Canon 300D...... LENSES?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Creeper, Sep 30, 2004.

  1. Creeper

    Tony Guest

    If Canon doesn't liscense the mount, then I guess Tokina and Tamron - and
    even Cosina are considerably better at reverse engineering than Sigma.

    If you haven't heard about other Sigma problems you've been living under a
    rock. Buy as many shite lenses as you wish but don't expect any of us who
    have had actual experience with Sigma crap to ever recommend them.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "David Hearn" <> wrote in message
    news:cjkj0m$teu$...
    > Tony wrote:
    > > Don't buy Sigma - or Quantary which is usually Sigma with an even
    > > worse guarantee.
    > > For a quick refresher:
    > > Sigma build quality is less than ideal, the lenses do tend to fall
    > > apart

    >
    > I've never heard anything like that about Sigma products before - in fact,
    > many people rate the Sigma's 18-125mm lens over the Kit 18-55mm. As for

    the
    > 70-300mm APO Super Macro II - many people think that there's little to
    > compare with it in its class.
    >
    > Now, the number of times I've heard of Canon front lens elements falling

    out
    > after a "light knock" (eg. 50mm f/1.8 MkII). Even Canon build poorly

    built
    > (but optically good) lenses.
    >
    > > Sigma compatibility is bad. They reverse engineer the mounts
    > > in order to save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma
    > > that will work on a current model might not work on future models.

    >
    > Canon don't (officially, at least) license their EOS mount interface specs
    > to anyone. Therefore Sigma's only option is to reverse engineer the

    specs.
    >
    > As for compatability, I don't know of any lens brought out since 2001

    which
    > has compatability problems with the current set of Canon cameras.
    >
    > And don't forget, Canon seems to have ignored the wide angle brigade when

    it
    > comes to lenses for 1.6x crop cameras. If you want anything sub £500-£1k
    > then you're looking at non-Canon lenses.
    >
    > David
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 1, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Creeper

    Tony Guest

    Apparently Mr. Hearn is also ill informed about Sigma re-chipping --
    "A friend sent them a lens that took six months to re-chip and it came back
    ready to go on his Elan II but then would not work on my EOS 3 - a model
    that was on the market when the lens was sent in for re-chipping. Sigma
    would not re-chip it a second time."


    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "David Hearn" <> wrote in message
    news:cjkig2$tec$...
    > Big Bill wrote:
    > > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:34:04 +1000, Ryadia
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> In article <>,
    > >>> Creeper <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>> canon twin lens kit 18-55mm & 55-300mm
    > >>>> Canon 18-55mm and sigma 55-200mm
    > >>>> Sigma 18-125mm
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Don't throw your money away on Sigma products.
    > >>
    > >> So it's not just Sigma cameras you have a bent on, Randall?
    > >> How about you post some reasons here?
    > >> Broad condemnation of a brand is the worst kind of arrogance.
    > >>
    > >> Ryadia

    > >
    > > Do a Google search for problems with the DR.
    > > You'll find that ther number 1 problem is Sigma lenses not working
    > > right.
    > > That's not a bias, it's what others who have used the lenses say.

    >
    > Its also older Sigma lenses (ie before 2001). As far as I know, all

    modern
    > lenses (after 2001) work with all Canon bodies and Sigma will rechip (for
    > free if you're the original purchaser and can prove it) most other lenses
    > such that it'll work with the lastest and greatest Canon body.
    >
    > David
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 1, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. "Jimmy Smith" <> wrote in message news:<ph07d.3253$>...
    > This Preddy guy is a Troll so watch out when he says something. Canon 50mm
    > lens are extremely sharp. They handle light like Bach handled music. The
    > 50mm f/1.4 is super fantastic. The 50mm f/1.8 is very very good. I had the
    > dough so I opted for the f/1.4 since I also wanted to play with low and
    > available light photography. I've never been sorry.


