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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 15, 2005, 10:04 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Ctrack wrote:
Quote:
I have been considering the 150 macro but have read both good and bad reports. Definitely sharp in the center but some weakness in the corners. One corner sharp and the other not sharp. It seems that while some have great experiences with Sigma some do not. It seems to be running 50-50.
Where do you get theses kind of reports???
Seems like 100% to me: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=280


If you check the MTF of this lens it's straight as a ruler and on top of that folks are only using it to 13mm diagonal on an APS-c camera so I can't see where the weakness in the corners come from (after all this is a tele and not a WA)

Personally I have great experience with the lens:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=7
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=7
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 12:31 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

NHL:

Some examples.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/sigma105.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...14-vs-16.shtml

There have been others , but these are the ones I book marked.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 12:36 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

The Sigma 150 really is tempting. It's the right MM and fits between the 100 and the 180. Almost a perfect size. I'll probably buy it locally so I can swap copies if not satisfied. A little more expensive because of the tax consequences but I'll be able to work with the dealer to ensure I get a good copy. Just cautious, $700 is "beaucoup" bucks. I really want a good macro!
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 7:29 AM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Ctrack wrote:
Quote:
Just cautious, $700 is "beaucoup" bucks. I really want a good macro!
Essentially you're paying ~$200 premium for 'insurance':
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;j...G150F28CA%3D29

... but it looks like all the reviews are quite positive and with regards to slow AF that's the nature of all macros - It come with the turf you want them to be slow and accurate! :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 10:33 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Wolf camera has it for $629 w/tax $681. $142 insurance. A little steep, but a no hassle factor. Still, cheaper than Canons 180mm.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 10:03 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
SlapNTickleJr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 151
Default

Mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm...I'm lovin' it!
SlapNTickleJr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 12:59 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 74
Default

I have been reading about this new Sigma lens and I must be missing something. It may be a nice lens but the 30mmfocal length makes it about equal to 50mm on a film camera. So, why would I pay B&H $ 449 for the Sigma when I can pay them $ 320 for a Canon 50mm f 1.4? I have used 3rd party lenses in the past and have nothing against them. I just would rather have the manufacturers' lens, with a proven history of quality and reliability, rather than a new 3rd party lens. . . especially for less $$.
ADSchiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 6:45 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Well, first off you have different focal lengths, so I'm not sure it's really appropriate to compare the two in the first place. But I've also considered the EF before

Second of all, I chose the sigma BECAUSE of the focal length. Sometimes the 50mm will be a little long for me- it would be harder for me to zoom (with my feet) backwards to get a wider perspective.

Well... what about 30mm? it's a wider perspective... but if I need to "zoom in" on something, I can either move forward (which should be more convinient and do-able than backwards - you can't walk back if there's a wall behind you) or I can crop the picture.

And just to throw it in the loop, the new sigma has been optimized for digital. a whole bunch of special glass is in there to reduce ghosting, ca etc etc. You look at the build of the ef 50mm--- nothing special.

And it's true HSM versus micro USM with FTM abilities...

I'm thinking about the 50mm f/1.4 as a portrait lens... or maybe I'll save for the 85mm f/1.2L.... I'm just wondering if they'll make a second edition (one WITH FTM...)
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 9:19 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
SlapNTickleJr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 151
Default

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX HSM DC is the crop factor worlds "normal" lens. The 50mm f/1.4 on a digital body is no quite wide enough, althought its a great optic. I didn't pay $449.00 for the lens.
SlapNTickleJr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 10:28 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I probably paid more than 450, but for it exceeding my expectations and having a 7 year warrenty, i still think it's worth it...
BoYFrMSpC 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 5:57 PM.