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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 14, 2005, 10:06 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
If you are comparing Canon and Sigma and can swing the cost of the "70-200 F2.8 IS" lens;
you can just about get the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for that amount of cash:idea::!:.

It really helps to build your biceps. :blah:

Peter.
hahaha good point!

Thanks for the help guys. I feel much more informed now. I still am undecided because Sigma is significantly cheaper and not blinding white, but the L glass of the canon and the fact that I know people who swear by it make me very tempted to shell out that extra cash..

oh well - I'll keep thinking about it.

Thanks again!
emily01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 10:08 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
If you are comparing Canon and Sigma and can swing the cost of the "70-200 F2.8 IS" lens;
you can just about get the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for that amount of cash:idea::!:.

It really helps to build your biceps. :blah:

Peter.
oops. double post. sorry.
emily01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 7:32 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

Don't get me wrong, I have nothiing against the great canon L lenses. Wish I could afford them. I've mentioned this before, but I bought the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 all for the price of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8.all brand new, all with US 3 year warranty. I like having 3 quality lenses better than one. If I ever hit the lottery I may replace them with the Canon lenses, but until then this poor boy has to stay within my budget.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 10:10 PM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Caboose has a point!

I have the same EX collection as his, and in fact I like my Sigma's so much that I even paid more than any 'L' zoom for my additional 120-300 F2.8 EX. It's the lens I use the most now and like PeterP has pointed out I don't need to visit the gym as much - I just enjoy the pictures taking part and the exercise comes for free (again handheld!): :-)


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2005, 5:21 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Emily,

I would not advise you spend the kind of money on the Canon L lenses when your still at such a level as not knowing what the IS system is. No offense intended, just that maybe some extra time spent learning about your camera will be of more benefit to you than relying on fast expensive lenses.

Anyway when you do get around to it you will appreciate what benefits are added by these quality lenses. There are pros and cons to the two lenses you have selected. Do not listen if you hear that the Canon f2.8 is equal to the sigma. It is a superior lens in every aspect apart from cost. Is it twice as good ? No. Nowhere near. There is a slight improvement in terms of quality in aspects of picture, auto focus and build. Next to the cost it can be subjective when deciding if this means better overall quality. It really is down to the individual to decide if the substantial increase in cost is worth the subtle but very real differences in these lenses.

Take care.

LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2005, 6:40 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 47
Default

Just something to factor in...

The Canon "L" lenses are very expensive, but they tend to hold their resale value better than non-L and non-Canon branded lenses based on my very unscientific survey of lens prices on ebay.

That's not a deciding point, but it does factor into your decision.
tkrotchko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2005, 7:34 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Another 'unbiased' opinion: http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html :-)

"Resale ... as both are excellent lenses, it is my opinion that the resale value is proportionally equal. Sigma, with the introduction of the EX series and the HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor) (rivaling the Canon USM and Nikon Silent Wave) has drawn a lot of attention from the advanced amateur and budget-minded professional. In conclusion, both are excellent lenses that can produce equally excellent and saleable pictures. I have chosen the Sigma because it makes more sense to me! The money I saved buying the Sigma I used to buy other equipment.
Photography is about taking great pictures, and it is the ability of the person behind the camera that makes great things happen! Yes, the right equipment is important, but don't buy expensive equipment just because it will make you look like a pro ... it is more important to work on your skills, not on your look."
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2005, 8:27 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

emily,

take a look at this thread and the testprovided by NHL.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=65&page=2

The keen eye of Randy. G points out some telling reasons why this Canon lensgenerally remains the most respected in the photographic world.

Once again the differences will not be noticed in your photographs till you skill up to the level of the equipment.

Take care.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2005, 8:59 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

No offense taken - I admit that I am new to the digital SLR world and have a lot to learn. I have enjoyed researching every little aspect of what I am looking for in a camera, lens, and accessories though.

Good point about resale value.

I guess what I will do is to just buy the camera (w/ lens kit)and play around with it and the standard lens first and start getting used to it. I can then decide about my additional lens later.

Thanks for all the help!
emily01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2005, 9:33 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

emily01


Have you read the complete thread? The two picture clips that Randy. G provided are not equal:

1. The canon side is darker (notice the two different white levels?) hence the blue fringes are less noticeable on the Canon, but it's there too -> brighten the Canon side to the same level as the Sigma and you'll see the same amount of fringing
2. Right above the Canon lettering you see the additional Canon's red fringe (even with the darkened clip) which is not present on the Sigma. Sometime this red fringe create an illusion of contrast between dark/bright areas which it is really not...
3. The Sigma crop is also larger than the Canon which put it at a disadvantage (check where the two window frames line up)!


Anyway theses are crop of a crop and if you're looking at theses details you're not seeing the big picture :G:lol::-)
NHL 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 2:37 AM.