    The 3 fast Canons are bottom of the barrel...
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
     
    Georgette Preddy, Oct 2, 2004
    #23
  4. Creeper

    Skip M Guest

    "David Hearn" <> wrote in message
    news:cjkj0m$teu$...
    > Tony wrote:
    > > Don't buy Sigma - or Quantary which is usually Sigma with an even
    > > worse guarantee.
    > > For a quick refresher:
    > > Sigma build quality is less than ideal, the lenses do tend to fall
    > > apart

    >
    > I've never heard anything like that about Sigma products before - in fact,
    > many people rate the Sigma's 18-125mm lens over the Kit 18-55mm. As for

    the
    > 70-300mm APO Super Macro II - many people think that there's little to
    > compare with it in its class.
    >
    > Now, the number of times I've heard of Canon front lens elements falling

    out
    > after a "light knock" (eg. 50mm f/1.8 MkII). Even Canon build poorly

    built
    > (but optically good) lenses.
    >
    > > Sigma compatibility is bad. They reverse engineer the mounts
    > > in order to save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma
    > > that will work on a current model might not work on future models.

    >
    > Canon don't (officially, at least) license their EOS mount interface specs
    > to anyone. Therefore Sigma's only option is to reverse engineer the

    specs.
    >
    > As for compatability, I don't know of any lens brought out since 2001

    which
    > has compatability problems with the current set of Canon cameras.
    >
    > And don't forget, Canon seems to have ignored the wide angle brigade when

    it
    > comes to lenses for 1.6x crop cameras. If you want anything sub £500-£1k
    > then you're looking at non-Canon lenses.
    >
    > David
    >
    >

    David, lest you earn "troll" status around here, you'd better check your
    facts first. As far as I can tell, there have been NO verified reports of
    any Canon lens front elements falling out, 50mm f1.8 or any others. There
    were a couple of posts like that on one of the forums, but they were
    fallacious. However there are verified reports of low level Sigmas falling
    to pieces. And my local store quit selling their lenses because of the
    abysmal customer relations.
    Canon does license their mounts to other mfrs. Tokina and Tamron, for
    instance. Or at least so they (T&T) claim.
    You are correct about the wide angle lenses, at least for now. Canon has
    announced the 10-24mm EF-S mount lens, that only fits the current 300D and
    20D, I think its announced retail is $699, sub 500UKP, last time I checked
    the exchange rates...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Oct 2, 2004
    #24
  5. Georgette Preddy wrote:

    > "Jimmy Smith" <> wrote in message news:<ph07d.3253$>...
    >
    >>This Preddy guy is a Troll so watch out when he says something. Canon 50mm
    >>lens are extremely sharp. They handle light like Bach handled music. The
    >>50mm f/1.4 is super fantastic. The 50mm f/1.8 is very very good. I had the
    >>dough so I opted for the f/1.4 since I also wanted to play with low and
    >>available light photography. I've never been sorry.

    >
    >
    > The 3 fast Canons are bottom of the barrel...
    > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

    What is interesting is the 50 mm range:

    Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality

    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding!
    (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding!
    Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent
    Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
    Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good
    Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good
    Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good
    Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good
    Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good
    Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good
    Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good
    Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good
    Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good
    Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good
    Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average
    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average

    Sigma, based on this chart only, is both best and worst of class.
    Surprised to see Canon's 1.4 as only "very-good".

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 2, 2004
    #25
  6. Creeper

    Linda_N Guest

    Sigma just announced 4 new lenses, and Let's Go Digital reviewed them.
    Looking good for Sigma.
    http://www.photokina-show.com/ (pick the appropriate announcement in the
    listing)

    Linda
    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:KBz7d.162916$D%.21405@attbi_s51...
    > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    >> "Jimmy Smith" <> wrote in message
    >> news:<ph07d.3253$>...
    >>
    >>>This Preddy guy is a Troll so watch out when he says something. Canon
    >>>50mm
    >>>lens are extremely sharp. They handle light like Bach handled music.
    >>>The
    >>>50mm f/1.4 is super fantastic. The 50mm f/1.8 is very very good. I had
    >>>the
    >>>dough so I opted for the f/1.4 since I also wanted to play with low and
    >>>available light photography. I've never been sorry.

