Quote:
Originally Posted by kanadary
agree there's other factors but in general, the more useable iso you have, the better performer it is in low light. i had an old 1d mkii it was good but not stellar in low light but then 1600 was a big improvement. i do like the nikon bodies, the new 750 sounds like a killer but have too much invested in L lens to switch over. i also would prefer to have the 14-24 over the new 11-24 at half the price. your 200-400f4 is a steal too..
|
That's my point though -- you cannot generalize that way; the numbers don't have any bearing on the reality. Physics refuses to capitulate to the marketeers.
It does seem to me that Nikon has a couple top trumps right now, but Canon has a jump on the diffractive optics technology and I expect that they will take the crown in some of the longer focal lengths.
I do love the 14-24, but at a third of the cost you can have the 16-28 from Tokina, which I feel is very much an under-appreciated lens. Take a look; I'm sure they make a Canon flavor, and it's probably even cheaper. The Sigma 14mm is cheap fun, but the IQ is terrible, and the other competition has trouble with quality control.
What's really interesting me, though, is the new m43 stuff coming out. It sounds crazy, but the new E-M1/II could be a game changer with Olympus's 40-150mm, as might the Fuji 140-400mm f/4-5.6.
This seems like a step backward, I know, until you do a deep analysis of the sensors and lenses. If you're looking for cheap reach for shooting, say, auto racing, these setups might actually perform better (and at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight) than our full-frame cameras -- assuming we're using teleconverters in both cases. Plus, you get great IBIS should you need it. You could rent this super lightweight setup for only ~$250/week, which makes it a killer option for short-term travel work -- and it frees up the FF body for a shorter focal length.