Another mag trashes kit lens(s)

Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?
-Rich

RichA wrote:

Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?

So don't buy one...

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
says...
Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?
-Rich

*Yawn*
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated
higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL
the others they tested (12-24 f4,5-5,6 DG EX, 15-30 f3,5-4,5DG Asph EX and
20-40 f2,8 DG Asph EX) came out either as good or worse. The verdict for
all these lenses were to use them at f8 or smaller aperture.

Even Canon's own lenses perform differently on different bodies, The
10D/300D will have better results with any lens while the 1Ds is more
demanding. For example the 17-40 f4 L got a 4/5 on the 10D and only a 3/5
on the 1Ds.

Jean

"RichA" a écrit dans le message de
...
Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?
-Rich

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 01:37:56 -0400, "jean" wrote:

In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated
higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL
the others they tested (12-24 f4,5-5,6 DG EX, 15-30 f3,5-4,5DG Asph EX and
20-40 f2,8 DG Asph EX) came out either as good or worse. The verdict for
all these lenses were to use them at f8 or smaller aperture.

Even Canon's own lenses perform differently on different bodies, The
10D/300D will have better results with any lens while the 1Ds is more
demanding. For example the 17-40 f4 L got a 4/5 on the 10D and only a 3/5
on the 1Ds.


Did they find anything better with that focal range for the 1Ds?
-Rich
Jean

"RichA" a écrit dans le message de
.. .
Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?
-Rich

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

RichA wrote:

Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?

So don't buy one...


Good advice.
--

Stacey

Brian Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...
Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?
-Rich

*Yawn*

Well you asked:

"So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is
appropriate, shut your ****ing yap."

Now I guess you don't want to hear the results?
--

Stacey

In article , says...
Well you asked:

"So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is
appropriate, shut your ****ing yap."

I don't know how C. d'Images tested it. Hell, they were the ones who
came up with the wacky Nikon ISO results. Who should trust them above
all others?

Now I guess you don't want to hear the results?

I want to SEE results of a PROPERLY performed test. You idiots have yet
to provide me with such.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:32:44 GMT, Brian Baird wrote:

In article , says...
Well you asked:

"So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is
appropriate, shut your ****ing yap."

I don't know how C. d'Images tested it. Hell, they were the ones who
came up with the wacky Nikon ISO results. Who should trust them above
all others?

Now I guess you don't want to hear the results?

I want to SEE results of a PROPERLY performed test. You idiots have yet
to provide me with such.

Check out the magazine, they did a thorough test.
-Rich

RichA yet again demonstrates his pointlessness:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 01:37:56 -0400, "jean" wrote:

"RichA" a =E9crit:

Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does
lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive
zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom?
And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it
handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money"
don't hold?
-Rich

In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was ra=
ted
higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL
the others they tested (12-24 f4,5-5,6 DG EX, 15-30 f3,5-4,5DG Asph EX and
20-40 f2,8 DG Asph EX) came out either as good or worse. The verdict for
all these lenses were to use them at f8 or smaller aperture.

Even Canon's own lenses perform differently on different bodies, The
10D/300D will have better results with any lens while the 1Ds is more
demanding. For example the 17-40 f4 L got a 4/5 on the 10D and only a 3/5
on the 1Ds.

Did they find anything better with that focal range for the 1Ds?

You tell us: you read the review. Or did you?