    >>
    >>
    >> The 3 fast Canons are bottom of the barrel...
    >> http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

    > What is interesting is the 50 mm range:
    >
    > Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality
    >
    > Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding!
    > (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding!
    > Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent
    > Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
    > Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good
    > Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good
    > Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good
    > Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good
    > Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good
    > Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good
    > Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good
    > Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good
    > Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good
    > Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good
    > Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average
    > Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average
    >
    > Sigma, based on this chart only, is both best and worst of class.
    > Surprised to see Canon's 1.4 as only "very-good".
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams
     
    Linda_N, Oct 2, 2004
    #26
  7. Creeper

    JK Guest

    Creeper wrote:

    > I've decided on the 300D for my first DSLR.
    >
    > I'm a bit stuck on what lens/lenses to buy.
    >
    > I'm going to be doing alot of low-light work - fireworks,


    For fireworks one would probably want a slower lens, or at least
    one with an aperture that closes quite small. I like to leave the
    shutter open very long for fireworks shots, and the ambient
    city light would be overpowering without using a very small
    aperture. One could use a neutral density filter if they must, but
    that just complicates things. Of course a very low iso setting
    on the camera helps. Why don't digital slrs incorporate
    an iso 25 setting? Some don't even have an iso setting under
    100 or perhaps even under 200?

    > aurora,
    > stars, etc.
    > I also would like to have some degree of telephoto, for my more
    > standard work.
    >
    > I'm torn between:
    >
    > canon twin lens kit 18-55mm & 55-300mm
    > Canon 18-55mm and sigma 55-200mm
    > Sigma 18-125mm
    >
    > All prices are roughly the same, bought in a package with the 300d. I
    > don't have a big budget - want to get something that will keep me
    > happy for a while, before I decide wether I want high-quality glass.
    >
    > Any thoughts about what would be best for a keen amateur would be
    > appreciated.
     
    JK, Oct 2, 2004
    #27
  8. Creeper

    Mark B. Guest

    "David Hearn" <> wrote in message
    news:cjkj0m$teu$...
    > Tony wrote:
    >> Don't buy Sigma - or Quantary which is usually Sigma with an even
    >> worse guarantee.
    >> For a quick refresher:
    >> Sigma build quality is less than ideal, the lenses do tend to fall
    >> apart

    >
    > I've never heard anything like that about Sigma products before


    That's because Tony lies. He, Randall, & George Preddy are the 3 biggest
    trolls in this ng.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Oct 3, 2004
    #28
  9. In article <>, Mark B.
    <> wrote:

    > That's because Tony lies. He, Randall, & George Preddy are the 3 biggest
    > trolls in this ng.


    Please don't put me in the same class as George. I tell the truth
    whether you like to hear it or not.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 3, 2004
    #29
  10. Creeper

    Tony Guest

    If you knew anything about photography that would not detract from your
    stupidity Mark. You are the biggest moron in a group with a lot of them.
    I've yet to read a single post by you that would even indicate you know
    the difference between a camera and a toilet. So join Preddy and the other
    trash in teh killfile. You won't be missed.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "David Hearn" <> wrote in message
    > news:cjkj0m$teu$...
    > > Tony wrote:
    > >> Don't buy Sigma - or Quantary which is usually Sigma with an even
    > >> worse guarantee.
    > >> For a quick refresher:
    > >> Sigma build quality is less than ideal, the lenses do tend to fall
    > >> apart

    > >
    > > I've never heard anything like that about Sigma products before

    >
    > That's because Tony lies. He, Randall, & George Preddy are the 3 biggest
    > trolls in this ng.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 4, 2004
    #30
  11. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Creeper" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've decided on the 300D for my first DSLR.
    >>
    >>I'm a bit stuck on what lens/lenses to buy.
    >>
    >>I'm going to be doing alot of low-light work - fireworks, aurora,
    >>stars, etc.

    >
    >
    > You need the 50/1.4. Sure, it's 4 times more expensive than the 50/1.8 and
    > only slightly better. But it's better in just about every way: speed,
    > sharpness, bokeh. A real gem, one of Canon's best lenses.
    >

    My local shop has the EF 2.5 Macro, which is highly rated by Photozone,
    unless it's a different 50 mm 2.5 macro. Besides the lower speed, are
    there negatives to having this lens over the 1.4 or 1.8? Its having a
    macro is a slight plus, and its cost is lower than certainly the 1.4.

