Gary Glass 17 Nov 2009

any of the brands have decent digital, Nikon,Canon, Olympus,Sony(which bought out Konica/Minolta and use that as their basis for their new camera)..etc The main thing is you want to put more of your $$ in the lens , that is where more of your sharpness is going to show.

APHOTO4YOU 17 Nov 2009

Yep in that order NIKON,Canon and Olympus... However Olympus is limited and the most lens u can get with Olympus is 300 mm...

I suggest Nikon ofcourse... What i will say now might ot go to well with some.....but look at my wildlife images on my website and u will see what i am trying to say... Cameras are not that important what brand...All of those slr operate on same basics...

To achieve sharpness depends the most on Good lens...Even nikon makes louse lenses....Example 80-200 is worst lens nikon ever made...

Also if u realy wanna sharp image and you are financialy able go with F2.8 lenses and not higher...

And please DONT EVER USE TAMARON lenses...or TOKINA...

But that is just one photographer opinion.... Oh yes before i forget....i am anti TC's big time

If you have to use one use no bigger then 1.4 TC's will reduce sharpness of your images....Unless u just wanna prints 8 x 10...For larger prints it is NO NO...

Everyone will tell you different experience in Photography world....U just have to decide for yourself...Best is to go look some known photograher work on Internet and find out what they use when they shoot images...That will speak for itself...

Goodluck

aphoto4you.com

APHOTO4YOU 17 Nov 2009

Just for a thought

I will never forget speaking of cameras vs lenses and the end result...

It was in the 80's i visited with my late husband Grant Tetons,Jackson Hole (first time for him then)wanted to show him what a beautiful place that was...

We walked on broadway street in Jackson and we stopped at camera store to look....I was then film photographer....

and here is this guy behind counter wanted to sell me Canon....I had Pentax then..And we started talking and he was so excited saying to me this is camera u need it has a motor its motorized and u gona get awsome images sharp sharp...

I said sir, its not the camera that produce sharp images it is matter of lenses....Oh man he got so mad and started to disagree...

We pollitely left the store and me and my husband to the last day of his life loughed so hard everytime i bring that incident up...

Guy was so wrapped up in his motorized Canon and he was so sure he had a fish on a hook...

I just had to share this....how little he knew that its not camera that important for sharp images but rather quality lenses...

Okay enough of me..LOL

mandy thomas 18 Nov 2009

well thank you kindly for your input. i have used slr for years and i know what you mean about lenses i bought the dreaded tokina once thinking save money it has the same spec as minolta...nothing in comparison of quality. my questions for digital slr ar what am i looking for in a body ? i understand i will have to fork out some pounds for the lenses. and could i use my old lenses on new digital bodies even ? so many questions

Phil Armitage 18 Nov 2009

Doesn't Sony use Minolta mount lenses? or am I wrong.

There is nothing wrong with some Tamron lenses. The 17-50 is renowned for being as good as Nikon's 17-55 for a third the price. The Tamron 90 is excellent.

markosphoto 18 Nov 2009

I was wondering the same thing... Sony is usually against the grain when it comes to things like that. I remember Kodak making a DSLR that you could get in either a Canon or Nikon mount. I always wondered it they made adapters you could put on your camera to use other lenses.

Tamron's are nice... I was talking to a guy at the camera store today and told him I use one and showed him some images from that lens. The guy working at the counter was trying to tell him that Nikons take better images than Canons and that there easier to use lol. I waited till he walked away and said that you can get that little FujiPix over there and out shoot anyone. Nikon or Canon don't matter glass is what is. I hope he bought that lens I suggested its a little better than the one I use, but he looked like a serious amateur who didn't want to spend alot.

Gary Glass 18 Nov 2009

Yes I agree, if you buy the higher end of Sigma,Tokina and Tamaron lenses, you can get some find images from them.. and that Tamaron 90 got great reviews a few years back for the image quality it possessed..

Even Nikon and Canon have their different levels of quality lenses.. and sometimes even in the lower end of the lenses there are the ocassional diamond in rough lenses that shine..

Yes Kodak had Canon and Nikon make camera bodies for them a few years back..

