Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 23, 2007, 5:35 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Just to make my understanding better I currently use :-

A CanonEF-S 18-55 1:3.5-5.5.6 II it also has a unit of 85mm on it with a circle with a line going through the center (whatever that means?)



Canon 75-300 USM EF 1:4-5.5.6 II

if I used the lenses below

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EFS-10...724&sr=1-1or the Sigma comparison

and

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-300mm.../dp/B0001G6U48

How much would my images improve & why?
Mr Shift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2007, 6:26 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

[b]PeterP mentioned or this full-frame 70mm: http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-macro-af.html


I realize there's many areas of concern in a lens, but let just examine the area you're most concerned with: Distortion for architectural landscape

Sigma 12-24 is the lower at -0.611%: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...4556/index.htm





Now let's check the Canon's, and see how it's "barrel" @ -1.25 (more than double): http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm




... and why Mark1616 said the Sigma 10-20 is better than the Canon's @ -.604: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm




-> In fact the Sigmas almost match the best in Tilt & Shift from Canon in term of distortion control which is @ -.603 but the wide angle is only half at 24mm: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...e_35/index.htm



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2007, 6:54 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I don't know why, but the forum refuse to post the 1st part of my message...

Mr Shift wrote:
Quote:
Looks ok, but what filter size is it, it looks like gelatine from the hood, but all as I would need is a uv for protection, to keep on all the time...
The Sigma 12-24 EX has two different ways to attach filters:
1. Rear gelatin
2. Front metal hood has a thread for 82mm filter

-> I use the front mostly to permanently attached a polarizer for my landscape pictures - this hood just slide ON and OFF and it's the quickest way to attach and remove filters (i.e. no rotating action required)... The only issue with any front-filter for a lens this wide is it will create vignette depending beyond 14-15mm depending on which bodies you use: 1.6x, 1.3x, or 1x dSLR - In which case you can revert to the rear option!



Quote:
The reviews are fantastic and for that amount of money, my only concern is that it is not Canon, or am I being over cautious with the latter concern.
IMO it would be a mistake to ignore other brands... You'll be leaving out some excellent lenses that's not available at Canon. The already mentioned 120-300 f/2.8 EX is more expensive than any zooms Canon makes and is very popular, in fact not just the big zoom (Sigma 300-800), but the sharpest macros also come from Sigma's - The 150mm f/2.8 EX that PeterP mentioned or this full-frame 70mm:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-macro-af.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2007, 10:02 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default

You say "I use the front mostly to permanently attached a polarizer for my landscape pictures - this hood just slide ON and OFF and it's the quickest way to attach and remove filters (i.e. no rotating action required)... The only issue with any front-filter for a lens this wide is it will create vignette depending beyond 14-15mm depending on which bodies you use: 1.6x, 1.3x, or 1x dSLR - In which case you can revert to the rear option"!

I still can not make my mind up properlybut surprisingly in contrast to my earlier bias Iam edging to the Sigma, after your comments etc on distortion and how it compares to Canon's Shift.

In responce to your answer how do you mean "this hood just slide on and off"
I thought allfront filters screw on the lens itself?
How does this methodwork exactly?
I presume this hoodcomes with the lens?

Regarding Rear gelatin filter, I have been lead tobelive these are two flimsy for protection, also if I got theSigmaI could take the filter off the frontfor compositions beyond 14mm. Is the 350D a 1x SLR, while as you say the Sigma will give a better picture reliablyavoiding distortion better than the Canon model

Also could you answer my previous question as to how the lenses I am thinking of getting will improvemy photography compared to the ones I already have.

Thanks for advice so far
Mr Shift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2007, 10:29 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

One of my own requirements is it has to work on all my bodies so it must be a full frame capable lens. So for me the Sigma 12-24 would be the ticket. :-)
Freind of mine has the 10-22 Canon and to me it looks like items at the edge of images at the 10mm are looking distorted. Haven't seen any done with the Sigma at 12mm.

The 1d-mkIII is winning awards because even Canon said right now it takes the cleanest and most color acurate images out of their entire linup.
That new Digic-III processor in it is very amazing, Here is a web page I was shown where someone posted their unprocessed (except for color balance) images from a test their 1dmkiii at iso 6400.

http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum...&st=0&

I am amazed, and slightly ticked at Canon for not bringing out more bodies with the digic-iii processor this past spring. I am looking for another body but I really don't have much use for 10fps for 110 images :G, but a 5d-mkii or 1ds-mkiii with the new processor and self clean sensor would be the cats meow :G

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2007, 10:38 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Mr.Shift, a rear filter won't offer any protection for the lens, it is just an slot where you can insert the gel filters at the back of the lens.

How a lens can improve your capabilities is hard to answer for anyone but yourself.
I usually find I have a repeated need for a lens (or anything else) then go out and buy it when I am relatively sure it can pay for itself.

There are rental stores where you can hire a lens or two you are interested in so you can give them a try before you buy. The ones I know in Canada are not very cheap for a weekend rent though. Out Friday back Monday I think they nail you for 3 days fee.
The 10-22 rents for 25$cdn a day or 100$cdn a week at Vistek in Toronto and they don't carry Sigma. http://vistek.ca/details/details.asp...D=CameraLenses
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2007, 8:19 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default

I have virtually made my mind up!

I will no doubtgo for the Sigma, my only concern is the problem with using the filter for pritectionat certain extreem lengths, like I said I can take this off at these lengths anyway.

I seen a similair lens today by Sigma and the quality was outstanding
Mr Shift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2007, 8:21 AM   #18
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

It's a problem with all very wide angle lenses and for this reason the 10-20 Sigma is the only one that I don't have a filter on.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2007, 8:29 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default

I presume the hood takes careof protection, and obviouslyusers are extracarefull


Mr Shift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2007, 10:49 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Yep the lens cap does a good job and obviously lenses are always stored in a high quality case when not in use. I know we all worry about damaging the front element, but when was the last time that anyone did (as long as they were taking good care of it)? I know I never have, and I've not damage a filter either. I've just realised the other lens I haven't got a filter on is my Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 so again I take very good care of that and as with all my gear it is insured for business and personal use.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 PM.