rocco1

If my Canon 100-400 ever did what your Sigma did, I would beat it very very flat with a hammer! As it is, I believe it's quite safe...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6539275

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6303967

 

Both these were at 400mm zoom.

Does look like a smudge, but in a pic with a lot of deatail, you might not really notice it, but superimposing the two might draw your attention to it.

In DSLR you have to do the conversion. The spectral range between a filter and the sensor coating is too small to be usable.

"DSLR is the same as SLR - except you are not blindfolded" My advice would be to shoot with film as you always did, and duplicate the shots with the DSLR. Soon you will understand the blindfolded statement, and when the time comes that you are comfortable with your DSLR, (in terms of understanding histograms and RAW processing), you will never look back. In DSLR, "seeing" what you are doing is more than than just judging the composition through the viewfinder.

Fact is - they don't compare. That is like trying to compare the functioning of a car to a jet. With a Digicam, most of what you have learned (or should have) about f-stops goes out the window, it almost becomes an academical term due to the construction and software that controlles the camera. Anyway, why do you want to equalize them?

You get what you pay for, so keep in mind that the Canon is more expensive, and you will get better quality than the Sigma. A lot of people will tell you the Sigma is a good lens, and maybe it is. But I have a Canon 100-400L, and wouldn't dream if trading it for a Sigma. Once you have such a lens, you never think about it again - you just enjoy it!

Shay, a lot has already been said on your subject, but to clarify a bit: from "seeing" to "final picture" there are hundreds of things that infuence the final outcome. Adding photoshop to the lineup that already includes camera, lens, light, filter, film (like in sensor), ect ect, is just another tool that gets used. But if you feel that spending too much time or effect with photoshop is "wrong" or not right or whatever, then maybe you are on the right track to start looking to do what "great" photographers are doing: to make sure you have the "right" picture even before you are pressing the shutter. Meddeling in photoshop and then not liking it means that you didn't really "see" the picture when you tripped the shutter, or did you?

 

Something else that no-one ever thinks about, is that photography is an art like painting. The debate has been going on for hundreds of years, but it IS AN ART! So, do painters also wonder about the use of a specific brush? Or type of paint? To varnish or not to varnish?

 

I have asked the same question that you did, strange enough that a painter artist laughed, and showed the obvious to me. It sure made me a better photograher.

The advice everybody has given you are very much correct. There is no real difference in the quality of the two lenses - they only differ in zoom range. My range also includes the 28-135, and it is true that my 24-70 sees a lot more action than my 70-200. BUT... the 70-200 f2.8 IS is realy something you fall in love with. Everybody should have one. My advice would be to get the 70-200, and the day you see a difference in the quality of the 28-135, then get the 24-70.

True, but "Looking to complement the lens system with a telephoto zoom." A prime isn't going to work for him.

Do you have insurance on you car? House? Camera? Just checking... I have quality UV filters on all my lenses, and yes - B&H really made a bundle out of me. Thanks guys. But I am not even slightly interested in what the front element of my 24-70mmL would have costed the day I discovered the scratch markes on the front UV filter... I simply took out the spare, and the rest of the shoot was without incident.

 

Fact is: blowups happen. Nobody plans for damage on their camera - but that bit of money just could save a repair bill and days away to get a lens fixed. If you never get the front element scratched, good for you! But if you do, please do run over here and cry on our shoulders.

You might think about saving a bit more and get the 100-400mm L IS. Yes, it is more costly, but you will really feel the greater reach when you start shooting wildlife. As far as image quality goes, the 100-400 doesn't really stand back for anything else - after all, it is an "L" lens. Note - it also has IS.

No, it's not only you. It's me as well. Although the 580II seems to work better wrt exposure and color temp, it does control a lot worse.

Rather look at getting a 8Gb or more and from the start learn how to shoot in RAW format. The extra space would be a better investment than speed.

The 70-200mm f2.8L is alway's a good idea, no matter what you want to do. I use a 500D Close up lens, and the results I get is quite nice, maybe not to everyone's taste, but I get work done with it.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6539275

As much as you would like to hear what camera to get, my advice would be to get really quality glass, something like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II or the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and then spend the change on whatever camera you can fit in. A quality lens would get the job done even in low light, and can be used on any camera you decide on later.

Get a Canon. I had a Sigma, it doesn't work anymore. I had a Tamron, it doesn't work anymore. I have seven Canon lenses, they all work wonderful, thank you. By the way - would you fit Ford spares to a Porche?

"With film camera, camera was just a light box. It was not playing any role in final image quality but it was the film and lens only. But in digital system, is camera body is not just light box but something more? Does software of camera play any role in final image?"

 

You got it on the dot. Most people doesn't realize just how far we have come from the old day's of film - we just take it for granted that the camera does the work we have done in the old day's of film. Mostly by hand, because film processing is something that is included with the digital package. The camera does that now, even if lens quality is fastly superior nowadays.

 

So, with film, you did the exposure, and the lab did the developing. Now you do everything either yourself, or you trust the camera software to do it for you.

From what I can remember of my young day's in film, most b/w films are quite good, but is finicky with the processing done to it. Yes - you sure as anything is going to have to learn to do it yourself! Maybe because the knowledge to develop film is slowly fading away, it is simply to easy to want you to start doing everything digital. "It can be fixed on the computer" is the trade's motto nowadays - and doesn't consider the fact that you are busy with a very satisfying hobby. Stick with it and best of luck, keep the film flame burning!

What you should get as greatly limited to your budget. But you might look at something like the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II - not cheap, but sure to be something worth taking a look at when you are doing architecture and weddings. Be warned though, when you get spoilt with a "L" lens, you just might end up getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, not what your budget had in mind right now...

"A pixel is a pixel is a pixel. They're all the same pixels. Size doesn't matter."

 

Right. Those that say size doesn't matter have small ones. A full frame sensor is bigger, ask anyone with a 5D or a 1D, they will tell you it's better...

 

Remember that the same goes for lenses - a sensor only records the light that comes through the lens. So size doesn't matter? Right. Those that say size doesn't matter have small ones. Oh - there I go again...

Get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, I bet that after a few months of use, you won't even remember precicely what you paid. BUT - you will still be taking pix without wondering if the lens is going to do the job you got it for...

I too have a subjective story to add - see if you can catch my meaning: I had a 430. I got rid of it. I got a 580. Then I got another one. Then I wanted another one, but the 580EXII replaced it, so I got one of those. Now you might wonder, all of that for one camera? I leave you to work out the detail...

Start off with the 24-70f2.8L, and only consider the 16-35 when you find that you want shots that the 24-70 can't cover. And another thing - it might be a good idea to fix a lens to your backup camera and then use both as you find it neccesary. That keeps the chance for dust on the censor to the minumum, and eliminates the time to change lenses and miss shots.

A lot depends on what you take pix of, but if you don't have an external flash yet, I personally would get a 580EXII before bothering with any of the lenses. The flash on the 40D cannot compare with the effect a 580EXII gives to your pix. But if you are really itching for a lens, I would get rid of the 28-135 and get a 24-70f2.8L

I agree with the list William has: weddings isn't a breeze - if you are going to ask money in order to make a few more bucks, then you must be able to produce the goods. If your budget is tight, at least start with the 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8IS.