There use to be some adapters way back that you could put on camera bodies and use some lenses from other camera companies.. but now a days it is a lot harder as you have too many functions that it has to perform or be able to match up with all the different types of metering, camera lens functions.. I don't think you will see them as much anymore and besides price point it is probably a lot cheaper just to buy a lens from one of the independents than to try and buy a camera/lens adapter..

You say you know about the lens quality and putting the money in it, well it really just comes down to what camera system do you want . Pretty much any of the camera bodies will do a decent job for you and they are rivalling film cameras resolution pretty well now a days.. Really the only other choice you have to make is do you want a full size sensor or a aps size sensor when you make that camera body purchase.

And the new sony camera is basically a born again Minolta in a sony casing with some new adjustments.. and you can't go to wrong with it , Sony makes the sensors for Nikon..

19 Nov 2009

Gary Glass 19 Nov 2009

I have not looked as I wrote this, but if memory serves right, Tamaron's 90 mm was a macro lens and it was reviewed as a excellent lens..

I pesonally have a 60mm nikkor macro, but if I had to do it over, I would get like a 105 or 200mm as you do not have to get so close as too scare off live things and you don't have to worry about getting close to the subject if you can not for what ever reason . Quality is still excellent. just gives you a longer reach for doing macro work which is great..

mandy thomas 19 Nov 2009

interesting views that are different...i guess what was said earlier in a comment there are good and bad lenses in all the makes its just hit and miss wether you end up with a good one ...yes? i have a 50mm macro, 28 -70, 70 - 210 i was bidding on a 300 with a low f stop on ebay but it sold for near £400!! i want to go digital because of the cost of developing. guess i need to save at least £500 to start me off with the basics :(

APHOTO4YOU 19 Nov 2009

Tamaron lens good as Nikon ...N E V E R .....I am sorry to disapoint u...Show me your work with Tamaron lenses and show me Nikon ...Comon now...So we are all stupid who use Nikon lenses,..Why do we pay costly price then..Lets go Tamaron..wow..That made my day...Sorry but that is wrong information...And if someone can back this up show me review..

No one will convince me that landscape lens or wildlife lens tamaron is better then Nikon...

Gary, 200 mm macro is awsome...I have both 105 and 200 but if u get another get 200...I hardly ever use 105...I wasted money on that...I think i used it 3x

Now u all ruffled my feathers and i am gona search for that cheepy Tamaron lens and go order one..I am in need of lens

The statement here nikon vs tamaron lenses...sound like u buy Mercedes and then u put on chevy parts when it breaks down...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

APHOTO4YOU 19 Nov 2009

Just to ad to my post earlier....This buggs me...

My friend just recently bought SIGMA macro lens 160 mm...Cause her friend from Montana works for Sigma (she is known photographer)and she recomended....My friend came on shoot with me, we shot wild butterfles...and guess what she asked me if i wanna sell my Nikon 105 mm..I at first thought i would ...cause i dont use it and then i changed my mind...

I asked my friend why? She said she regret she bought sigma...Although i favor Sigma i was under impression that Sigma is good lens...However she show me same images as i shot with my 200 mm Nikon and there was no comparasement.....We stood same spot same light shoulder to shoulder....

Oh well i said that is what u get when u wanna cut corners...

Some will say i can not hold civil conversation here..Well i cant...if one will tell me that Tamron is better then Nikon..I am sorry...

End of story

markosphoto 19 Nov 2009

Not all Nikon lenses are created equal... Tamron has some really good lenses. I use a Tamron lens for alot of my wide angle stuff and its super for me. I do wish I could afford the white canon lenses, but it works for what I need it for.

For Mandy's uses Tamron is a good choice, just check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php users of lenses will tell you what is good and what is not... granted most of the time the cost of the lens is what you will get, but sometimes you will be surprised. That site is usually where I goto when I have a list of lenses I am interested in, the reviews are done by users of those lenses.

markosphoto 19 Nov 2009

Bianca, you shouldn't tell people they have to buy lenses that cost more than $1,000 when a lot of us don't have that kind of money to spend. First thing I normally ask is how much can you spend, there are alot of quality lenses that are good prices... if your looking for quality prime lenses are normally better than zoom lenses, but alot of people like the convenience of zooming, but primes make you think differently when your shooting. If you buy a camera, I recommend just getting the body and not use the stock lens, those usually suck, cheap bodies and quality glass is the way to go.

