Is there a significant quality difference between lenses made by Canon and those made by Sigma or Tamron?  Specifically, I have been looking at : but if the Sigma or Tamaron equivalent lenses offer similar quality I would love to save a few thousand dollars.
123960
I am just another guy who just taken up photography as a social hobby who enjoys taking pics of everyday life, social events / parties &amp; some portraits. Need camera for short overseas trip (2-3 times a year), maybe some landscape pics.   I have done some research and have come up a list of main lenses that I am considering and hope you guys can offer some advice / comments to whether I should make those purchases.   Main reason why I chose "third party lenses" 'cos apparently they cost less, newer and are "award winning" - so I don't see the point of spending more for the original canon lens (which some maybe quite old - ie 3-5 yrs).   Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM Lens (day to day lens) Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM (for portrait &amp; bokeh effects) Wide angle lens (any suggestions)   Main questions / comments please...   Q1) What do you think of the lens choices that I have decided to build my kit?  Q2) Any wide angle lens that you will recommend? (third party or canon) or should I get wide angle zoom lens ? Q3) What are your thoughts that I chose all my lens from Third Party instead of Official Canon ones... is that a "smart move"?
103612
My dad has an old Sears KS-2 + 50mm f/1.7, which from a bit of research seems to use a Pentax K-mount.  I've looked around a bit and found a , which says it supports af-confirmation, and costs ~$30 US.  Has anyone tried using an adapter ring like this, and if so, would you recommend doing so?  I am perfectly happy with shooting manual, but I'm curious about the quality of older lenses.  I'm assuming that if I use older primes the optical quality will be fine, and it looks like the build quality of the older lenses is much better that similarly priced new lenses.
84578
I was browsing Amazon looking at a few items and came across :     4-piece Close-Up Macro Lens Kit   - Included are +1, +2, +4 and +10 Close- Up Lenses.   High-Quality lenses are diopters for close up photography. They shorten the close focusing distance of the lens, this allows the lens to go closer to the subject and achieves a larger image scale. Lenses may be used individually or in combination for a greater effect.   from what I can tell these screw onto a lens. I do not do macro work but I might want to play around some with macro photography and the price is decent. Are these really worth anything or they junk?  Please Note: I am an amateur and just getting into DSLR World and not a professional.
80952
I am looking at some older lenses for sale.  There are a lot of Minolta MC and MD mount lenses out there.  Can they be used on an AF mount body at all (as a fully manual lens)?  Will either of the MC or MD lenses have any automatic features (aperture, focus, etc)?  I am looking to update a 1990's era Minolta film camera, so it is not clear whether these older lenses will work or not.  I see from this question, , that it appears that older lenses do not work with the AF mounts?  Will they not fit at all?
114801
Now that I am finally getting a fast zoom (Tamron 17-50mm 2.8) I've been considering a fast prime to go with it, specifically a Sigma 50mm 1.4. Despite its shortcomings, it still does really nice subject isolation past f/2, which is important to me. I was wondering if it might be redundant since my zoom is already a pretty fast fixed aperture. Of course, 1.4 is two stops faster than 2.8, but as with all primes you have to stop it down to get sharp results.   The main thing I am worried about is that if I drop $500 on a Sigma, it won't get used because there is already something O.K. in that range. Basically, is two stops difference enough to make you want to switch lenses?  EDIT: Perhaps I should add and as may have already been mentioned, these $500 could go to a nice speedlight which could sove the low-light 'issue' you get with f/2.8 vs f/1.4.
110736
I have lenses from a Canon EOS rebel Xs film camera: 28-80mm f/4-5.6 II (diameter 58mm) and a Sigma 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7. I am thinking to buy a Canon Digital 40D and use these lenses. Will those lenses be compatible with a digital camera?
107206
I currently own a Canon 60D, and I am perfectly happy with the camera. It is going to be years until I move to a better (most likely full-frame) body.   My main, walk-around lens is the . I am also very happy with this lens, although I also know its shortcomings, like the variable aperture (3.5-5.6).   But this morning, as a "what if" exercise, I started thinking about upgrading this lens.   Since my 60D is a crop sensor body, the closest and cheapest upgrade I can do is the   EF-S USM IS. It has a constant aperture of 2.8, and people say that it produces the best picture quality of all EF-S lenses. The upgrade would probably cost me $300-$500, depending on the price I sell my 15-85 at, and whether I want a used or new 17-55.   But 'upgrading' from an EF-S lens to another EF-S lens is not really upgrading, is it? It is more like switching between two similar quality products. Is it worth it?   A TRUE upgrade would be to get an L lens. So, assuming that price is no object (one can only dream :(), what L lens would you recommend to replace my 15-85?   EDIT: What I would look for in the ideal replacement lens.  Thanks for all the answers so far. One conclusion I came to after reading them is that there is no point for me to invest in L glass if I care about wide angle on my crop sensor body. And I do.   I like my 15-85 because it offers me the flexibility of being able to capture moments like a few snapshots in a restaurant with friends, or my 2 years old daughter who won't sit in one place for long - definitely not long enough for me to switch lenses.   I could give up the 2mm difference on the wide end of the spectrum, if the 17-55 offered me much higher IQ than the 15-85 does.   Hence the followup question - Please let me know if you upgraded from 15-85 to 17-55 and if that was a right decision.. I know it is all personal - and that is what I am asking about - what was your experience with such upgrade if you did it?
122217
Were there ever any tools to correct for lens distortion in the film-only era? I'm thinking a device that contained a lens system that you could alter, or a soft workable lens that you could fine tune, to transform the distorted image back again. Or maybe even something as easy as not resting the photo paper on a flat surface during development.  I haven't heard of anything like this but I'm sure that it was something photographers in certain situations wanted to do.
