20D just loves the plastic lens!

Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all! An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

Ryadia

In article , Ryadia
wrote:

Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all! An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

I don't have "L" lenses either but I'll never waste my money on a Sigma
product. Although, since I just got a promotion with a substantial pay
increase, I'm thinking of trading in my consumer grade Canon lenses for
"L" and IS equivalents.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Ryadia
wrote:

Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all! An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

I don't have "L" lenses either but I'll never waste my money on a Sigma
product. Although, since I just got a promotion with a substantial pay
increase, I'm thinking of trading in my consumer grade Canon lenses for
"L" and IS equivalents.

From what I hear the Sigma lenses are not as bad as the Sigma cams. If you
are a working pro the better lenses might make sense. Depends on what you
need. Consider that the photos the pros strive for are the ones where the
rest of us wonder how they got their equipment to do "that!" It's because
their equipment is not like our equipment. Of course they have to know how
to use it too.

Lets consider a "what if". Suppose you see a scene but you have had bad luck
with high contrast....something digicams are not so good with. A pro might
see the same thing and know that with a particular camera setting and a
particular lens and with some particular Photoshop tricks that scene will
be possible and very dramatic. BTW...since you bother with RAW files I would
have to suspect that you already know this....and are trying to find the
edges of the possible for your images. Going RAW made a big difference to my
work.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Ryadia
wrote:

Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all! An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

I don't have "L" lenses either but I'll never waste my money on a Sigma
product. Although, since I just got a promotion with a substantial pay
increase, I'm thinking of trading in my consumer grade Canon lenses for
"L" and IS equivalents.

From what I hear the Sigma lenses are not as bad as the Sigma cams. If you
are a working pro the better lenses might make sense. Depends on what you
need. Consider that the photos the pros strive for are the ones where the
rest of us wonder how they got their equipment to do "that!" It's because
their equipment is not like our equipment. Of course they have to know how
to use it too.

Lets consider a "what if". Suppose you see a scene but you have had bad luck
with high contrast....something digicams are not so good with. A pro might
see the same thing and know that with a particular camera setting and a
particular lens and with some particular Photoshop tricks that scene will
be possible and very dramatic. BTW...since you bother with RAW files I would
have to suspect that you already know this....and are trying to find the
edges of the possible for your images. Going RAW made a big difference to my
work.

Gene Palmiter wrote:

From what I hear the Sigma lenses are not as bad as the Sigma cams. If you
are a working pro the better lenses might make sense. Depends on what you
need. Consider that the photos the pros strive for are the ones where the
rest of us wonder how they got their equipment to do "that!" It's because
their equipment is not like our equipment. Of course they have to know how
to use it too.

Lets consider a "what if". Suppose you see a scene but you have had bad luck
with high contrast....something digicams are not so good with. A pro might
see the same thing and know that with a particular camera setting and a
particular lens and with some particular Photoshop tricks that scene will
be possible and very dramatic. BTW...since you bother with RAW files I would
have to suspect that you already know this....and are trying to find the
edges of the possible for your images. Going RAW made a big difference to my
work.


This is my third Sigma lens. When I was getting geared up I bought a
Sigma 120~300 f2.8 because I couldn't afford a prime 300 Canon lens. It
was good. Very good, and I made some bucks from the pics it took but I
spent 'em on a prime 300 f4.5 lens just as soon as I could. What you say
about the "Pros" is applicable to everyone.

I once built a house from the ground up and when I called in a local
builder to price doing the interior woodwork, he said the difference
between an amature (me) and a tradesman (him) was that I had to "hope" I
got it right but he knew exactly how to get it right... Same goes with
cameras.

If you don't know how your lenses, bodies and printers work together,
you'll never know if you can get the shot or not. I know absolutely that
the Sigma Zoom is as good as any lens under some conditions. I know too
that the Canon 300 prime has a few quirks but when the conditions get
harsh, the prime lenses come into their own. The 70~200 f2.8 Canon is a
better resolving lens than the Sigma but when you use a (Genuine Canon)
1.4 Extender to get some extra reach, it is no better than the Sigma.

Ryadia

Gene Palmiter wrote:

From what I hear the Sigma lenses are not as bad as the Sigma cams. If you
are a working pro the better lenses might make sense. Depends on what you
need. Consider that the photos the pros strive for are the ones where the
rest of us wonder how they got their equipment to do "that!" It's because
their equipment is not like our equipment. Of course they have to know how
to use it too.

