If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10
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... :-)) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10
(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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10
(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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|