How is the quality of cheap SLR lenses compared to a mid priced point and shoot? I need a wide angle lens for my 350D and I have always thought that maybe I should get a P&S instead. It will be dual purpose because it will be a lot quicker to take out and snap photos and then it will fill in the wide angle lens that I don't have. A few days ago, I was about to hit the order button on a cheap (I think it is the cheapest wide angle) Sigma lens for $102 (18-50 F3.5>I think).
I am concerned about sharpness and geometric distortion when comparing lenses. I have no idea why some people want soft lenses but I sure don't. The sharper, the better. Obviously a cheap SLR lens will be slower than a P&S lens so we know who wins in this category. How about the sharpness and geometric distortion, is it possible that a $300 point and shoot can get sharper and less disorted pictures than say a $200 wide angle lens such as the DRebel kit lens. (I don't have the kit lens by the way).
I am concerned about sharpness and geometric distortion when comparing lenses. I have no idea why some people want soft lenses but I sure don't. The sharper, the better. Obviously a cheap SLR lens will be slower than a P&S lens so we know who wins in this category. How about the sharpness and geometric distortion, is it possible that a $300 point and shoot can get sharper and less disorted pictures than say a $200 wide angle lens such as the DRebel kit lens. (I don't have the kit lens by the way).