Gear Talk > Lenses
35mm L vs. 135mm L. IQ?
Edwin Herdman:
Yeah, Nikon's D4 looks very enticing (that ISO 6400 sample of the speed skater, wow!), and they are starting to improve on lenses, though they are still missing some of the features of the specialized but affordable lenses that Canon offers. Sigma is stepping up to the plate too, which makes it easier to move from one system to another because you aren't locked in as much. I expect good things from the 1D X but both systems are good. For me the real question is how they are going to modernize their smaller format cameras, and how they are going to modernize their lens lineup. The 200-400mm with integrated extender is a good sign, of course.
neuroanatomist:
--- Quote from: Edwin Herdman on January 16, 2012, 07:35:09 PM ---Sigma is stepping up to the plate too, which makes it easier to move from one system to another because you aren't locked in as much.
--- End quote ---
How so? If I have a collection of Canon-mount Sigma lenses, can I have them converted to Nikon mounts?
Edwin Herdman:
No, sorry to be misleading - my reasoning is that losses from switching to the Nikon mount versions shouldn't be too bad, and if there is a Sigma lens you use in EF mount it should be available in Nikon mount as well. So being familiar with a Sigma lens on Canon won't mean that you'd lose the possibility of using an equivalent lens on Nikon.
AprilForever:
I can't figure out the point of his question: why does it matter whether a wide angle is more or less sharp than a telephoto?
Maybe he is looking for a reason to change systems! ;D
Axilrod:
This is kind of like comparing a Mercedes S600 with a Ferrari 458 Italia, they are both bad ass cars but serve different purposes. 35L and 135L are both AWESOME lenses and both have amazing IQ, but I just don't see the sense in comparing the two, seeing as the focal lengths are so far apart.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version