I don't disagree, I just make a further distinction.
The Vivitar/et.al. 19-35/3.5-4.5, is cheap, light and mostly plastic
except for the glass elements. So, for a pro or heavy/rough user, it is
likely cheap junk. On the other hand, it is optically quite good, with
excellent resolution and contrast and not unreasonable linear distortion
at the wide end. So for me, an amateur who uses his lenses lightly and
generally carefully, it is a good choice that I'm happy I made. It's
cheap, light to carry and gives pleasing results, what more could I
want? If I do eventually break it, it is cheap to replace.
What I'm looking to find out is whether the cheap Sigma DC lenses are
optically good or not, given their acknowledged limitations of
robustness in the face of trauma and heavy use. It is clear from the
reviews of the DRebel that the 18-55mm EF-S lens falls in the cheap,
light mount with good optics category. Remember, all these DSLRs to date
use filters to limit the resolution that reaches the sensor anyway, so
any super resolution in a lens will be wasted until or if it is ever
used on a later body with better sensor resolution.
So your general category of cheap junk lenses is too broad to be useful
to this particular buyer.
Moose
B. D. Colen wrote:
>As to the lenses being sold with the Digital Rebel, I would suggest that
>Canon and other manufacturers are producing cheap junk lenses to package
>with these cheaper bodies to lure buyers - not unlike the packages many
>of the places who advertise in the back of Pop Photo put together with
>film cameras.
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|