Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 20D just loves the plastic lens!

Reply
Thread Tools

20D just loves the plastic lens!

 
 
Michael A. Covington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
>> I don't have "L" lenses either but I'll never waste my money on a Sigma
>> product.


I don't know what Sigma lenses for Canon are like, but I have the (vintage)
Sigma 90/2.8 macro for both Olympus (manual focus) and Nikon (AF) and it is
excellent.

Surprisingly, it is very sharp at infinity. I've used it for
astrophotography, which is a very stiff test, and it is considerably sharper
than a 100/2.8 Series E Nikkor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
"Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mark M wrote:
>
>> "George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>
>>>Ryadia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>>
>> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>>
>>>>Hi folks...
>>>>Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
>>>>surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
>>>>the camera is not that junky after all!
>>>
>>>It depends what your definition of junk is. Most would call the all
>>>plastic Canon lens, to include the lens mount itself, laughable junk.

>>
>>
>> George is a delusional troll.
>> Ignore him.
>>
>>

> The problem here is that I (and a lot of free thinkers) will defend to the
> end, this idiot's right to post such absurd comments as he does. Just
> because I believe in freedom doesn't mean I'll tolerate lies that mislead
> newbie's. This idiots ramblings could cost people some serious money if
> they took his advise and that is not part of the freedom to post attitude
> I have.
>
> If you are listening "George Preddy" I'm the one who posted a $500 reward
> for your identity... Keep up the bullshit and I'll keep upping the reward
> until your mother gives you up. I though one of your friends might have by
> now but then I realised you probably don't have any.
>
> Ryadia


IF he had friends, he wouldn't have time to post his drivel on the
newsgroups...
BTW, I agree with your assessment of the 18-55, I bought it as part of a kit
to get our second 20D, and was going to sell it on ebay. After using it a
little bit, and testing it against the 28-135, I'm no longer inclined to do
so, even if my wife would let me!
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
"Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<41725538$0$78749$(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>...
> "George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> SNIP
> > Most would call the all plastic Canon lens, to include the
> > lens mount itself, laughable junk. The Fisher-Price/Canon
> >50mm always gets bad reviews,

>
> In fact it receives positive reviews.


But you can't find one. It is a substandard lens for 50mm's,
certainly not in the Sigma 50mm EX Macro DG's class--but don't feel
bad, nothing else is. Canon's cheap plastic lens mount vs. Sigma's
stainless steel mount--that really is all you need to know to
appreciate the optical difference as well.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryadia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
Michael A. Covington wrote:
> Actually, your picture
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/images/large-pic.jpg
> shows that a lens need not be first-rate in order to produce a pleasing
> picture. Your picture doesn't have very many areas that require or display
> critical sharpness. Also, the Canon 18-55 zoom is reportedly quite good at
> f/8; it's only wide open that the quality suffers.
>
> And... I've seen very bad lenses that were much more expensive!
>
> I think the 18-55 definitely has its uses.
>
>

Very observant of you Michael.
All the test pics I took that day were at f8 or smaller and 20mm Focal
length or greater. Some of them which do display critical detail have
printed at 24"x36". These display bird's feathers, eyelashes and a
plethora of other details.

Quite enough to make up my mind to keep this lens... So why do I have
the yearning for something better? Maybe the weight. A lens this light
surely can't be any good? No, it's the hype that unless you have a $2000
"L" series lens, you somehow are not a professional. How pedantic of me.

As for the village Idiot's claims about Sigma lenses. They (all of them)
have a problem with internal reflections. The glass elements are
generally quite good. This doesn't do the lens one bit of good when
light begins to bounce around inside. The contrast ratio Sigma lenses
resolve to is specified under perfect conditions. As we all know, there
is a slight problem in waiting for perfect conditions.

One of the most interesting shots of the day I evaluated the new camera
and lenses on, was into the rising sun. I would have thought letting the
sun fall diagonally on the front element would have resulted in a very
poor picture. Not so. It's here:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/images/sunup.jpg.

This demonstrates a high tolerance for internal reflections in the Canon
plastic lens. Way more than a Sigma EX 28~70 f2.8 I sold with my 10D
could ever handle and better than my prime "L" series. It may have
something to do with the small front element area compared to a 2.8
lens. Some Sigma lenses might be OK. Certainly my 100~300 is but
"Preddy's" ravings just make me feel like selling it and buying Canon
glass.

It seems to me every time I post anything positive about Sigma, all the
village idiots come out for a party. So from now on, I'm going to use a
Genuine Canon lens cap on my Sigma lenses and use a black marker to wipe
out the Sigma name on them. I'll just call them "my other lenses"...
That'll fix the wankers!

