Bought something new and want to share? Post it here. - Page 4

s8n · 24th January 2007, 9:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyl

How would the 100mm f/2 USM stack up against this lens?

Both f/2..only difference would be the length..(or not)?

id say VERY different, construction is one thing - check out the specs on canon.com.au

elements are different, L series as UD glass... look into it more on the website

oli · 24th January 2007, 1:25 PM

I was mainly responding to your comment about using anything other than L glass on a 5D (that goes for non Canon lenses and non L Canon lenses as well).

Anyway it's a pretty pointless argument (as you've recognised). At the end of the day, with a photo processed by someone who knows what they're doing, a large print can look just as good from a decent Sigma lens (most EX ones) as a large print shot with (most L and non L prime) Canon glass.

Another photo:

Click to view full-sized image!
Hosted by UGBox Image Store

PS. both the last photos I posted in this thread are taken with the 100-300 f/4 on a 5D.

^catalyst · 25th January 2007, 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mute

A prime always has superior sharpness as there are no moving parts

Think carefully about that statement mute...

As for Sigma QA, I sell them, lots. Had one or two come back, just like Canon and Nikon lenses; all got dodgy ones.

I've been over the moon with my Sigma glass and if I still used it I'd be even happier!!

-Lachie

Kyl3 · 25th January 2007, 7:23 PM

What he should have said is ' a prime has the potential to be sharper, as there are less glass elements in the lens ' perhaps?

^catalyst · 25th January 2007, 7:24 PM

The comment about moving parts gave me a bit of a giggle... how's it focus then champ!?

Less glass = better!

oli · 25th January 2007, 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^catalyst

Less glass = better!

No glass = best!

Slug69 · 25th January 2007, 7:40 PM

Looking at your pics Oli, you must be very familiar with a tripod.

Very nice.

mute · 25th January 2007, 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ^catalyst

The comment about moving parts gave me a bit of a giggle... how's it focus then champ!?

Hehe yeah I just realized what I said

What I should have said is that primes are usually sharper as there is less glass inside

phreeky82 · 26th January 2007, 10:37 PM

...an informal, drunken review...

Well I'd read a bit on here, also on fredmiranda and a number of places re this lens and others and was unsure what to do, and finally decided it was right for me.

My reading was suggesting that it was quite good up to around 200mm, and then the quality tapers off, and I was more or less ok with that - like most people I had a limited budget (gave myself a budget of $1k for all stuff with long reach), so had to make some compromises - it was either going to be a 70-200 F4L + a 1.4x teleconvertor (it would need to be an overseas net purchase to get that for around $1k) - my priority is up to around 200mm, but I will from time to time want a bit more reach.

So anyway i got the lens and a hood (isn't included) for around $1k. All in all i'm bloody happy with it, but have only had a single days playing and have only looked on the computer etc while drinking, so....

I've never used any L glass, but damn this is nice for someone who otherwise only has a kit lens (18-55) and a 50mm f1.8. Build quality much better than both, picture quality with my quick playing up to around 240mm is not far off the 50mm at all.

At 300mm (i didn't take anything between 240mm and 300mm today) it does get a little soft, but only at full size (i.e. big print) is it really noticable, and even then acceptable.

Here is a shot I took along with a crop:

Camera: 300D
Lens: 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM
Focal Length: 300mm
ISO: 400
Aperture: 5.6
Exposure: 1/320

Full image at 25% - http://www.clubpoint.net/bluebird/auszoo/jw-resized.jpg
100% crop near centre - http://www.clubpoint.net/bluebird/au...100pc_crop.jpg

You can see the 100% crop is a bit soft, but I'm plenty happy. I figured the 70-200 F4 with a 1.5x on it would be similar more or less, F-stop would be no better either, and for the same $$$ I wouldn't have been able to get retail like I did with this. On top of that, I took some clear shots at 300mm, 1/40s thanks to the IS!!! Crazy stuff, it's magic, and even with the extra F-stop the 70-200 F4L would be blurry as all hell - something I didn't even consider until i was mucking around.

I know it wont be awesome in lower light, but it'll otherwise be quite handy especially for motorsport (i like taking photos of sprints and stuff).

A 17-85mm would round out my glass kit quite nicely now IMO.

edit: changed to links

oli · 26th January 2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slug69

Looking at your pics Oli, you must be very familiar with a tripod.

I don't get it?

The only two pics I've posted in this thread certainly did not need a tripod.

sir_bazz · 29th January 2007, 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mute

Check out how sharp this is @ 100%

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...9310934&size=l

That's one amazing lens right there

Posting a bit late but I just found this thread.

I know its a very good lens but am I the only person who thinks that shot lacks fine detail ?

The basketball, players skin and clothing all lack texture. Looks like it's had some heavy handed noise reduction run on it to me. A prime of this quality should resolve alot more detail than showed on this example.

bazz.

bugeyes · 29th January 2007, 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir_bazz

Posting a bit late but I just found this thread.

I know its a very good lens but am I the only person who thinks that shot lacks fine detail ?
bazz.

Would need to see a quality jpeg of the original file, or process the original RAW myself.... a cropped / resized 825KB file is not the best to give a definitive judgment on sharpness. Going on the detail in the wood grain and the rusted Philips head screws, and considering the resized jpeg, I think the sharpness is quite good.

sir_bazz · 29th January 2007, 7:08 PM

Of course your right and I'm a forum noob.

