25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10

MarkH wrote in message ...
(Laurence Matson) wrote in
m:

Randall Ainsworth wrote in message
. ..

I don't know of any professional who uses Sigma anything.

That's fine, and I hope you enjoy your 10D. Nothing wrong with Canon
lenses either. They are a bit expensive, to be sure, but that is a
pocketbook choice. And although you don't know any pros using Sigma
glass, you might find some if you look around. A couple of their
lenses are virtually unique: The 120-300 2.8 is one often used, and
the 300-800 5.6 is unique. The former is prefered by sports
photographers and the latter is perhaps the best bird lens in the
world. I have both and find the focussing fast and reliable. I also
have a couple of pro friends who would like to have them. Switzerland
is a small country. We have about 20-25 300-800 lenses in the country,
all used by pros except mine.

I have to agree, certain Sigma lenses are bought by some professionals.

The Sigma 12-24 is sold to Canon D-SLR users, there is no competition at
all in that focal range.

The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is sold to many photographers that want a zoom with
f2.8 and more reach than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L. Canon don?t offer any
zoom over 200mm at f2.8.

The Sigma 50-500 is popular for being a longer alternative to the Canon
100-400.

The Sigma 300-800 f5.6 is popular because Canon?s longest zoom is the 100-
400 which has only half as much telephoto. I am not sure if I would agree
about being the best bird lens though, I am under the impression that the
Canon super-expensive long primes (500mm & 600mm) are the preferred bird
lenses for those that can afford them. Maybe the Sigma is the best zoom
bird lens? But you can get a Canon 500 f4L IS for similar money, I would
doubt that the Sigma could compete on image quality!

Mark,

Good list.

I will agree with you that primes are always better than zooms. There
are some Brits using the Sigma 800 prime for birding. Generally
speaking, if the camera will provide the sharpness however, birders
have told me they prefer the 300-800 for the range. The 800 prime and
the huge Nikon are extraordinary lenses however. No quibbles there.

Actually, the 12-24 is also sold to Nikon users but under a different
label. There are some other similar cases.

The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is sold to many photographers that want a zoom with
f2.8 and more reach than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L. Canon don?t offer any
zoom over 200mm at f2.8.

For less than the cost of the Sigma lens you can get the Canon
70-200/2.8L *and* a 1.4x extender, giving you, in effect, 70-200/2.8 and
98-280/4, both with IS and environmental seals.

The Sigma is very impressive optically but is a horrible lens to handle
(though perhaps not so bad if you have large hands) as the zoom control
is towards the front of the barrel, and the potential compatibility
issues of Sigmas are well-known.

IMO unless you absolutely need continuous zoom beyond 200mm the Canon
equivalent combination is better value.

(Now a Canon 120-300/2.8 L IS would be interesting... :-))

--
Hil

Hils wrote in message ...
The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is sold to many photographers that want a zoom with
f2.8 and more reach than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L. Canon don?t offer any
zoom over 200mm at f2.8.

For less than the cost of the Sigma lens you can get the Canon
70-200/2.8L *and* a 1.4x extender, giving you, in effect, 70-200/2.8 and
98-280/4, both with IS and environmental seals.

True. But one already gives up sharpness with a zoom. The 1.4x takes
another cut. Plus you lose some speed. The 120-300 is very sharp, and,
at least for my use, works very well hand-held. Here is a gallery of
our Jacks, many of which were shot with this lens hand-held.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/animals_sd10



The Sigma is very impressive optically but is a horrible lens to handle
(though perhaps not so bad if you have large hands) as the zoom control
is towards the front of the barrel, and the potential compatibility
issues of Sigmas are well-known.

IMO unless you absolutely need continuous zoom beyond 200mm the Canon
equivalent combination is better value.

(Now a Canon 120-300/2.8 L IS would be interesting... :-))

(Laurence Matson) wrote in message om...
Hils wrote in message ...
The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is sold to many photographers that want a zoom with
f2.8 and more reach than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L. Canon don?t offer any
zoom over 200mm at f2.8.

For less than the cost of the Sigma lens you can get the Canon
70-200/2.8L *and* a 1.4x extender, giving you, in effect, 70-200/2.8 and
98-280/4, both with IS and environmental seals.

True. But one already gives up sharpness with a zoom. The 1.4x takes
another cut. Plus you lose some speed. The 120-300 is very sharp, and,
at least for my use, works very well hand-held. Here is a gallery of
our Jacks, many of which were shot with this lens hand-held.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/animals_sd10

I like

http://www.pbase.com/image/23823217

but the rest are softer than an SD9. Not a bad comprimise when you
note the SD10 is notably sharper at 3.4MP than a 10D after downsizing
to 1.5MP.

"Laurence Matson" wrote in message
m...


http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/animals_sd10

Goodness me.

I opend this link with anticipation, expecting to be visually overawed by
masterpiece after masterpiece, taken by the erudite one, to be greeted
instead by mediocrity.

Ne'er mind.

Sam

(Georgette Preddy) wrote in
om:

I like

http://www.pbase.com/image/23823217

but the rest are softer than an SD9. Not a bad comprimise when you
note the SD10 is notably sharper at 3.4MP than a 10D after downsizing
to 1.5MP.


I partly agree with you here ...

1. This is the best of the picture - I also like it.
2. The rest of the pictures are too soft.

But ...

1. This picture is much better than any SD9 I ever have seen. It lacks
the totally awful aliasing artefacts you see in sharp SD9 pictures.
It is actually very good - hmmm I think I shall start looking for
more SD10 pictures - the camera might actually be good. Or?

2. The rest of the pictures are to soft because they are unsharp. Lots
of both faulty focus and unsharpness due to movement. Those are
probably not the camera's fault.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson wrote in message ...
(Georgette Preddy) wrote in
om:

I like

http://www.pbase.com/image/23823217

but the rest are softer than an SD9. Not a bad comprimise when you
note the SD10 is notably sharper at 3.4MP than a 10D after downsizing
to 1.5MP.


I partly agree with you here ...

1. This is the best of the picture - I also like it.
2. The rest of the pictures are too soft.

But all the images there still provide roughly 10X the usable MP of a
"6MP" Bayer DSLR. You never see Bayer images this sharp that haven't
already been downsampled to 0.3MP to 0.4MP output.