05-16-2011, 11:14 AM
[quote name='Brisco' timestamp='1305537131' post='8354']
My old equipment was an Canon 20D with grip, 17-40L, 70-200L, 50mm 1.8 ... now I dont want to spend this money,but I want a decent lense. I have to say that the money is important in the selection.
In the beginig I was thinking in a cheap lense with decent optics (and bad construction).
The manufacturer is not an issue .. forgot that my old equipment was Canon ... I have no any lense now .. and there is no problem to go to Nikon land.
[/quote]
Which 70-200L was it?
The 50D has a much better live view implementation, but you probably have no experience with it and a DSLR, so you won't know if live view is something you might need in certain situations or not.
Like I said, both are good camera bodies, and you have not yet stated which kind of lens requirements you have, price wise or specs wise.
The 17-40L is a bit strange on an APS-C camera, size and price wise.
The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is an attractive lens, price wise. And it has good optics, image stabilization, and is well built. It offers you f2.8 too, which is a nice bonus, and would probably make a 50mm f1.8 lens not needed.
The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good lens for its type, Nikon has the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Both have quite heavy barrel distortion at the wide end, and do not open wider than f5.6 at the portrait end, which makes them a bit less attractive in my view. But that is a personal matter, and depends on how you tend to use your camera.
If you want tele, the Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM is still very affordable and light weight for what it offers, and it has no competition from other manufacturers (the Pentax 60-250mm f4 comes closest, but is more expensive and heavier).
The Canon 55-250mm IS is very affordable, and performs very well, even in the long end, surprising many lens snob. Only thing is that it does not have a smooth a bokeh rendering as the aforementioned 70-200 f4.
The Tamron 70-300 VC offers an interesting 3rd party alternative for both Nikon and Canon.
My old equipment was an Canon 20D with grip, 17-40L, 70-200L, 50mm 1.8 ... now I dont want to spend this money,but I want a decent lense. I have to say that the money is important in the selection.
In the beginig I was thinking in a cheap lense with decent optics (and bad construction).
The manufacturer is not an issue .. forgot that my old equipment was Canon ... I have no any lense now .. and there is no problem to go to Nikon land.
[/quote]
Which 70-200L was it?
The 50D has a much better live view implementation, but you probably have no experience with it and a DSLR, so you won't know if live view is something you might need in certain situations or not.
Like I said, both are good camera bodies, and you have not yet stated which kind of lens requirements you have, price wise or specs wise.
The 17-40L is a bit strange on an APS-C camera, size and price wise.
The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is an attractive lens, price wise. And it has good optics, image stabilization, and is well built. It offers you f2.8 too, which is a nice bonus, and would probably make a 50mm f1.8 lens not needed.
The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good lens for its type, Nikon has the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Both have quite heavy barrel distortion at the wide end, and do not open wider than f5.6 at the portrait end, which makes them a bit less attractive in my view. But that is a personal matter, and depends on how you tend to use your camera.
If you want tele, the Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM is still very affordable and light weight for what it offers, and it has no competition from other manufacturers (the Pentax 60-250mm f4 comes closest, but is more expensive and heavier).
The Canon 55-250mm IS is very affordable, and performs very well, even in the long end, surprising many lens snob. Only thing is that it does not have a smooth a bokeh rendering as the aforementioned 70-200 f4.
The Tamron 70-300 VC offers an interesting 3rd party alternative for both Nikon and Canon.