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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 21, 2005, 11:50 PM   #21
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

ADSchiller wrote:
Quote:
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 $$.
Beside the afore mentioned true HSM vs micro USM, the MTF @ wide open is another :idea:

BTW I also bought a Sigma zoom (with no IS) which costed more than any zoom that Canon has to offer with IS, and would do it again in a hard beat - Just check the few images that I posted from that lens...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2005, 1:21 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I believe sigma is THE largest lens manufacturer at the moment, so I would consider them as a reliable company- and because Canon makes sure all their regular EF lenses work on their models, it's much easier for Sigma to have lenses that will probably be compatible with future slr models. I can understand what you said about new lenses. They're new, after all, so there MIGHT be an issue. It probably happened to this lens. In the beginning I read a lot of complaints regarding AF issues. And weird bokeh (coma?), etc etc. I don't notice any weird bokeh or AF issues on my lens, so maybe sigma resolved them?

and the 120-300 seems like a really really nice lens. If I had a good reason to super telephoto, I'd probably go for that one. Over here, it's the same price as the 85 f/1.2L:-)
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2005, 8:46 AM   #23
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:

Quote:
I believe sigma is THE largest lens manufacturer at the moment, so I would consider them as a reliable company
Me too

1. In the States the Sigma warranty is 4-years (instead of 7) vs only 1-year for Canon. IMO who will have to worry more after a year? (i.e. if anyone has compatibility problem just send the lens back for 3/7 more years...)
2. All my Sigma's EX came with lens hood, case, and most with tripod collar - Canon may be cheaper but then you'll have to fork out all the extras :-)



Quote:
... and the 120-300 seems like a really really nice lens. If I had a good reason to super telephoto, I'd probably go for that one. Over here, it's the same price as the 85 f/1.2L:-)
Actually I still have the 85mm f/1.2 L...

If the DOF defocus is what you're after, outdoor a 300mm f/2.8 has even less DOF than the 85mm f/1.2! i.e. it's paper thin and that's the primary reason why I got the 120-300 EX for outdoor portraits - I just have so much fun with this lens that I decided to take on birding that's all

When I used the 85mm in studio shoots before I always use it mostly close down for sharper portrait with strobes and the 'fuzzy' background is helped by the imprinted patterns on the material... but outdoor a 300 f/2.8 is king, or even a 600mm (but then you can't handhold!)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2005, 7:06 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

300mm f/2.8, huh?

haha! how far from them do you have to be to take a portrait shot?! Are you even talking about people portraits? You confused me when you mentioned birds. But 300mm... especially with the 1.6x factor... haha! but maybe I'll get it for tele portraits, then... even though I think 85mm on the XT is still a little long...:roll:

I could imagine people getting intimidated if you pointed that huge thing their way... that might be kind of fun...

BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2005, 6:19 AM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:
Quote:
300mm f/2.8, huh?
Yeap - http://photo.net/photo/nikon/300-2.8.html

... It all depends on how you much you want to 'shape' the background from the foreground
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2005, 11:17 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Aww, damn it... now I'm very intrigued to get the lens...

Looks like I'm going to eat once a day for a while... :-)
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 9:35 AM.