Lets consider a "what if". Suppose you see a scene but you have had bad luck
with high contrast....something digicams are not so good with. A pro might
see the same thing and know that with a particular camera setting and a
particular lens and with some particular Photoshop tricks that scene will
be possible and very dramatic. BTW...since you bother with RAW files I would
have to suspect that you already know this....and are trying to find the
edges of the possible for your images. Going RAW made a big difference to my
work.


This is my third Sigma lens. When I was getting geared up I bought a
Sigma 120~300 f2.8 because I couldn't afford a prime 300 Canon lens. It
was good. Very good, and I made some bucks from the pics it took but I
spent 'em on a prime 300 f4.5 lens just as soon as I could. What you say
about the "Pros" is applicable to everyone.

I once built a house from the ground up and when I called in a local
builder to price doing the interior woodwork, he said the difference
between an amature (me) and a tradesman (him) was that I had to "hope" I
got it right but he knew exactly how to get it right... Same goes with
cameras.

If you don't know how your lenses, bodies and printers work together,
you'll never know if you can get the shot or not. I know absolutely that
the Sigma Zoom is as good as any lens under some conditions. I know too
that the Canon 300 prime has a few quirks but when the conditions get
harsh, the prime lenses come into their own. The 70~200 f2.8 Canon is a
better resolving lens than the Sigma but when you use a (Genuine Canon)
1.4 Extender to get some extra reach, it is no better than the Sigma.

Ryadia

In article ,
Ryadia wrote:

Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all! An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

Ryadia

sarcasm
Yeah. When I put a +4 closeup filter on my Canon 70-300mm DO IS, it
sucked ass too. What a waste of money.
/sarcasm

Ryadia wrote in message ...
Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all!

It depends what your definition of junk is. Most would call the all
plastic Canon lens, to include the lens mount itself, laughable junk.
The Fisher-Price/Canon 50mm always gets bad reviews, but it is priced
right (basically free) so you can't really complain. If you want a
superb 50mm prime, Canon glass certainly is not an option...

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

Note that second place Nikon is a mistake, it's not 50mm. Also note
the Sigma 50mm has since been relaced by a MUCH higher performing 50mm
prime that costs the same.

An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Why would that be a surprise? There aren't any good lenses in the
100-300 class, let alone great ones like the Sigma 100-300, besides
the 3 Sigmas...

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

Note the two pro-line Sigma EXs are VERY expensive. The 3rd place
performer, also a Sigma, is priced very reasonably, but is no where
near the same class of performance as the two class dominating pro
Sigma EXs. Again Canon and Nikon offer nothing but real junk in this
class, why is anyone's guess, it is a key focal range, especially for
APS.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms

Maybe because they can't even compete with Sigma's non-EX line...
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

Lastly, those tests don't show color, where coincidentally both the
Canon 50mms and their 70/100-300mm lenses are yellow tinted. The 50mm
prime plus 70/100-300mm Sigmas are all a bit pricey, but they also
have gorgeous color and bokeh.

Canon does make a few good lenses, but they make no price-competitve
lenses.

Ryadia wrote in message ...
Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all!

It depends what your definition of junk is. Most would call the all
plastic Canon lens, to include the lens mount itself, laughable junk.
The Fisher-Price/Canon 50mm always gets bad reviews, but it is priced
right (basically free) so you can't really complain. If you want a
superb 50mm prime, Canon glass certainly is not an option...

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

Note that second place Nikon is a mistake, it's not 50mm. Also note
the Sigma 50mm has since been relaced by a MUCH higher performing 50mm
prime that costs the same.

An even bigger surprise (for me)
is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
see for yourself.

Why would that be a surprise? There aren't any good lenses in the
100-300 class, let alone great ones like the Sigma 100-300, besides
the 3 Sigmas...

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

Note the two pro-line Sigma EXs are VERY expensive. The 3rd place
performer, also a Sigma, is priced very reasonably, but is no where
near the same class of performance as the two class dominating pro
Sigma EXs. Again Canon and Nikon offer nothing but real junk in this
class, why is anyone's guess, it is a key focal range, especially for
APS.

Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms

Maybe because they can't even compete with Sigma's non-EX line...
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

Lastly, those tests don't show color, where coincidentally both the
Canon 50mms and their 70/100-300mm lenses are yellow tinted. The 50mm
prime plus 70/100-300mm Sigmas are all a bit pricey, but they also
have gorgeous color and bokeh.

Canon does make a few good lenses, but they make no price-competitve
lenses.

"George Preddy" wrote in message
om...
Ryadia wrote in message
...
Hi folks...
Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
the camera is not that junky after all!

It depends what your definition of junk is. Most would call the all
plastic Canon lens, to include the lens mount itself, laughable junk.

George is a delusional troll.
Ignore him.