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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital vs Film - just give in! | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 159 | November 15th 04 04:56 PM |
Caltar lens bubbles | Tom Phillips | Large Format Photography Equipment | 4 | October 2nd 04 10:16 PM |
perspective w/ 35mm lenses? | PrincePete01 | Digital Photography | 373 | August 10th 04 02:21 PM |
hyperfocal distance | leo | Digital Photography | 74 | July 8th 04 12:25 AM |
The opposite of a close-up lens? | Ralf R. Radermacher | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 44 | April 14th 04 03:55 PM |