    **********

    (below from previous post, from
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50)

    Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality

    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding!
    (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding!
    Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent
    Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
    Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good
    Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good
    Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good
    Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good
    Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good
    Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good
    Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good
    Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good
    Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good
    Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good
    Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average
    Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average
    ************* ******* ******

    They are holding it until tomorrow....

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 5, 2004
    #31
  12. "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:MPq8d.122884$wV.100042@attbi_s54...
    SNIP
    > My local shop has the EF 2.5 Macro, which is highly rated by
    > Photozone, unless it's a different 50 mm 2.5 macro. Besides the
    > lower speed, are there negatives to having this lens over the 1.4
    > or 1.8? Its having a macro is a slight plus, and its cost is lower
    > than certainly the 1.4.


    It is a fine lens as well, but it passes 2.8x less light (darker
    viewfinder and a bit harder to focus), and has 'only' 6 aperture
    blades vs 8 for the f/1.4. That may be noticeable when comparing
    bokeh, it probably looks smoother, more natural, with the f/1.4 than
    with the f/2.5. I'm not sure whether the performance of the macro lens
    at larger distances is as good as in its optimized range.

    They are both good lenses, and having a good macro lens is always
    useful (although I prefer a longer focal length for macro, with more
    maneuvering space, for that type of work). The choice depends on
    budget and intended use.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 5, 2004
    #32
  13. David Hearn wrote:

    > Tony wrote:
    >
    >>Don't buy Sigma - or Quantary which is usually Sigma with an even
    >>worse guarantee.
    >>For a quick refresher:
    >> Sigma build quality is less than ideal, the lenses do tend to fall
    >> apart

    >
    >
    > I've never heard anything like that about Sigma products before - in fact,
    > many people rate the Sigma's 18-125mm lens over the Kit 18-55mm. As for the
    > 70-300mm APO Super Macro II - many people think that there's little to
    > compare with it in its class.


    The amount of sigma bashing in this newsgroup is pretty
    amazing. I'll give my own experience, which, of course is just
    one person out of many. I own a number of sigma lenses
    as well as canon lenses. The rainbow image on my we page:
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    was taken with a 35-135 sigma zoom at 135mm, f/11. I make
    24x36 enlargements from it (from a 6000 dpi drum scan).
    When photographers see the big enlargement, they often as
    is that medium format? I have worn out more canon lenses
    than sigma lenses. My main complaints with the Sigma
    lenses I've owned is that they often do not have as close a
    focus distance as the equivalent canon, and are often heavier.
    I've always found the optical quality similar to or better than
    slightly higher priced canon lenses, and sometimes to a
    great extent. For example, my sigma 170-500mm is sharper
    then my canon 100-400 L IS lens:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/lenstest1.html
    But now I use canon IS lenses since I discovered
    image stabilization and how important it is for what I do,
    but not because of build or optical qualities. I have
    encountered the need for re-chipping on both canon and
    sigma lenses (but haven't done it).
    Roger

    > Now, the number of times I've heard of Canon front lens elements falling out
    > after a "light knock" (eg. 50mm f/1.8 MkII). Even Canon build poorly built
    > (but optically good) lenses.
    >
    >
    >>Sigma compatibility is bad. They reverse engineer the mounts
    >>in order to save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma
    >>that will work on a current model might not work on future models.

    >
    >
    > Canon don't (officially, at least) license their EOS mount interface specs
    > to anyone. Therefore Sigma's only option is to reverse engineer the specs.
    >
    > As for compatability, I don't know of any lens brought out since 2001 which
    > has compatability problems with the current set of Canon cameras.
    >
    > And don't forget, Canon seems to have ignored the wide angle brigade when it
    > comes to lenses for 1.6x crop cameras. If you want anything sub £500-£1k
    > then you're looking at non-Canon lenses.
    >
    > David
    >
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 5, 2004
    #33
  14. Creeper

    Guest

    In message <KBz7d.162916$D%.21405@attbi_s51>,
    John McWilliams <> wrote:

    >Sigma, based on this chart only, is both best and worst of class.
    >Surprised to see Canon's 1.4 as only "very-good".


