If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
I have just bought the Canon 400D and I am not very keen on the 18-55 kit
lens provided with the camera. Because of budget constraints, I am thinking about going for a Sigma lens, let me also clarify that I am new to photography and don’t know much about lenses. Please excuse me if you find my question rather dumb. 1) What does APO stand for and what are its uses? 2) Is there any disadvantage of buying normal lens (not the DC) and use the same on my D-SLR? 3) I am confused between buying the 18-125 f3.5- 5.6 DC or the 28-300 f3.5- 6.3 DG Marco (both in the same price range and in my budget) 4) I have noticed that there are many site and forums on cameras, but have not come across any site dedicated towards lens and understanding them, if you know of any, please suggest. Thanks, Abbas -- Message posted via http://www.photokb.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
"abbasam via PhotoKB.com" u24240@uwe wrote in message news:6d4ae0ef36b59@uwe... I have just bought the Canon 400D and I am not very keen on the 18-55 kit lens provided with the camera. Because of budget constraints, I am thinking about going for a Sigma lens, let me also clarify that I am new to photography and don't know much about lenses. Please excuse me if you find my question rather dumb. 1) What does APO stand for and what are its uses? 2) Is there any disadvantage of buying normal lens (not the DC) and use the same on my D-SLR? 3) I am confused between buying the 18-125 f3.5- 5.6 DC or the 28-300 f3.5- 6.3 DG Marco (both in the same price range and in my budget) 4) I have noticed that there are many site and forums on cameras, but have not come across any site dedicated towards lens and understanding them, if you know of any, please suggest. Thanks, Abbas -- Message posted via http://www.photokb.com Hello. Got to be careful here because Sigma use both "DC" and "DG" in their lens nomenclature and the two mean different things. Sigma's brochure says that the "DC" means that the lens design has "concentrated on the correction of distortions and aberrations. Magnification of chromatic aberration is particularly conspicuous with digital cameras... The optical designs and cutting edge technology incorporated by Sigma eliminate flare and ghosting from the image sensor ....Vignetting is minimised whilst marginal illumination is ensured". The main aspect of a DC lens is likely to be coatings on the rear glass of the lens to cut down reflections between that glass and the sensor in the 400D's body. This reflection problem is not as severe with film because (I guess) film emulsion isn't as reflective as a digital sensor. In comparison with film, digital sensors are more susceptible to vignetting - where the edges of the sensor receive less light than the centre and so the image appears darker in the corners than in the centre. If you've not seen this effect then use a wide angle lens with a telephoto lens's lenshood. I think this problem is because each pixel in a digital sensors is actually at some depth from the surface of the sensor (each pixel is behind its own lens) whereas with film there is little depth to the actual emulsion. Sigma's brochure says that "DG" lenses are suitable only for digital bodies using APS "C" sized sensors. They'll be similar to Canon's EF-S lenses. What has happened is that your 400D body will take "normal" lenses by both Canon and Sigma. These lenses project an image large enough to cover a 35mm film frame. In addition, both these manufacturers produce lenses (EF-S in the case of Canon and DG in the case of Sigma) which project an image large enough to cover the 400D's sensor but not large enough to cover a 35mm film frame. The idea behind this is to offer lenses which are lighter and more compact than the lenses which cater for 35mm film on the (understandable) reason that if you use a 400D then you'll probably not also carry a 35mm film body (or a digital body with a sensor the same size as 35mm film, this would be the Canon EOS 1DS which is a lot more expensive than the 400D). Personally, I'm happy to use these EF-S lenses. I used to use a Minolta Vectis APS SLR and its lenses were designed solely for use with this APS SLR so they were much smaller and lighter than their 35mm film equivalents (their equivalent of the 500mm mirror and 100 - 300m lenses really were light and small and a delight to take on holiday). Your 18-55mm lens is an EF-S lens and you will find that you cannot fit it onto a Canon film body (or an EOS 1DS body) .. well, not unless something breaks! You wrote that you are "confused between buying the 18-125 f3.5- 5.6 DC (28-200mm in 35mm film terms) or the 