Those lenses kind of both suck, honestly, but if you're on a budget I guess you have to go with what you can afford. If I were buying new, I'd buy the body by itself and lenses I really want.
Top Thrill Dragster Crew 2009
1/18 Kingda Ka Innaugural Riders!!
Tatsu Media Day Camper
Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!
I've been through a few cameras in my time, some good, some bad. My current one is a PowerShot G7, which is quite frankly superb. Stunning pictures, and SLR-like flexibility in manual mode.
I just don't like the cheap lenses because having to shoot at f/5.6 on close-ups just sucks. I know you're going to pay money for the fixed f/4 or f/2.8 lenses, but it's worth it if you want the versatility and light.
Agreed. The f-stops always wind up being a downside with such lenses.
*** Edited 2/19/2007 9:54:53 PM UTC by DBCP***
I usually find myself having to go to a higher f-stop at the parks.
The 18-55 kit lens that comes with the XT is useable. Nothing great. But it does do f/3.5 which for really close shots offers nice DOF. The catch is that at the parks, you're usually not close enough to anything to take any real advantage of the DOF that a fast lens offers.
But for other things, I agree with these guys totally.
Back to the original question, both those lenses are pathetically average - and that's fine. I'm a cheap lens guy myself. I feel better about replacing a $150 lens than a $1000 lens. I'm not sure I could justify the extra cost for the image stabilization.
The thing I don't like about $100 lenses is that they tend to lose sharpness in the corners, even with the field crop that all but the more expensive DSLR's do. As they get to be higher and higher resolution, it matters more. I bought my first "L" lens last year, and I kick myself for not doing it sooner. (This was one of the first shots I took with it, and you should see how great it looks as a big print.)
Of course, if you're just going to post the pictures on the Web at 450x600, who cares. :)
I use my camera mostly for coasterimage and I abuse the hell out of my stuff. The bottom end lenses get the job done.
(and I post all my pics at 760 wide, thank you ;) )
And everything that I've seen out of the Sony so far is plenty impressive IMO.
I just picked up a Sigma (old Minolta mount) 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for under $200.
In addition to the film shots, I was augmenting them with my camera phone and I definitely liked the instant results and ability to edit and crop (great time-waster in queues). The only problem I had was that in blinding sunlight, it was impossible to see the screen to know if I had a good shot or not.
I looked at some of the cameras that are around the same compact size, and they all seem to have large LCD-panels in the back for review. This obviously does me no good if I'm trying to review the photos as I shoot and it's bright outside. How do you guys handle this problem who shoot digitally?
Dude... that is so not even remotely true. I have the 70-200mm f/4 L (under $600), and the sharpness is several orders of magnitude better than it is on a cheap lens. You aren't just buying an extra stop, you're buying better glass.
Lord Gonchar said:
All you're buying with that extra cash is an extra stop or so.
You must be logged in to post