20D just loves the plastic lens!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ryadia, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Ryadia

    Ryadia Guest

    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! An even bigger surprise (for me)
    is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
    1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
    saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
    see for yourself.

    Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
    they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
    to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
    sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
    JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

    Ryadia
     
    Ryadia, Oct 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Ryadia
    <> wrote:

    > 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! An even bigger surprise (for me)
    > is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
    > 1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
    > saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
    > see for yourself.
    >
    > Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
    > they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
    > to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
    > sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
    > JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.


    I don't have "L" lenses either but I'll never waste my money on a Sigma
    product. Although, since I just got a promotion with a substantial pay
    increase, I'm thinking of trading in my consumer grade Canon lenses for
    "L" and IS equivalents.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:161020041541343387%...
    > In article <>, Ryadia
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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! An even bigger surprise (for me)
    > > is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
    > > 1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
    > > saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
    > > see for yourself.
    > >
    > > Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
    > > they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
    > > to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
    > > sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
    > > JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.

    >
    > I don't have "L" lenses either but I'll never waste my money on a Sigma
    > product. Although, since I just got a promotion with a substantial pay
    > increase, I'm thinking of trading in my consumer grade Canon lenses for
    > "L" and IS equivalents.


    From what I hear the Sigma lenses are not as bad as the Sigma cams. If you
    are a working pro the better lenses might make sense. Depends on what you
    need. Consider that the photos the pros strive for are the ones where the
    rest of us wonder how they got their equipment to do "that!" It's because
    their equipment is not like our equipment. Of course they have to know how
    to use it too.

    Lets consider a "what if". Suppose you see a scene but you have had bad luck
    with high contrast....something digicams are not so good with. A pro might
    see the same thing and know that with a particular camera setting and a
    particular lens and with some particular Photoshop tricks that scene will
    be possible and very dramatic. BTW...since you bother with RAW files I would
    have to suspect that you already know this....and are trying to find the
    edges of the possible for your images. Going RAW made a big difference to my
    work.
     
    Gene Palmiter, Oct 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Ryadia

    Ryadia Guest

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >
    > From what I hear the Sigma lenses are not as bad as the Sigma cams. If you
    > are a working pro the better lenses might make sense. Depends on what you
    > need. Consider that the photos the pros strive for are the ones where the
    > rest of us wonder how they got their equipment to do "that!" It's because
    > their equipment is not like our equipment. Of course they have to know how
    > to use it too.
    >
    > Lets consider a "what if". Suppose you see a scene but you have had bad luck
    > with high contrast....something digicams are not so good with. A pro might
    > see the same thing and know that with a particular camera setting and a
    > particular lens and with some particular Photoshop tricks that scene will
    > be possible and very dramatic. BTW...since you bother with RAW files I would
    > have to suspect that you already know this....and are trying to find the
    > edges of the possible for your images. Going RAW made a big difference to my
    > work.
    >
    >

    This is my third Sigma lens. When I was getting geared up I bought a
    Sigma 120~300 f2.8 because I couldn't afford a prime 300 Canon lens. It
    was good. Very good, and I made some bucks from the pics it took but I
    spent 'em on a prime 300 f4.5 lens just as soon as I could. What you say
    about the "Pros" is applicable to everyone.

    I once built a house from the ground up and when I called in a local
    builder to price doing the interior woodwork, he said the difference
    between an amature (me) and a tradesman (him) was that I had to "hope" I
    got it right but he knew exactly how to get it right... Same goes with
    cameras.

    If you don't know how your lenses, bodies and printers work together,
    you'll never know if you can get the shot or not. I know absolutely that
    the Sigma Zoom is as good as any lens under some conditions. I know too
    that the Canon 300 prime has a few quirks but when the conditions get
    harsh, the prime lenses come into their own. The 70~200 f2.8 Canon is a
    better resolving lens than the Sigma but when you use a (Genuine Canon)
    1.4 Extender to get some extra reach, it is no better than the Sigma.