28-300 f3.5- 6.3 DG Macro". These lenses would be similar to the 28-200mm and 44-400mm lenses in 35mm film terms. Let's see. Firstly, if you have used a 35mm film SLR then you'll need to multiply these lenses focal length by 1.6 to get an appreciation of their effective length when mounted on your 400D (because the 400D's sensor is smaller than a 35mm film frame and this crops the view from any lens which is effectively the same as increasing the focal length of the lens). Secondly, the bad news is that this is a choice for you to make. I'd approach it in this way: - if I want to have a wide-angle lens (for landscapes, interiors, groups of people) then I'd get the 18-125 as my first lens. - if I want to have a telephoto lens (for birds, aviation, faces in a crowd) then I'd get the 28-300 lens as my first lens. A couple of thoughts - have you tried the Canon 10-22 lens. My girlfriend bought one and I tried it and really would like to have one myself. For buildings, landscapes, interiors and suchlike it really is a lot more useful than a lens which only goes to 18mm ... but it may be outside of your budget (I'm saving up the pennies). If you do decide to get the 18-125 then you might prefer to get a fixed foal length telephoto lens rather than a zoom. Might not be cheaper but may well be smaller, lighter and with a wider maximum aperture than the zoom (which are 5.6 or 6.3 at the telephoto end of their range). Final comment is that I had a Sigma 105mm macro and my girlfriend bought a Canon 100mm macro. We compared them. I sold my Sigma and use the Canon instead. The Sigma's focussing was slower, noisier and it was only too easy to put it partially into Manual Focus mode, something which Sigma warn could damage the lens. The other "catches" with Sigma is that they don't actually have licensed versions of the EOS lens mount and their quality control seems somewhat too tolerant. My assumption is that Canon, Nikon and suchlike place tighter tolerances on their lenses and this in part accounts for their higher prices. Regarding the lens mount, Sigma do not buy a licence from Canon for their use of the EOS lens mount so they "reverse engineer" which means that their lenses will work with current EOS bodies but may not work with future versions of the EOS mount. My girlfriend has a Sigma 500mm lens which works with her EOS30 film body only in some of its exposure modes. Sigma have a very good attitude to this - if a Sigma lens needs an upgrade to work fully with an EOS body then they'll do it for the cost of postage (That's what Sigma here in the UK offered me) if they have the necessary chips in stock. If you didn't be buy the lens from new then there will be a charge of around £35 - £40. Regarding quality control, this is my own opinion having read m any reviews and postings about their lenses. For most Sigma lenses I've seen both glowing and critical reports. My guess is that Canon (and other camera manufacturers) place a higher tolerance on their lenses hence (partially) the higher prices. Personally, having compared the Canon 100mm and Sigma 105mm macros I prefer to buy Canon lenses. The Sigma macro didn't handle anything like as well as the Canon macro and for my use that was important. When I'm taking photos of flowers and insects in a garden or field then I've enough to do to cope with breeezes and I really don't want to have also to cope with a lens which hunts for the corret focus. Optically, the ersults weren't too far apart though I recall being pleased that the Canon lens did produce betetr results than the Sigma. Oh, I eventually buoght the Canon 100mm macro from my girlfriend after she bought the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens which she likes a lot because it is a ligth lens to carry and use. Hoep this helps but do take note of other comments - there are a lot of Sigma lenses out there and a lot of happy users. Regards, Ian.- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
In article , Lionel
writes On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:09:58 GMT, "abbasam via PhotoKB.com" u24240@uwe wrote: 1) What does APO stand for and what are its uses? Apochromatic. AKA "low dispersion", & various other names that mean pretty much the same thing. Very broadly, it's a kind of glass that's less prone to colour fringing than normal glass. Actually, it is a design goal, not a type of glass. An uncorrected lens will only bring light of one colour to focus at a given point. Light of other colours (frequencies, or wavelengths) will be brought to a focus in front of or behind this point. Achromatic lenses (which category includes most photographic lenses) are designed to bring light of two colours