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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 29, 2005, 9:18 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

hahahaha,

Problem is you dont keep it a secret. You want to spread that Sickma´s far and wide.



arowana, knock yourself out. then again think Kodak they do some good despsables, save your dough. Dontforget the kids collage.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2005, 11:13 PM   #22
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

LBoy wrote:
Quote:
hahahaha,

Problem is you dont keep it a secret. You want to spread that Sickma´s far and wide.



arowana, knock yourself out. then again think Kodak they do some good despsables, save your dough. Dontforget the kids collage.

honestly, are you trying to help anyone at all..just curious..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 1:49 PM   #23
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

LBoy wrote:
Quote:
<snip> An institution can get away with the stature of its name and on its past reputation for only so long. If canon were not producing better lens for the extra cost they have always asked, they would no longer be no1 and/ or for that matter in business. Accept it or not your choice.
If that were true as a business model it could be disproved by Starbucks. They make terrible coffee and yet folks line up there every morning adnthey continue to grow on a sub-standard product. There is such a thing as perceived value. If the folks lining up there THINK they are getting the best coffee then that's all that matters. It's called marketing, and Canon does it well.

Are Canon lenses superior and are they worth the extra cost? Maybe. But just throwing out a competitor, out of hand, becasue it has the wrong name on the shipping box is just as dogmatic as saying that Canon lenses are superior because Canon sells them. Do you really think that Canon pours all of its own glass? Even their published MTF charts are theoretical, based on mathematic computation and not actual usage.

As I stated, I would like someone to do a comparison of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX to the Canon L lens of the same specs. Show me that +/-$1200 for the L is a better investment in some way to the the $700 Sigma which comes with a 4 times longer warranty (1 yr vs. 4 years). Show me I should spend that much. I am not saying it isn't worth it, but show me my extra $500 is well spent.

I have seen excellent and poor images from both lenses. I haven't decided on what lens to get to fill out my glass arsenal, but I am looking for reasons to go one way or the other. If you have some reasons other than 'Canon has been around a long time and they are number one' then share them... Someone.. anyone, please share them.

Randy G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 3:44 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Randy,

Sorry I don't think I get the connection of your example. I wasn't under the impression Starbucks was a no 1 retailer of fine quality coffee. I had always thought up till now (before being told otherwise) that they owned a huge amount of popular high street cafes. Offeringtired shoppersa chance to rest their feet, grab a slice of cheese cake andexperience a "certain type of coffee drink" in pleasant surroundings.

and yes Hards, I am tring to help. Help people using Canon SLR´s get to where they will eventualy get to, but before they have to do so with the intermidiate wasted glass they spent money on. But it is of couse onlymy opinion and for others to decide for themselves. Dont know what all the fuss is about. I hardly require the private messages, to set me straight. You know who you are. :lol:

Anyway, please try an experiment.

Find a proper photographic shop. One thats been around for a while that has some experienced guys working there. (not a high street branch selling electronic toys).Then ask one of these boys working therehow oftenhis customers come back withan L lens they have sold,feeling unhappy and wanting to change itfor a sigma. Take a picture of his face atthis very point with the camera you have hidden under your jumper. Believe me you will have capturedthe sort ofexpression you´ve been spending years trying to get on the face of her indoors.



LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 6:56 PM   #25
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

LBoy wrote:
Quote:
Randy,

Sorry I don't think I get the connection of your example. I wasn't under the impression Starbucks was a no 1 retailer of fine quality coffee. I had always thought up till now (before being told otherwise) that they owned a huge amount of popular high street cafes. Offering tired shoppers a chance to rest their feet, grab a slice of cheese cake and experience a "certain type of coffee drink" in pleasant surroundings.
The connection is that just becasue a lot of people consider a product superior does not make it so.

I don't own stock in Canon nor in Sigma, and as I stated, I am not committed to the glass from one company or the other. What I will say is that I would love for someone to show me some specific examples comparing the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX, and prove to me that one is superior to the other. I have seen good images and bad from both lenses. It proves to me that they are both capable lenses.

I can get the Sigma for $704 delivered.
The Canon would cost around $1069 delivered.

If we ignore the Canon's shorter warranty (an insult in itself at this price point), its slightly heavier mass, it's slightly longer size, and the more prone-to-wear finish of the Canon lens, what am I getting for my $365 extra spent? The white color and the Canon name, in and of themselves mean nothing to me.

As far as I have seen, these two lenses have the same focusing speed and the same quality images from those I have viewed on the net.

I do want the faster lens- if I didn't then I would have already bought the F/4 L lens. It is an excellent deal for the money for a lens destined to be an outdoor, daylight lens. I want the ability to shoot indoors without flash, and so the 2.8 is important to me at this time.

I have not seen a reason to spend the extra $365 on the L 2.8. Show me differently- I am willing to look at images that can convince me one way or the other. I am not willing to listen to brand-loyalty based on emotional responses. Show me the pictures!

Randy G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 8:59 PM   #26
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Randy G. wrote:
Quote:
Show me the pictures!
Just found this: Sigma 70-200EX f2.8 HSM v. Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS USM
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 10:55 PM   #27
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

NHL wrote:
Thanks for posting that link. The two lenses, on a balance, are quite close overall, but the win goes to the Canon. Why?

The CA of the Sigma in the gate images ("Test1") speak volumes. Examine the full size image for that test of the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 sample at 200-300%- look at the fence in front of the window to the right of the gate, as well as the rails and styles in the window itself. It looks like a neon blue glow.

Now examine the 300mm f/2.8 samples. Closely examine the "21317" address and notice how much more clear the Canon sample is, and how blue the Sigma sample is.

There are many more examples such as these in these images, but they pretty much all turn out the same, and certainly point towards the "pop" that is seen in so many of the Canon image samples I have examined.

IMO, with the Sigma you are paying for 2.8 but not getting it.

I wonder if one could safely assume that the images would be of equal quality in both L versions (IS and non-IS) of this lens?

Now, the question is, does the Canon produce images that are $365 better? At this point, I think so, but it is going to take some time for me to convince my bank account it is worth it....

Randy G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 11:17 PM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Are you sure it's CA??? - Looks more like the level/contrast on the lower shots need to be equalized... Look at the shadow cast by the window, the pictures were clearly taken @ different times (with different lighting)

It did not do so well here: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/43917016



BTW Sigma is also in the midst of releasing all new 'DG' lenses: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05...a_70-200mm.asp
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 2:40 AM   #29
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
honestly, are you trying to help anyone at all.. just curious..
Don't feed the trolls. If you ignore them they will eventually go away.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 9:06 AM   #30
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Are you sure it's CA??? - Looks more like the level/contrast on the lower shots need to be equalized... Look at the shadow cast by the window, the pictures were clearly taken @ different times (with different lighting)
They were taken at different times, but it appears that it was probably just minutes apart. The shadows have shifted a bit, but comparing the shadows from fized objects, the difference is minimal. It appears late (or early?) in the day, so the long shadows shift quickly.

"...level/Contrast..."? (see attached crops). Being that these are magnified from the test center-crop images, it really doesn't say much for the Sigma's wide-open performance. And after all, that's what you are paying for. If it can't perform well in that situation, then what's the point of paying for the "2.8". I would rather spend it on the 50-500 and trade speed for length.

Quote:
It did not do so well here: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/43917016
I agree. Overall, it makes me want to sell my camera and go back to oil painting. :shock:

At this point I will probably wait and see if the new 70-200 f2.8 EX-DG's performance is better and then decide.
Attached Images
 
Randy G. 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 5:41 AM.