Search Forums
well its all about purpose right. i mean from what i hear optically the sigma is pretty much on par with the canon. the only reason i would opt for the IS is because i will most likely be in low light situations. i would get it for that not because the sigma is considered "cheap". im not going to the arctic or anywhere very hostile so i dont think i need the added protection... but as i said before the price is at about 1600 so i would rather buy pay the extra for the IS option over the sigma.Originally Posted by CSAgent
-
Oct 5th, 2007 04:08 PM #16Deal Fanatic
- Join Date
- Dec 4th, 2004
- Location
- GTA/Mississauga
- Posts
- 8,529
If you're doing it as a side business, I highly recommend getting the IS. Its an investment in the long run, for business you're going pro and you don't want to use cheap equipment do you? Originally Posted by ryan_lau100
Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked CSAgent for this post.
-
Oct 5th, 2007 06:13 PM #17 Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked ryan_lau100 for this post.
-
Oct 5th, 2007 07:11 PM #18Deal Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 4th, 2003
- Location
- North York, Ontario
- Posts
- 11,576
I'm kinda glad all my lenses offer some sort of stabilization. CCD-shift stabilization
_______________
Deal with it. Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked KorruptioN for this post.
-
Oct 5th, 2007 08:03 PM #19Permanently Banned
- Join Date
- Jan 1st, 2005
- Location
- Regina, Saskatchewan
- Posts
- 2,441
^^^
I am glad none of my lens has VR or IS! Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked 2000fordfocus for this post.
-
Oct 5th, 2007 08:05 PM #20Deal Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 4th, 2003
- Location
- North York, Ontario
- Posts
- 11,576
Why so? Originally Posted by 2000fordfocus
_______________
Deal with it. Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked KorruptioN for this post.
-
Oct 5th, 2007 08:50 PM #21Deal Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 8th, 2005
- Location
- GTA east
- Posts
- 1,499
"This thread is useless without pics!"
Here was the peak of my collection:
A lot of that's gone now...
_______________
:: Heatware :: Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked NiMSo for this post.
-
Oct 5th, 2007 08:57 PM #22Deal Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 4th, 2003
- Location
- North York, Ontario
- Posts
- 11,576
That's a lotta primes
_______________
Deal with it. Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked KorruptioN for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 11:32 AM #23Permanently Banned
- Join Date
- Jan 1st, 2005
- Location
- Regina, Saskatchewan
- Posts
- 2,441
I dont like the idea of a moving element in my lense... A good optics require precision craftmanship and many years of know how from manufactures. I dont know, adding a element like that and letting electronic gadget taking over, well, that is not the way to go, IMO... being said that, I am not into telephone, so the benefit of having a VR lense at mid to wide isn't benefit enough for me I guess. Originally Posted by KorruptioN
Besides, Hassy/Mamiya never have them... my dream camera is a Mamiya AFDII ZDLast edited by 2000fordfocus; Oct 6th, 2007 at 11:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked 2000fordfocus for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 11:48 AM #24Deal Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 8th, 2005
- Location
- GTA east
- Posts
- 1,499
Originally Posted by 2000fordfocus
That really doesn't make sense. IS/VR hardly affects image quality and usually improves one's ability to get good results. I've owned 4 different stabilized lenses and never had a problem with them - they are very reliable. And I'm sure nobody can tell the difference between a shot taken by a stabilized vs. non-stabilized lens (assuming lens/camera shake is not involved).
If you're worried about the purity of optics, etc., then I would naturally assume you also oppose the use of zoom lenses too, right?!Last edited by NiMSo; Oct 6th, 2007 at 11:54 AM.
_______________
:: Heatware :: Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked NiMSo for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 01:09 PM #25Deal Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 14th, 2005
- Location
- here there and everywhere
- Posts
- 2,284
Nothing wrong with someone who shoots only primes. Originally Posted by NiMSo
Unless you meant telephoto, it would be a hassle to write a letter to everyone you need to briefly speak to. Originally Posted by 2000fordfocus
Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked N_Raged for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 01:48 PM #26Deal Fanatic
- Join Date
- Dec 4th, 2004
- Location
- GTA/Mississauga
- Posts
- 8,529
Adding to that, digital cameras are all electronics. With your logic, I assume you shoot film then? Originally Posted by 2000fordfocus
Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked CSAgent for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 02:02 PM #27Deal Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 4th, 2003
- Location
- North York, Ontario
- Posts
- 11,576
They (Canon and Nikon) do outfit high-end primes with stabilization. Let me as you this: Would you rather have no usable picture at all, or live with the theory that stabilizing elements affect final IQ? The high-end news agencies make it obvious... Originally Posted by 2000fordfocus
_______________
Deal with it. Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked KorruptioN for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 02:14 PM #28Deal Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 8th, 2005
- Location
- GTA east
- Posts
- 1,499
How is that relevant? That was NOT even the point of my comment. Re-read my entire post. It had nothing to do with choice of lenses. I was trying to illustrate that the fear of VR/IS is unwarranted if the primary argument is that the optics are inferior (the difference, if any, is likely un-noticeable). Similarly, if we all thought the same way then we should also be afraid of zooms too because they are not 'precison crafted optics', but clearly that is not the case with many amateurs and pros alike. Originally Posted by N_Raged
Last edited by NiMSo; Oct 6th, 2007 at 02:18 PM.
_______________
:: Heatware :: Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked NiMSo for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 03:11 PM #29Deal Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 14th, 2005
- Location
- here there and everywhere
- Posts
- 2,284
How it that not relevant? You closed with a comment accusing him of not using zoom lenses, so my remark was just to build on that. I don't care what your point was about VR/IS even though they are completely valid. Originally Posted by NiMSo
Your argument is with this purist, not me
Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked N_Raged for this post.
-
Oct 6th, 2007 04:57 PM #30Deal Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 8th, 2005
- Location
- GTA east
- Posts
- 1,499
I was being sarcastic as I'm aware he has used zooms before. Therefore I was merely poking at the conflicting idea of: fearing VR/IS, but not feeling the same way about zooms (when it comes to optical purity). Originally Posted by N_Raged
It doesn't matter anyways... this is already off topic!..._______________
:: Heatware :: Reply With Quote
LOG IN TO THANK
No one has yet thanked NiMSo for this post.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
