The right SLR for the job & Megapixels vs Lens

[Dougjgreen]

I just realized, another one that might be worth looking at is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, It's built on Pentax/Canon/Sony and Nikon, and its $400 (waaaaay cheaper than the brand specific ones). Its fast and it performs beautifully, plus it has full frame coverage, so you are already pulling your images through the sweet spot - I'd bet you won't be able to tell the difference in the images from this and a Nikon/Canon brand equivalent, plus it gives you a fast f-spot across the entire zoom for that soft bokeh.

Sigma also makes a high quality 24-85mm f2.8 lens that costs under $500. But I still think that the Nikon and Canon stuff (other than their cheap kit lenses) is built to a higher level of durability than the 3rd party lenses. The Tamron and Sigma lenses might be just as sharp and less costly, but I don't think they are as well suited to the rigors of day in, day out professional use.

[rongarrett]

It never is mentioned when talking of portraiture, but I would recommend a MAXIMUM of 12mp for most portraiture. Ya see good portraits BLEND contours and tonality, unless of course you are shooting that old salt with 6000 wrinkles in his face.

Women especially like their pics to flatter rather than show every wrinkle or blotch. For studio work a good strobe with a big softbox will be right there second with lens choice. I second the Nikon line for an unmentioned reason. If you really stick to Portraiture and wedding venues, the Fuji S5 pro, {which uses Nikon lenses} might just be your affordable camera. Its a heck of a camera for those special uses.

I use Portrait Professional with my portraiture. It's very affordable and really does an admirable job even in the automatic mode. When I shoot a job with lots of different customers, {high school dances, etc} it saves the day because I can turn out lots of images with good results in a reasonable amount of time.

Just my humble opinion.

[Sushigaijin]

Doug, I don't think the olympus system is the most over-developed system out there and there are definitely lenses that I'd like that they don't make...but I'm intrigued by the statement that "Olympus lacks the type of fast focusing long fast glass..." Is the 300 (600=) F/2.8 not long enough or fast enough? And there are two top quality long zooms that are fast, the 50-200 (100-400) and the 90-250 (180-500). I'm mainly wondering what focal length you think they are lacking.

I'd like a 400 (800=) f/4 myself for birding. So I understand that different people have different needs...I'm just wondering what yours were, that were important enough to jump ship?

[Dougjgreen]

Doug, I don't think the olympus system is the most over-developed system out there and there are definitely lenses that I'd like that they don't make...but I'm intrigued by the statement that "Olympus lacks the type of fast focusing long fast glass..." Is the 300 (600=) F/2.8 not long enough or fast enough? And there are two top quality long zooms that are fast, the 50-200 (100-400) and the 90-250 (180-500). I'm mainly wondering what focal length you think they are lacking.

I'd like a 400 (800=) f/4 myself for birding. So I understand that different people have different needs...I'm just wondering what yours were, that were important enough to jump ship?

Well for starters, the 300mm f2.8 lacks an internal high performance focus motor, as does the 90-250. So they are both $6000 lenses that are functionally obsolete. But what I'd really like is a more rationally priced lens in the 300-400mm range, such as a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 for under $2K, with an SWD focus drive, to compete with what Nikon and Canon have. My other issue is that I don't like the ergonomics of the E-3, nor the absurd price point of the E-30. And finally, Olympus is poorly supported by third party vendors, as Sigma is the only one who supports them, and they have nothing close to a comprehensive offering in 4/3.

Sigma's newer 120-400mm and 135-500 lenses that exist in Nikon and Canon mount are substantial improvements from the long Sigma lenses that are out in Olympus mount - both in optical performance at the long end, and in the speed of their focus motors.

It also helped that I already had quite a bit of Nikon gear from my film days, (an 80-200mm zoom, a 28-80mm zoom, and 24mm and 50mm primes, plus a slew of older manual focus primes, as well as several Nikon film bodies) so my cost to switch back to Nikon was minimal. If I needed to buy a new body with fast tracking AF and an SWD long lens for my Olympus, it actually cost me quite a bit less to buy a new body and long lens within the Nikon mount. My switching cost really is just a wide angle lens, and for now, I'm still using my Olympus with my 11-22 at the wide end, and Nikon for anything longer.

This all came about because I have been let down by Olympus AF performance in the field when shooting wildlife on multiple occasions - to the point that I was missing far more shots than I would have with gear that had competitive tracking AF performance.

The irony is, I went into the Olympus digital system in the first place because their cameras made better use of my older MF Nikkor glass than did Nikon, prior to the D200. My birding lens in Olympus land is a 300mm f2.8 Nikkor ED-IF manual focus lens.

[Anbesol]

Sigma also makes a high quality 24-85mm f2.8 lens that costs under $500. But I still think that the Nikon and Canon stuff (other than their cheap kit lenses) is built to a higher level of durability than the 3rd party lenses. The Tamron and Sigma lenses might be just as sharp and less costly, but I don't think they are as well suited to the rigors of day in, day out professional use.

If rigors include all-weather outdoor use, I suppose. As Lynn mentioned Portrait/wedding, I can't imagine what problems you foresee with the Tamron. I wouldn't discourage the Tamron based on its extending zoom, lack of weatherproofing, or the sorts. Those features will cost lynn mucho bucks that he could apply better towards other lens, strobes,speedlites, etc. No need to have a lens that can withstand the rain for portraits/wedding. Just my 2 cents...

Gotta agree with you on Olympus though, they have their nook and they do well, but they don't have quite the lens variety and selection that all the other big guys do. The 4/3rds format is a pretty niche market.

[Dougjgreen]

My only issue with the Tamron 28-75 is that, on a small sensor body, 28mm isn't wide enough for wedding work, as it's a 35mm equivalent of 42mm. A 24mm (36mm equiv. FOV) is noticeably wider. 18mm would be even better, if there were a fast enough lens that also was at least 70mm on the long end.