to a single focus. Light of frequency outside the two chosen colours, and light of frequency between the two, will focus at a point in front of or behind the chosen focus point. Apochromats are designed to bring light of three different colours to focus at the same point. If you look at the focus deviations versus light frequency, for an apochromat all the light, even light of different colours from the selected three, is focused much closer to the desired point. The reason I bring this up is that many lens designs use low-dispersion glass but are not apochromats. Also, I regret to say, many lenses which are sold as apochromats are not. What, marketing people tell lies? Perish the thought! True apochromats are relatively common in microscope objectives (where they were first developed, over a century ago) but are actually much rarer in photographic lenses. Also, be aware that apochromatic correction does not necessarily remove lateral chromatic aberration, which is the main optical* cause of colour fringing. LCA is more troublesome in long lenses. It has the effect that images of different colours have different magnifications, so (e.g.) white objects show colour fringes. Lenses which are apochromatic and fully corrected for LCA are very rare, probably only found in very expensive process lenses, though top quality photographic lenses have improved a lot in recent years. The good news is that unless you are buying a lens of 400mm or above, or producing very large prints, you may not notice the difference. *There are other, non-lens-related, causes of colour fringing, usually involving the angle of imaging rays on the micro-lenses on the front of digital sensors. Even apochromatic design will not cure this. David -- David Littlewood |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
In article 6d4ae0ef36b59@uwe, abbasam via PhotoKB.com
writes I have just bought the Canon 400D and I am not very keen on the 18-55 kit lens provided with the camera. Because of budget constraints, I am thinking about going for a Sigma lens, let me also clarify that I am new to photography and don’t know much about lenses. Please excuse me if you find my question rather dumb. I have bought 3 Sigma lenses over the years, and concluded that I could not afford them, as I always ended up replacing them with Canon ones anyway. I think it is fair to say that the Sigma ones, from all the reports I have seen recently, have improved a lot, but I can no longer overcome the prejudice of years! 1) What does APO stand for and what are its uses? See my other post. 2) Is there any disadvantage of buying normal lens (not the DC) and use the same on my D-SLR? Sorry, no idea. 3) I am confused between buying the 18-125 f3.5- 5.6 DC or the 28-300 f3.5- 6.3 DG Marco (both in the same price range and in my budget) For the reasons stated above, I don't know those lenses personally, but many people find the very long zoom ratio lenses, like the 28-300, to be moderate in quality. OTOH, many others (perhaps those only producing pictures for the web, or small prints) find them satisfactory. BTW, the designation "Macro" on such zoom lenses is just as much a lie as the APO designation, if not more so. A true macro lens will focus down to life size (on the sensor or film, not on the final print) and be optimised for such work in several ways (flat field, quality optimised for work so close the subject etc.). I do not know of any so-called "macro-zoom" which even comes close to meeting these criteria, though the slightly-closer-than-"normal" property can be quite useful. 4) I have noticed that there are many site and forums on cameras, but have not come across any site dedicated towards lens and understanding them, if you know of any, please suggest. Call me old-fashioned, if you wish, but what's wrong with a book? With a web-site, you take it on trust that the author knows what he is talking about; with a book, you know that quite a lot of people have checked it and at least most of the information in there is likely to be correct. And the pictures are usually much better... Since you are a Canon user, you will certainly find the Canon book "EF Lens Work" (mine is EF Lens Work III, but may be a later version now) of great interest. Obviously, it uses Canon's own lenses, but all the key physical principles and the technologies involved are set out in reasonable detail. PS - there is no such thing as a dumb question when you are in genuine need of enlightenment; we all start out with zero knowledge of lenses and photography David -- David Littlewood |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
Try the Canon forum he http://www.photocamel.com/index.php