66799
Can you recommand me a software for doing this job? I shoot using Sigma 8mm lens and I would like to be able to obtain a normal image out of that. The camera is canon 550D.
100558
I have been shopping around for a prime lens for my Nikon D50. I noticed that the 1.8 is hundreds of dollars cheaper than the 1.4 AF-S. What will I gain for that cost difference? Is it really noticeable?
46473
I have a Canon 550D which I've been using for around a year now. I really love it and have learned a great deal with this and the 18 - 135mm kit lens. But now with experience I feel the need to get some better glass. I won't be buying a new body any time soon because I figure investing in some good glass is more important.   As I have looked around, I see quite a few good used L lenses I can get in ebay for good bargain prices. But I know that the EF lenses don't have the same focal length in the cropped sensors. Is it a wise decision to buy these EF lenses or buy the cropped sensor alternatives?  I have the following lenses in mind that I am looking to buy down the line from the canon range over the next several months.  16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L.  Are these apt choices for cropped sensors? I know most pros with FFs use these but I am a bit skeptic that they will serve the same purpose for me. If so what are the alternatives for this that have almost as good image quality?
28125
This is somewhat a follow-up to my . I have browsed through quite a lot of sites including this one for user opinions &amp; reviews of different Canon lenses, but haven't found a comprehensive answer to the possible upgrade paths from the kit lens, particularly since I don't have a specific usage scenario in mind. Here are a few that I have found that answer the question partially:   (Quite old)   (for Pentax though)     (more about the cameras)        For this reason, I thought it would be useful to have a list of sub-$1000 upgrade lenses for the kit lens for APS-C format DSLRs (like the 550D, 60D, 7D etc), as a lot of people are upgrading to DSLRs nowadays. The key points that I seek are:   Pros\cons compared to the kit lens Price Scenarios the lens is suitable for   Keep in mind that it is primarily for APS-C cameras, so, EF lenses meant primarily for the full frame cameras would end up with the magnification factor of 1.6x. Also, this is focused towards hobbyists &amp; amateurs for which reason I've added the sub-$1000 bit.  P.S. This question might be more suited for a wiki like article (albeit with user opinions included)
12977
Hai.  I have a question, I switched from Canon to Sony a while ago and I found out that if I shot bright places, like the sky, the cloud that is supposed to be seen clearly, looks like a blown-out highlight (like real crazy), as you can see on my picture.  I have to set a low exposure just so the highlight is not blown out, and it’s only happening on Sony, not on Canon. On Canon the object is visible, but the background (cloud) is still seen all just fine.  Do you guys know what to change on the Sony to get that good look? Is it the setting or the lens? (BTW, I’m using a Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens.)
56510
I've been looking to upgrade the camera I use at my job. Thinking of getting the Sony a6000. We list things on ebay to sell, and quite frankly I just don't like the lightbox, nor the camera we currently have.  We're using a Nikon D3100, and I forgot the name of the Macro Lens.  Basically, I want to have my own personal camera, that's better than the D3100, but one I can use at the job as well for when we photograph our jewelry.  I do mainly macro photography in the lightbox, and I'm working on my own setup with better lighting and other things to improve our photos. I just ordered an external flash for the D3100 so I can over expose the background to get a nice white one with the pics when I finish my own setup as well, but I digress lol.  I need suggestions for what I should look for in a good macro lens to use when I photograph jewelry. I mainly work with rings, but I also do pictures of pendants/charms, necklaces, bracelets, watches, and other related items too.  Right now I'm considering the SEL30M35. But I haven't bought anything yet (Including the new camera)  To get a better idea of the type of photos that I'm producing with the Nikon, you can check these out: (I don't have the stats for the Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, etc)       You can see that when you're 100% zoomed in, things aren't that detailed. Don't get me wrong I've had some nice shots. But that ugly grey background usually says otherwise. I use different backdrops in the cases when the background looks too ugly. I take all my pics handheld, Manual Mode, the focusing is Auto Manual (focuses when I hold the shutter release halfway) and when I'm at the lightbox the rings are only about 5 - 8 inches away, unless I bring them closer to get detailed diamond shots. (Which, I might add, aren't too good.)  I want to get some photos as close to these as possible:       I'm still an amateur, and I'm still learning, but I really want to take better photos. I'd love for them to be sharp and really detailed on most parts of the subject. That and seeing the photos on an LCD screen with the a6000 before actually snapping them to have a look would save me a lot of time.  Merging some of the macro shots to get everything in focus (I think its called focus stacking), and to use focus peaking on the new camera would probably help me a lot more as well. That and a lot better lighting than the lightbox gives off.  Heck, maybe these photos are actually good and I'm just too picky lol, idk.  Anyway, what do you guys think? Would the SEL30M35 macro lens be a good lens for my needs with the jewelry photography I'm trying to do? I understand some lenses aren't compatible with the auto focus or something like that on the a6000 (maybe the E-mount?). How can I be sure they're compatible? Or if I need an adapter, can you suggest one as well?
90259
I understand that to reduce minimum focusing distances, macro lens design must focus on maintaining certain distances between the lens and the sensor.   However, is the placement of the lens and its elements the only difference between a macro and a prime or any other regular lens? OR are there other structural differences as well?  There are quite a few posts that address the differences but none that really bring out the "physical" differences.
83235
True macro lenses come in fixed focal length. Are there any macro lensens which have variable focal lengths? And please explain why yes or why not?
106559
What should I be aware of when buying a macro lens (other than that it will fit my camera)?  What features should I look for?  What specs should I pay close attention to?  What factors affect macro lens price (beyond than the brand name)?  Are there special accessories that are needed or recommended for a macro lens?