Building a Film and Digital System - Age Old Canon v Nikon

[Newt_on_Swings]

I dont think anyone has brought this up but, I suggest testing the sigma lens, as they have a history of compatibility programs regarding their chips that may not work on newer bodies unless they were rechipped. This might hinder resale value a good deal, and maybe why it may be so cheap to you now.

But if your a dedicated manual focus user, go ahead! it will help alleviate some GAS.

[Buceph]

Like I said, it's really this lens that is causing me to rethink myself. http://www.ffordes.com/product/11080310214081

If anyone has info on it, I'd appreciate it. I was resigned to thinking that I wouldn't be able to get sports shots (rugby.) So if I actually could do that, even if I could only do it with a film lens, I'd definitely reconsider things.

[OddE]

I was resigned to thinking that I wouldn't be able to get sports shots (rugby.) So if I actually could do that, even if I could only do it with a film lens, I'd definitely reconsider things.

-Please forgive me if you're perfectly aware of this, but reading the above, I think there may be a misunderstanding afoot here.

Any film/FX lens will work perfectly fine on a APS-C (crop sensor) digital body; it is just a little bigger and heavier than what is required to accomodate the smaller sensor.

As a further bonus if you intend to shoot sports - the smaller sensor size translates into a narrower angle of view for a given focal length, making the lens appear to be a longer tele than it really is. (While comparing to a film/FX camera using the same lens.)

A 300mm lens on a DX/crop sensor camera will present the same angle of view (roughly, depending on the exact sensor size) as a 450mm tele on a FX camera.

That being said, a 300mm f/4 tele for GBP200 seems like a very good deal!

[Buceph]

-Please forgive me if you're perfectly aware of this, but reading the above, I think there may be a misunderstanding afoot here.

Any film/FX lens will work perfectly fine on a APS-C (crop sensor) digital body; it is just a little bigger and heavier than what is required to accomodate the smaller sensor.

As a further bonus if you intend to shoot sports - the smaller sensor size translates into a narrower angle of view for a given focal length, making the lens appear to be a longer tele than it really is. (While comparing to a film/FX camera using the same lens.)

A 300mm lens on a DX/crop sensor camera will present the same angle of view (roughly, depending on the exact sensor size) as a 450mm tele on a FX camera.

That being said, a 300mm f/4 tele for GBP200 seems like a very good deal!

I understand that. It's just this particular lens says it won't work on DSLRs for electronic reasons. Maybe something about the contacts. And I was resigned to not taking sports shots because I wouldn't be able to afford a €1000 lens i.e. a 300mm F4, until I saw this which says it works on EOS Film bodies.

[ChristopherCoy]

I'm a bit confused. Are you basing a system choice by a third party lens maker? Because if that's the case Sigma is well known for its spotty quality control. As well, wouldn't they make the same, and/or similar model mount for Nikon?

[Buceph]

I'm a bit confused. Are you basing a system choice by a third party lens maker? Because if that's the case Sigma is well known for its spotty quality control. As well, wouldn't they make the same, and/or similar model mount for Nikon?

No.

But the availability of a 300mm F4 lens for £200 would make a significant impact on my decision.

I know that there is little difference between Nikon and Canon. I have read that Nikon are generally considered better when it comes to their flashes, and I have read that Canon are generally considered better when it comes to the availability of an option of prime lenses.

I thought I had outlined my problems I had with Nikon (D versus G lenses and incompatibility between film and digital SLRs, and their compatibility with flashes.) I had pretty much accepted these problems, although I hadn't looked too close at Canon. This was because I liked the feel of Nikon. However being able to get a decent 300mm F4 lens for relatively little money, is making me reconsider.

Many people have said there is relatively little between the two brands and systems. But I'm still asking how Canon shape up to Nikon in the area I've described as having problems with Nikon.

I'm not deciding anything based on one aspect, I'm just looking for information. (Especially as I haven't found one stand-out site for Canon.)

Edit: As for whether the lens is available for Nikon, I don't know. I know nothing about this lens, just that it is amazingly cheap for a 300mm F4. That's probably related to the way the seller is saying it won't work on a DSLR. But if I could even take sports shots on a film body, that'd do fine.

[MattKing]

A 200mm F4 lens on a cropped sensor digital body will give you the same results (wrt image size on the frame) as a 300mm F4 lens on a full frame body.

So I wouldn't base my decision on that 300mm lens unless it was compatible with a DSLR.

IMHO sport photography is a genre where digital has some clear and demonstrable advantages over film - I would suggest that if you are examining which systems would be best for both digital and film use, you should concentrate on types of photography where both digital and film are strong.

[Buceph]

Is there a lens that will perform at F4 at 200mm on a crop bod, and that's only £199?

The only thing that I can find is this at twice the price.

[tomalophicon]

Terrible thread.

[tkamiya]

Do you HAVE to have f/4? You can simply bump up ISO one stop if necessary. My 55-200VR is f/5.6 at 200mm. It's a wonderful cheap lens. You can buy one for about $200US.