40D vs. D300

soylentgreen · Nov 26, 2007

Muay_Thai_Dan said:
...i just checked out that 24-70 f2.8 L on the internet, and since it hasnt got the IS, what will that affect really? is that just when im taking a photo and say im moving while snapping the pics, and the photo turns out blurry?

IS is not a neccessity. Good to have, but photographers have been taking plenty of great photos without it. IS just helps you shoot in lower-light situations with a slower shutter-speed more easily. With good technique, or a tripod, you should be able to accomplish the same without IS. Not having IS is nothing for the 24-70. It is regarded as one of the best zooms in the industry.

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 26, 2007

hmm i see....how about the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens? this one is another very good lens, what do you guys think? good all around lens?

soylentgreen · Nov 26, 2007

I initially shied away from it for two reasons.
1) My intention was to upgrade to a FF camera like the 5D so it would be incompatible, but got he 40D instead since it addressed my needs for improvements.
2) $1K for a non-L lens kinda bothers me.
Has superb image quality but wish the build was more solid in construct like an L. Better moisture and dust seal etc. Other than that, there is really nothing to dislike. Fast aperature, IS, etc.

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 30, 2007

are these two lenses considered "not good" lenses....

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

and

EF 28-135mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

soylentgreen · Nov 30, 2007

They are good lenses. Not stupendous, but good. The 28-135 is a bit short on teh wide-angle end for a crop sensor though. The 17-85 is a really good lens. I enjoyed it before upgrading to the 24-105 f/4 L. Just a tad slow in low-light asws AF hunts for focus. But hey, its a f/4-5.6. Good range for a general purpose at 17mm-85mm. Effectively a 28-135 on a crop sensor.

JerryPH · Dec 1, 2007

A big part of the cost of any lens is definable by it's biggest aperture and ability to shoot in lower light situations. An F/4 anything doesn't really impress me much... unless its an 800 mm F/4.

Anything 200mm and under, if it cannot do an F/2,8 or better, well it drops drastically in terms of desireability for me.

In terms of what is the better camera? Well, at least concerning the flavor of the month, this time it is without doubt the D300. Next month? If Canon releases something, I am sure it will have something that trumps the D300, but until then, its a no contest.

soylentgreen · Dec 1, 2007

JerryPH said:
A big part of the cost of any lens is definable by it's biggest aperture and ability to shoot in lower light situations. An F/4 anything doesn't really impress me much... unless its an 800 mm F/4.

Anything 200mm and under, if it cannot do an F/2,8 or better, well it drops drastically in terms of desireability for me.

In terms of what is the better camera? Well, at least concerning the flavor of the month, this time it is without doubt the D300. Next month? If Canon releases something, I am sure it will have something that trumps the D300, but until then, its a no contest.

Though larger aperatures are deemed more desireable, a lenses performance should not be based on that alone. Case in point, the EF 70-200 f/4 L as opposed to the f/2.8 L's. The f/4 is a sharper lens than it's f/2.8 counterpart at f/4 and f/8 and a heck of a lot lighter. At 24-70mm the 24-105 is sharper at f/4 than the EF 24-70 f/2.8. At just one f/stop between the two, the gain in performance over aperature and price is of greater concern. At least in my case. And third-party lenses that slap an f/2.8 on to there label are practically unusable at there widest aperature. Yeah the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG was a bust. They are more usable stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. Hence the premium paid for higher-end glass.

JerryPH · Dec 1, 2007

Aperture is definately not all, but it is a big part. Also comparing a Sigma is not the best. They are not known for their very high quality on every lens they market. Check out the sharpness and clarity of the 17-50 HSM at 2.8... it outperforms the Nikkor 17-55 by a good margin, and at only 1/3rd the price.

... but I mostly do agree with you, hence why I said "a big part" and not "the only thing that matters...". A company that puts out a good lens that has apertures of 2.8 or higher is going to market it as a higher quality lens compared to another lens that has a F4-5.6 rating and *in most cases* will offer the glass needed to make it work with those apertures.

It is no guarantee, but it is a very good indicator.

Obviously the bottom line is that one has to test each particular lens or refer to reviews where these lenses are compared back to back, that is the best way to know.