    Ryadia
     
    Ryadia, Oct 17, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    Ryadia <> wrote:

    > 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! An even bigger surprise (for me)
    > is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
    > 1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
    > saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
    > see for yourself.
    >
    > Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms when the stuff
    > they supply with the camera is this good. If someone can offer a reason
    > to pay out more than the camera cost to get a little more aperture, I'd
    > sure like to hear it. The pics were shot in camera RAW mode without a
    > JPG file to conserve storage on my CFC.
    >
    > Ryadia


    <sarcasm>
    Yeah. When I put a +4 closeup filter on my Canon 70-300mm DO IS, it
    sucked ass too. What a waste of money.
    </sarcasm>
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Ryadia <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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.
    The Fisher-Price/Canon 50mm always gets bad reviews, but it is priced
    right (basically free) so you can't really complain. If you want a
    superb 50mm prime, Canon glass certainly is not an option...

    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

    Note that second place Nikon is a mistake, it's not 50mm. Also note
    the Sigma 50mm has since been relaced by a MUCH higher performing 50mm
    prime that costs the same.

    > An even bigger surprise (for me)
    > is the Sigma 100~300 f4 compared to Canon's legendary 70~200 f2.8 with a
    > 1.4 extender... I bought the Sigma! I kept the plastic lens too and
    > saved my own plastic. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ryadia/20D.html and
    > see for yourself.


    Why would that be a surprise? There aren't any good lenses in the
    100-300 class, let alone great ones like the Sigma 100-300, besides
    the 3 Sigmas...

    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

    Note the two pro-line Sigma EXs are VERY expensive. The 3rd place
    performer, also a Sigma, is priced very reasonably, but is no where
    near the same class of performance as the two class dominating pro
    Sigma EXs. Again Canon and Nikon offer nothing but real junk in this
    class, why is anyone's guess, it is a key focal range, especially for
    APS.

    > Somehow I just can't justify the cost of "L" series zooms


    Maybe because they can't even compete with Sigma's non-EX line...
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

    Lastly, those tests don't show color, where coincidentally both the
    Canon 50mms and their 70/100-300mm lenses are yellow tinted. The 50mm
    prime plus 70/100-300mm Sigmas are all a bit pricey, but they also
    have gorgeous color and bokeh.

    Canon does make a few good lenses, but they make no price-competitve
    lenses.
     
    George Preddy, Oct 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Ryadia

    Mark M Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ryadia <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > 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.
     
    Mark M, Oct 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Ryadia

    Ryadia Guest

    Mark M wrote:

    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Ryadia <> wrote in message

    >
    > news:<>...
    >
    >>>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
     
    Ryadia, Oct 17, 2004
    #8
  9. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    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.

    [rest of preddiotic nonsense snipped]

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 17, 2004
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 17, 2004
    #10
  11. >> 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.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Ryadia

    Skip M Guest

    "Ryadia" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mark M wrote:
    >
    >> "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>Ryadia <> wrote in message

    >>
    >> news:<>...
    >>
    >>>>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
     
    Skip M, Oct 17, 2004
    #12
  13. "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message news:<41725538$0$78749$4all.nl>...
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > 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.
     
    George Preddy, Oct 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Ryadia

    Ryadia Guest

    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.
     
    Ryadia, Oct 17, 2004
    #14
  15. "Skip M" <> wrote in message news:<0txcd.45521$hj.36776@fed1read07>...
    > "Ryadia" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Mark M wrote:
    > >
    > >> "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >>
    > >>>Ryadia <> wrote in message
    > >>
    > >> news:<>...
    > >>
    > >>>>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!
     
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 18, 2004
    #15
  16. "Ryadia" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > 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!
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 18, 2004
    #16
  17. Ryadia

    E. Magnuson Guest

    (George Preddy) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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
     
    E. Magnuson, Oct 18, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    BOB HOPE LOVES THE 20D !!

    Annika1980, Dec 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    390
    Carl Miller
    Dec 10, 2004
  2. Annika1980

    WINTER LOVES THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    249
    Des Perado
    Jan 31, 2005
  3. Annika1980

    BIRD FOOTBALL LOVES THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Feb 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    441
    Jay Beckman
    Feb 22, 2005
  4. Annika1980

    BIG RED LOVES THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, May 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    332
    Mick Brown
    Jun 4, 2005
  5. Annika1980

    20D LOVES BACK PORCH PHOTOGRAPHY!!!

    Annika1980, Jun 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    414
    Mike Engles
    Jun 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page