1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Ma Baker, Jan 14, 2007.

  1. oli

    oli Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    7,263
    Location:
    The Internet
    Just cause you had a bad run with a few (you hardly tried many if it was just the 10-22 and the 24-70) it doesn't mean they are all bad. There are some very highly rated Sigma lenses which many people are very happy with.

    I have a 5D and a Sigma 100-300 f/4 and I think the optical performance of the lens is excellent considering the cost of the lens. And yes I have L glass to make general comparisons with...

    Saying you'd be nuts to use anything other than L glass on a 5D is just like saying you'd be nuts to write off a whole company because you had a bad experience with two lenses. ;)

    Here's a photo because nobody posts enough photos: :D

    [​IMG]
    Click to view full-sized image!
    Hosted by UGBox Image Store
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2007
  2. s8n

    s8n Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,730
    Location:
    Sydney
    Oli, you must have obviously misread what I said, I never said ALL sigma was junk. But they have alot of QA issues, spend some time on dpreview, fred miranda and you'll see. 2 outta 2 lenses for me, thats bad imo. Why would I want to try more Sigma lenses?

    I don't see many 5D shooters with Sigma - I guess you get what you pay for.

    Sigma does seem to be great for the budget buyers, but I still am of the opinion after trying their lenses that if you want quality and reliability L is the winner by a CLEAR long shot.

    Disgree all you want but you just need to look at the facts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2007
  3. wrobel

    wrobel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    933
    Location:
    Adelaide
  4. s8n

    s8n Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,730
    Location:
    Sydney

    new thread sounds great :)

    perhaps a L vs Sigma debate - as useful as a Holden Vs Ford :p
     
  5. anthonyl

    anthonyl Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Messages:
    11,453
    Location:
    Brisbane
    How would the 100mm f/2 USM stack up against this lens?

    Both f/2..only difference would be the length..(or not)?
     
  6. s8n

    s8n Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,730
    Location:
    Sydney
    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
     
  7. oli

    oli Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    7,263
    Location:
    The Internet
    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:

    [​IMG]
    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. :)
     
  8. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,013
    Location:
    melbourne
    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
     
  9. Kyl3

    Kyl3 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,035
    Location:
    The Hunter
    What he should have said is ' a prime has the potential to be sharper, as there are less glass elements in the lens ' perhaps? :)
     
  10. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,013
    Location:
    melbourne
    The comment about moving parts gave me a bit of a giggle... how's it focus then champ!?

    Less glass = better!
     
  11. oli

    oli Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    7,263
    Location:
    The Internet
    No glass = best!
     
  12. Slug69

    Slug69 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,382
    Location:
    Sydney
    Looking at your pics Oli, you must be very familiar with a tripod.

    Very nice.
     
  13. mute

    mute Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    4,176
    Location:
    Melbourne
    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 :D
     
  14. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,819
    Location:
    Qld
    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.... :D

    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/auszoo/jw-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
     
  15. oli

    oli Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    7,263
    Location:
    The Internet
    I don't get it?

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

    :confused:
     
  16. sir_bazz

    sir_bazz Team Papparazi

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,817
    Location:
    Mentone, Vic.
    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.
     
  17. bugeyes

    bugeyes Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,472
    Location:
    Location:Location:[BNE]
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2007
  18. sir_bazz

    sir_bazz Team Papparazi

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,817
    Location:
    Mentone, Vic.
  19. bugeyes

    bugeyes Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,472
    Location:
    Location:Location:[BNE]
    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...
     
  20. CD

    CD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,011
    Location:
    Kuraby, Brisbane
    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?
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: