shutterbug

Hm...comparing these lenses?  What's the point?  To test them properly, you have to use the same body first!

I can tell you now either the Canon or Nikon is an awesome lens.  They're used by many pros.

Canon's is not old tech, it's just that Nikon didn't have that tech in their lenses until these few years... :S

shutterbug

Just curious....why did you go with Sony in the first place?  AFAIK, the system is limited and expensive.

shutterbug

原帖由 canon10D 於 2008-7-28 14:21 發表
canon is old tech ie) their IS on the 70-200 f2.8 IS

that IS on the 70-200 is like ver 2 IS

now on the new 70-200 f4 IS their IS is like the newest ver. IS ver 4 or somethign like that

so 70-200 f2 ...

I'm not sure what version of IS it is but the point is that the new f4 IS "claims" to be 4 stops and the f2.8 "claims" to be 3 stops. However, in field testing they're about the same, so I really doubt the claim value is practical.  So is it new tech?

shutterbug

You can't just take the specs to compare two lenses.  Your example 50mm...all 50mm probably have similar number of elements/groups, aperture blade, etc...the most important thing here is the optical design, glass and coating!

Even comparing MTF is not enough to determine if it's a good quality glass, you can only tell the resolving power from MTF, but there are more to it than sharpness, e.g. contrast, colour, flare control, handling, build, etc  Those are all important factors when buying a lens.

I think Sony bought Minolta a long time ago?  Minolta makes good lens too, no doubt about it, but when you want to expand, Sony is definitely very limited.  If you're really into Photography, I suggest you to switch camp to either Canon/Nikon now than later.