"abbasam via PhotoKB.com" u24240@uwe wrote in message news:6d4ae0ef36b59@uwe... I have just bought the Canon 400D and I am not very keen on the 18-55 kit lens provided with the camera. Because of budget constraints, I am thinking about going for a Sigma lens, let me also clarify that I am new to photography and don't know much about lenses. Please excuse me if you find my question rather dumb. 1) What does APO stand for and what are its uses? 2) Is there any disadvantage of buying normal lens (not the DC) and use the same on my D-SLR? 3) I am confused between buying the 18-125 f3.5- 5.6 DC or the 28-300 f3.5- 6.3 DG Marco (both in the same price range and in my budget) 4) I have noticed that there are many site and forums on cameras, but have not come across any site dedicated towards lens and understanding them, if you know of any, please suggest. Thanks, Abbas -- Message posted via http://www.photokb.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
Ï "David Littlewood" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
... In article , Lionel writes On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:09:58 GMT, "abbasam via PhotoKB.com" u24240@uwe wrote: ......extensive clipping............................ *There are other, non-lens-related, causes of colour fringing, usually involving the angle of imaging rays on the micro-lenses on the front of digital sensors. Even apochromatic design will not cure this. David -- David Littlewood I've wondered about that, ie what aberrations are introduced by the microleses. Do you maybe have somewhere to point me to, so I can see examples of such?? Much appreciated if so. TIA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
In article , Lionel
writes On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:21:24 +0000, David Littlewood wrote: In article , Lionel writes On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:09:58 GMT, "abbasam via PhotoKB.com" u24240@uwe wrote: 1) What does APO stand for and what are its uses? Apochromatic. AKA "low dispersion", & various other names that mean pretty much the same thing. Very broadly, it's a kind of glass that's less prone to colour fringing than normal glass. Actually, it is a design goal, not a type of glass. Thanks for the clarification, David. That'll teach me not to summarise that topic. Lionel, I did appreciate that you were trying to give him a 10-second summary, and maybe what I wrote told him far more than he wanted to know! I just happen to be interested in that kind of thing, and thought some readers might be interested. David -- David Littlewood |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
Fred Anonymous wrote:
Sigma's brochure says that "DG" lenses are suitable only for digital bodies using APS "C" sized sensors. I was under the impression that DC was the digital only designation, while DG could be used on either film OR digital. Sigma needs to correct their brochure! mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:26:39 GMT, m II wrote:
Fred Anonymous wrote: Sigma's brochure says that "DG" lenses are suitable only for digital bodies using APS "C" sized sensors. I was under the impression that DC was the digital only designation, while DG could be used on either film OR digital. Sigma needs to correct their brochure! http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses.asp#asp explains the designations. DG lenses have design optimizations for digital but don't have a reduced image circle. DC lenses have a reduced image circle that won't fill a 35mm frame. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Confused over Lens
"m II" wrote in message news:Prqxh.29247$Fd.16356@edtnps90... Fred Anonymous wrote: Sigma's brochure says that "DG" lenses are suitable only for digital bodies using APS "C" sized sensors. I was under the impression that DC was the digital only designation, while DG could be used on either film OR digital. Sigma needs to correct their brochure! mike Oops - sorry. You are correct and I got the two terms muddled. "DC" is for Digital Cameras and "DG" are kenses suitable for DiGital bodies as well as for film ones. I must fit a brighter reading light in the study. Regards, Ian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Confused about "Digital" Lens | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 49 | September 16th 06 07:37 PM |
72 ppi? - Im confused. | Crash Gordon | Digital Photography | 11 | December 18th 05 07:11 PM |
confused | Pete D | Digital Photography | 6 | January 30th 05 05:00 AM |
ef-s vs. ef lens in 300d... confused... | Lun Mo Mo | Digital Photography | 12 | January 29th 05 12:03 PM |
Confused | Hoyt Weathers | Digital Photography | 8 | October 28th 04 12:47 PM |