonia
October 2003

"What you get. What you give up."


Does it pay to spend big bucks on a top-class zoom when you can buy one with approximately the same focal length range for much less? To answer that question, we spent a month testing comparable high- and low-cost optics from Minolta, Canon, and Nikon. While we tested only a handful of lenses and can' t, therefore, generalize about all high- and low-cost zooms, our results may still surprise you.

Sharpness, usually considered the single most desirable quality in a lens, varied little between the US$1,000–US$1,500 pro and US$100–US$450 entry-level zooms.

In fact, based on sharpness alone, we could not determine whether 11x14 test prints were made with budget or pro glass. And that’s only half the story.

At several focal lengths and apertures, some bargain zooms actually produced higher SQF numbers than pricier counterparts! We found, for example, that at the 35mm setting, Minolta 's US$450 20–35mm/f3.5–4.5 outperformed the US$1,500 17–35mm f/3.5 at almost every aperture for 16x20 and 20x24 print sizes.

So, if pros aren' t getting sharpness for their money, what do they get?

1. Larger apertures Wider apertures (such as f/2.8 compared to f/4.5–5.6) let more light through to the film or digital sensor. This extra light permits a wider range of possible shutter speeds, framing rates, and depths of field. More light can also free you from tripods and electronic flash. Larger apertures, however, require larger lens elements, which are more difficult to make, adding to both weight and cost.

2. Closer focusing distances Whether you’re shooting Mother Nature’s creepy crawlies or products for Madison Avenue, being able to move closer to your subject has obvious pictorial payoffs.

3. Less distortion Zooms have linear distortion problems when vertical or horizontal lines positioned near the frame edges show a slight bowing inward (pincushion) or outward (barrel). The result of inconsistent image magnification, such curving lines are common in inexpensive zooms, and anathema to many pros, especially architectural photographers.

4. Better construction Sports or travel photographers, shooting football in the rain or bouncing across the Serengeti in an SUV, need zooms that keep water out and lens elements in precise alignment. Ruggedly constructed pro-quality lenses will perform in conditions that could sink a budget-priced zoom.

If these “extras” offer no significant advantages for you, then fire away with a $100 zoom. As mentioned, our tests are a mere sampling of all the comparable lenses out there. But with the inexpensive zoom, you just might get the sharpest pictures that money can buy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I give up spending money on expensive les long time ago, since my last "pro" lens is Minolta 28-70/F2.8G. For the money I have paid, i am slightly disappointed, (Sigma/Tokina offer the same thing for 1/2 price,) the minolta do not significantly improve in quality (maybe very little improvement on enlargements over 20")

But how many of us do 20" prints very often? NO

It is a very sad phenomenon to see people's 迷信 on Pro lens, even worse to see people buying them to show off - in fact I do know a number of people doing this.


4 years before, I carelessly drop the G lens and break it. However, I have never think of replacing it.

I am very happy with my prime lens now. I also carry cheap small zoom when I am travelling. I will say my prime lens are shaper then any pro lens, and have less distortion than many pro lens.

If you like to buy one, try Sigma if you don't mind to pay more - for their better control on flare, I have no experience on Tamron so could not made any suggestion.

[Ricin]

Thank you very much for your sharing. It is very constructive indeed.

I believe I am not "superstitious" at all but the people here always saying third party lenses are all rubbish make me a little bit hesitate.

[ninekit]

i second the opinion of primes,

figure out what focal length you really need, get the Canon primes.

they are a lot lighter, brighter in aperture, cheaper and better in quality.

i am happy with my combo of 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 100mm f/2.8 macro USM on my film EOS body.

and with 300D, if you really need zoom at that range, i will also suggest 70-200 f/4.0 L, its less expensive and a lot lighter, assuming big aperture and super shallow DOF isn't a must for you. With 300D you can always pump up the ISO to compensate the lost in speed.

[Jiangbianliao]

I only have 2 zooms and the rest are prime lenses. I always do the zooming with my legs, if possible, instead of changing lenses.

I also use a third party lens, which I mentioned a number of times before in this Fever Column, trying to arouse discussion on third party lenses vis-a-vis "original brand" lenses. I find my Tamron quite satisfactory in most respects, and the price is only half of what the original brand costs.

Finally, it boils down to personal preference. Buy what you need, and not what others need.

[LifeAfterDeath]

I think Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 is one of the best... and the price is very good... and is only $5000...
=^_^=
unless u need "IS" if not... go 4 the Sigma...

[Ricin]

多謝各位前輩. 綜合各位意見我似乎應在Sigma APO 70-200 F2.8與小小白之間選擇. 而我是傾向Sigma的, 重量於我不是大問題因我自問都幾大隻, 我比較擔心的是某些前輩時常說Sigma鏡不耐用, 不知真否. 因四五千元對我來說可不是一個微不足道的數目呀. 這支Sigma鏡在中環有間叫鍾X的舖頭賣$4750(水貨), 請問抵唔抵? 這間舖頭信得過嗎? 謝謝.

[Ahistano]

sigma 70-200 f2.8水貨價位大約係$4000

[6x4.5]

Sigma唔耐用?你成日跌落地乜鏡都唔耐用啦

副廠既話買Sigma你唔會失望

[Ricin]

6x4.5 兄, 多謝回應, 我現在放心很多了.

Ahistano 兄, 請問邊度賣$4000??

[ninekit]

personal experience, i have a cheappy sigma 35-70 f/2.8-4.0 many years ago. its good for about 2 years and then the lub. inside aperture started to leak, and make the diagphragm (? spell ?) sticky, which is not cure-able.

since then i have given up sigma, i hope they are better nowadays and hope they are better for the upper range of their products.

the other reason i don't personally recommend sigma is i have found the focusing speed even for the HSM is not comparable to its original USM, and its a touch noiser too.

for very causal travel use, i think i will go for Tamron.

[Velsper]

以前有支 EF 80-200/2,8 L
停左產, 可以找找二手

[Ahistano]

Ricin, 天祥, av荷里活都係

[LifeAfterDeath]

I think Sigma APO series is very good...