Gary Glass 19 Nov 2009

Bianca, in General Nikon and Canon are excellent glass... but the independent lens companies also have some lenses in their line up that are exceptional lenses.. It will usually be in their higher end of lens as they have invested more$ into them. now having said that, does it means they are better than the high end nikkor and canon lens.. no but in some cases some of the lens can rival in certain category of lens..

If you read some of the reviews from time to time on articles where the lens has been put thru their photographic paces.. there are some lens from the independents that do shine,, it really comes down to the individual what they want.. I personally stay with the manufactures better lenses as I don't have the $ to hit and miss with the independent lenses.. I have had some of them in the past and in most cases have not been totally happy, which is where I think you are coming from when you are adamant about them being junk..

Usually you will get better results with the higher end lenses, but some folks just don't have the $ or desire to go that route. and they can get some satisfaction with a lesser lens..and if one is willing to research a bit, you can find a nice lens for a bit less.. But in general if you want the finest in sharpness etc.. usually there is a reason the canon, nikon lenses are more expensive. they deliver. but I can attest, that some of Nikkor lower end lenses are not always that good, case in point, the 70-300 zoom, not a very sharp lens.. I have images unfortunately some Yellowstone that are not sharp. I sold it and bought the nikkor high end 70-200. a superior lens..sharpness is fantastic on it.. did not want to spend the money but after that I understood why some of the high end lenses cost what they do.. the $$ put into the optics.. and Marko is correct, usually Prime are sharper than zoom, more so in the past then now.. but it is because there is so much glass in a zoom versus a prime. it does cut the sharpness down a bit.. but the new zooms are quite good in sharpness. my 100-400 is pretty good for all the glass in it..

markosphoto 19 Nov 2009

I have had bad experiences with Sigma... Tamron has gotten better over the years... Nikon, Canon make nice lenses... but some of them are bad. Its just cost, someone who can't afford a huge price tag shouldn't have to take out a mortgage to buy lenses. I understand your point... its like the age old debate between Apple and Microsoft, it doesn't matter what you use, its what you do with what your given or in this case what you can afford or have.

APHOTO4YOU 19 Nov 2009

Well fist of all i didnt realize that there is limit in dollars here...I thought question realy was what is good lens to get sharp image..I still say if u want quality sharp images Use the best NIKON or Canon

Maybe Hassleblad...who knows...better yest any manufacturer that uses ZEISS technology is great..

I am not telling anyone to spend 1000 dollars on lens..its matter of sharpness.U wanna sharp image spend the money...bottom line..

I will visit that site Markos thanks for linkl

APHOTO4YOU 19 Nov 2009

Gary I agree...

U have said right...I cant argue that... I guess i been to long in Nikon box...so i need to get my head out...

My perogative is.......rather then fishing around trying to find is it good or bad...i just simply stick with nikon product..Not even i can always afford everything...

Specialy with economy like it is and drop in consumer spending at the trade shows...i too have to curb my appetite...

Fuel cost to get from point A to point B is lots of money....My vehicle use 7 miles a gallon...at $3.00 a gallon its a lots...

I will always defend Nikon...and woudnt be interested to buy anything else...I will rather wait 6 months and save money and buy nikon...

Nikon gave me terrific knowledge, terrific potential in field of photography and i am proud to say i am proud owner of Nikon...

I am sure u all know by now that i am biggest fan of Nikon...Even when i wasnt nikon in film age i had a Pentax pro camera and i used Pentax lenses only....

The key here is like this

If u go to McDonald u expect to taste hamburger and not fish ...Their fish sandwich sucks...FROZEN yuck

If i go to red Lobster i expect to eat seafood and not hamburger....

Maybe that says something for nikon and Tamron lenses...

I do agree Gary what u said u always explain nicely for person to see both sites of the view...Maybe that is reason why you are good photographer cause your eye sees both sites..

Thanks

Gary Glass 19 Nov 2009

just a little fyi, a lot of the lower end nikkor and canon lens are made to compete with the Independent lens companies.. They know people can not afford high end lenses and do not want to lose that market so they make the lower end lenses to compete..

20 Nov 2009