Thats because I quoted the wrong post and the one I intended to quote had this link

http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitud...7594130514080/

bazz.

bugeyes · 29th January 2007, 7:23 PM

Oh that one, yeah it has seen a bit of work in photoshop, besides the clipping in the highlights there’s not much detail in the hair and skin, and the lack of grain @ ISO 1000 tend to indicate noise reduction.... but then look at the file size, but that’s just me without seeing the uncropped file I can only speculate...

CD · 29th January 2007, 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir_bazz

Posting a bit late but I just found this thread.

I know its a very good lens but am I the only person who thinks that shot lacks fine detail ?

The basketball, players skin and clothing all lack texture. Looks like it's had some heavy handed noise reduction run on it to me. A prime of this quality should resolve alot more detail than showed on this example.

bazz.

the lack of fine detail probably has more to do with the camera setting and post processing than the lens itself.

have you got yourself a K10D yet?

25th January 2007, 7:24 PM	#50
^catalyst Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: ^brunswick.vic.au Posts: 5,877	The comment about moving parts gave me a bit of a giggle... how's it focus then champ!? Less glass = better! __________________ My posts are a reflection of my own personal experiences and opinions, as such they represent me and me only! Vanbar Photographics << There you go Lukey Please e-mail questions to ocau@vanbar.com.au

25th January 2007, 7:40 PM	#52
Slug69 Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,966	Looking at your pics Oli, you must be very familiar with a tripod. Very nice. __________________ http://www.flickr.com/photos/slug69/

26th January 2007, 10:37 PM	#54
phreeky82 Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Townsville Posts: 7,375	my new buy! (70-300 IS USM) ...an informal, drunken review... Well I'd read a bit on here, also on fredmiranda and a number of places re this lens and others and was unsure what to do, and finally decided it was right for me. My reading was suggesting that it was quite good up to around 200mm, and then the quality tapers off, and I was more or less ok with that - like most people I had a limited budget (gave myself a budget of $1k for all stuff with long reach), so had to make some compromises - it was either going to be a 70-200 F4L + a 1.4x teleconvertor (it would need to be an overseas net purchase to get that for around $1k) - my priority is up to around 200mm, but I will from time to time want a bit more reach. So anyway i got the lens and a hood (isn't included) for around $1k. All in all i'm bloody happy with it, but have only had a single days playing and have only looked on the computer etc while drinking, so.... I've never used any L glass, but damn this is nice for someone who otherwise only has a kit lens (18-55) and a 50mm f1.8. Build quality much better than both, picture quality with my quick playing up to around 240mm is not far off the 50mm at all. At 300mm (i didn't take anything between 240mm and 300mm today) it does get a little soft, but only at full size (i.e. big print) is it really noticable, and even then acceptable. Here is a shot I took along with a crop: Camera: 300D Lens: 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Focal Length: 300mm ISO: 400 Aperture: 5.6 Exposure: 1/320 Full image at 25% - http://www.clubpoint.net/bluebird/auszoo/jw-resized.jpg 100% crop near centre - http://www.clubpoint.net/bluebird/au...100pc_crop.jpg You can see the 100% crop is a bit soft, but I'm plenty happy. I figured the 70-200 F4 with a 1.5x on it would be similar more or less, F-stop would be no better either, and for the same $$$ I wouldn't have been able to get retail like I did with this. On top of that, I took some clear shots at 300mm, 1/40s thanks to the IS!!! Crazy stuff, it's magic, and even with the extra F-stop the 70-200 F4L would be blurry as all hell - something I didn't even consider until i was mucking around. I know it wont be awesome in lower light, but it'll otherwise be quite handy especially for motorsport (i like taking photos of sprints and stuff). A 17-85mm would round out my glass kit quite nicely now IMO. edit: changed to links __________________ Successful trades: eyusuf, andy8, stuartl, michaeliam

29th January 2007, 7:08 PM	#58
sir_bazz Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Mentone, Vic. Posts: 4,192	Of course your right and I'm a forum noob. Thats because I quoted the wrong post and the one I intended to quote had this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitud...7594130514080/ bazz. __________________ Photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% equipment.

24th January 2007, 1:25 PM	#47
oli Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,797	I was mainly responding to your comment about using anything other than L glass on a 5D (that goes for non Canon lenses and non L Canon lenses as well). Anyway it's a pretty pointless argument (as you've recognised). At the end of the day, with a photo processed by someone who knows what they're doing, a large print can look just as good from a decent Sigma lens (most EX ones) as a large print shot with (most L and non L prime) Canon glass. Another photo: Click to view full-sized image! Hosted by UGBox Image Store PS. both the last photos I posted in this thread are taken with the 100-300 f/4 on a 5D.

25th January 2007, 7:23 PM	#49
Kyl3 Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Penrith Posts: 2,631	What he should have said is ' a prime has the potential to be sharper, as there are less glass elements in the lens ' perhaps?

29th January 2007, 7:23 PM	#59
bugeyes Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Location:Location:[BNE] Posts: 2,448	Oh that one, yeah it has seen a bit of work in photoshop, besides the clipping in the highlights there’s not much detail in the hair and skin, and the lack of grain @ ISO 1000 tend to indicate noise reduction.... but then look at the file size, but that’s just me without seeing the uncropped file I can only speculate...