Cheers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Georgette Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
"Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<0txcd.45521$hj.36776@fed1read07>...
> "Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Mark M wrote:
> >
> >> "George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> >>
> >>>Ryadia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >>
> >>>>Hi folks...
> >>>>Well I've just finished evaluating some lens choices for my 20D and
> >>>>surprise, surprise. The junky little plastic affair Canon provide with
> >>>>the camera is not that junky after all!
> >>>
> >>>It depends what your definition of junk is. Most would call the all
> >>>plastic Canon lens, to include the lens mount itself, laughable junk.
> >>
> >>
> >> George is a delusional troll.
> >> Ignore him.
> >>
> >>

> > The problem here is that I (and a lot of free thinkers) will defend to the
> > end, this idiot's right to post such absurd comments as he does. Just
> > because I believe in freedom doesn't mean I'll tolerate lies that mislead
> > newbie's. This idiots ramblings could cost people some serious money if
> > they took his advise and that is not part of the freedom to post attitude
> > I have.
> >
> > If you are listening "George Preddy" I'm the one who posted a $500 reward
> > for your identity... Keep up the bullshit and I'll keep upping the reward
> > until your mother gives you up. I though one of your friends might have by
> > now but then I realised you probably don't have any.
> >
> > Ryadia

>
> IF he had friends, he wouldn't have time to post his drivel on the
> newsgroups...


Aside from your entertaining claim that you have no friends thus you
post here, Canon is not competive in dynamic range, shoot both and
your eyes will be opened. Canon DSLRs are very, very poor in this
dept, and everyone serious who shoots them realizes it is a major
limitation.

Some Canon DSLSRs have advantages too, like wider angle capability due
to low crop factors at the expense of optical quality and severe
vignetting. But Canon's low dynamic range is among the worst in
digital, mild to strong highlites blow uncontrollably and that's
hardly a secret.

> BTW, I agree with your assessment of the 18-55, I bought it as part of a kit
> to get our second 20D, and was going to sell it on ebay. After using it a
> little bit, and testing it against the 28-135, I'm no longer inclined to do
> so, even if my wife would let me!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael A. Covington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2004

"Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Very observant of you Michael.

Thanks

> All the test pics I took that day were at f8 or smaller and 20mm Focal
> length or greater. Some of them which do display critical detail have
> printed at 24"x36". These display bird's feathers, eyelashes and a
> plethora of other details.


Very good! No reason they shouldn't. Today's economy-grade lenses are
better than many of the high-end lenses of 30 years ago. Computer design
optimization and the use of aspheric elements have really changed the nature
of lens design.

> Quite enough to make up my mind to keep this lens... So why do I have the
> yearning for something better? Maybe the weight. A lens this light surely
> can't be any good? No, it's the hype that unless you have a $2000 "L"
> series lens, you somehow are not a professional. How pedantic of me.


Ah yes... As a Nikon and Olympus user who is thinking of going into Canon, I
find this two-tier lens system a bit puzzling. Admittedly Nikon had "Series
E" for those who wanted low prices, but the main Nikkor line isn't
overpriced.

> As for the village Idiot's claims about Sigma lenses. They (all of them)
> have a problem with internal reflections. The glass elements are generally
> quite good. This doesn't do the lens one bit of good when light begins to
> bounce around inside. The contrast ratio Sigma lenses resolve to is
> specified under perfect conditions. As we all know, there is a slight
> problem in waiting for perfect conditions.


I've had great results with the Sigma 90/2.8 macro doing astrophotography;
it's very sharp at infinity. Admittedly this is a low-flare situation!

> One of the most interesting shots of the day I evaluated the new camera
> and lenses on, was into the rising sun. I would have thought letting the
> sun fall diagonally on the front element would have resulted in a very
> poor picture. Not so. It's here:
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/images/sunup.jpg.
>
> This demonstrates a high tolerance for internal reflections in the Canon
> plastic lens.


Indeed it does! Keeping down the number of elements does have its
advantages!



 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Magnuson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> But you can't find one.


http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/

If you can find a better $100 3:1 wide-angle zoom, buy it instead.

> certainly not in the Sigma 50mm EX Macro DG's class--but don't feel
> bad, nothing else is.


Actually, most 50mm macros are good, the Sigma is not particularly
distinguished -- if you prefer objective measurements
(www.photodo.com) over polls (vote early and vote often!):

Pentax SMC-F 50/2,8 macro Grade 4.6
Minolta AF 50/2,8 Macro1:1 Grade 4.5
Canon EF 50/2,5 Macro Grade 4.4
Nikkor AF Micro 60/2,8D Grade 4.2
Sigma AF 50/2,8 EX Macro Grade 4.2

> Canon's cheap plastic lens mount vs. Sigma's
> stainless steel mount--that really is all you need to know to
> appreciate the optical difference as well.


Funny, the plastic mount EF 1.8II rates equal to the Sigma (again, if
you leave out the fanboy bias) and costs 1/4 the price:

Canon EF 50/1,8 II Grade 4.2

--
Erik
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BIRD FOOTBALL LOVES THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 10 02-22-2005 06:27 PM
WINTER LOVES THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 5 01-31-2005 08:59 AM
20D LOVES BIG HOOTERS !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 0 12-28-2004 01:08 AM
BOB HOPE LOVES THE 20D !! Annika1980 Digital Photography 11 12-10-2004 05:41 PM
WOODY LOVES THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 2 11-11-2004 01:01 PM



Advertisments