In article <436e3f37$0$78286$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, Tino wrote:
> is it to cheap lenses ? i know i dont get the best produckt....but are they
> good enoughf for amatures ??? i have found a kenko 500 8f(140$)....and a
> vivtar 100/300 5,6 f (109 $)
depends what you want. There is some relationship between price and quality.
The mirror tele (500 f/8) has very bad out-of-focus, requires LOTS of
light (useable on a summer day with high sun). there is a reason people
pays a lot more fo an f/4 lens - which can do with half the light.
But it might be a fun toy.
generally when you buy cheap lenses, expect them to deliver an image
that is not sharp, the you might suffer from purple fringes etc.
The cheap lenses also has less color saturation and less contrast, and
is often more prone to flare.
Some people do not care about quality, and they will be happy. If
you resize all pictures to 25%, you might also be happy. If you need
to use the image at 75-100% size, then the cheap lenses does not cut it.
The difference between a sigma 70-300 non-APO and their 70-300mm APO
is VERY big. And going up to a Canon L-lense is just as big a step.
|