    Why? That's all it is - very good. Even Canon's MTF charts don't rank
    it that high.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 8, 2004
    #34
  15. Creeper

    Tony Guest

    I've owned the Sigma 50 macro. It was an okay lens but took forever to
    focus, made a nasty sound while it hunted and weighed about fifty pounds.
    Not recommended, unless you really don't care much about speed, silence or
    convienience.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Drifter <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    >
    > > My Stock Answer (Lenses on a budget)
    > >
    > > STRONGLY RECOMMENDED?.
    > >
    > > Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
    > > -Small, Light, Sharp, inexpensive. Just get one!
    > >

    http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm Primes/Canon/PRD_83382_3111crx.aspx
    >
    > Canon's faster 50mm primes are extrememly blurry wide open. The Sigma
    > 50mm EX Macro is fantastic...
    >
    > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
    >
    > > Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5 IS USM
    > > -Good "all purpose" lens. Some people love it, some hate it. It's
    > > always worked great for me. IS (Image Stabilization) is a wonderful
    > > thing!
    > >

    http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm Zoom/Canon/PRD_83415_3128crx.aspx
    >
    > If you can deal with the slow f3.5 class, Sigma' 24-70 HF is clearly
    > the best buy around, as well as the top performer in its class, at
    > only $80...
    > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd
    >
    > The Canon 28-135 IS has always given me blurry results on the 10D.
    >
    > > "SORT OF" RECOMMENDED?
    > >
    > > Quantaray (Tamron 572D) 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD

    >
    > There are only 3 lenses in this class worth considering:
    >
    > Sigma EX, Sigma EX, and Sigma APO.
    > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel
    >
    > The APO rated 3rd above (to Sigma and Sigma) is definitely the runaway
    > best deal going. It's probably the best value across all lens lines
    > for in the 35mm foramt built today, with the possible exception of
    > Sigma's superb $80 24-70 HF.
     
    Tony, Oct 9, 2004
    #35
  16. Creeper

    Tony Guest

    Sigma lenses are at their best on paper. Once you put them on a camera they
    tend to look poorer and poorer.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Linda_N" <> wrote in message
    news:5Iz7d.3017$...
    > Sigma just announced 4 new lenses, and Let's Go Digital reviewed them.
    > Looking good for Sigma.
    > http://www.photokina-show.com/ (pick the appropriate announcement in the
    > listing)
    >
    > Linda
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:KBz7d.162916$D%.21405@attbi_s51...
    > > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Jimmy Smith" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:<ph07d.3253$>...
    > >>
    > >>>This Preddy guy is a Troll so watch out when he says something. Canon
    > >>>50mm
    > >>>lens are extremely sharp. They handle light like Bach handled music.
    > >>>The
    > >>>50mm f/1.4 is super fantastic. The 50mm f/1.8 is very very good. I

    had
    > >>>the
    > >>>dough so I opted for the f/1.4 since I also wanted to play with low and
    > >>>available light photography. I've never been sorry.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> The 3 fast Canons are bottom of the barrel...
    > >> http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

    > > What is interesting is the 50 mm range:
    > >
    > > Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality
    > >
    > > Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding!
    > > (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding!
    > > Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent
    > > Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
    > > Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good
    > > Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good
    > > Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good
    > > Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good
    > > Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good
    > > Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good
    > > Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good
    > > Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good
    > > Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good
    > > Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good
    > > Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average
    > > Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average
    > >
    > > Sigma, based on this chart only, is both best and worst of class.
    > > Surprised to see Canon's 1.4 as only "very-good".
    > >
    > > --
    > > John McWilliams

    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 9, 2004
    #36
  17. Creeper

    Gary Stewart Guest

    Re: Canon 300D...... Quality?

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:15:23 -0700, Creeper wrote:
    Sorry to change the sub...

    Since you have the camera, I was wondering what you thought of it. I am
    seriously looking to buy. What do you like and dis-like?

    Thanks
    Gary


    > I've decided on the 300D for my first DSLR.
    >
    > I'm a bit stuck on what lens/lenses to buy.
    >
    > I'm going to be doing alot of low-light work - fireworks, aurora, stars,
    > etc.
    > I also would like to have some degree of telephoto, for my more standard
    > work.
    >
    > I'm torn between:
    >
    > canon twin lens kit 18-55mm & 55-300mm Canon 18-55mm and sigma 55-200mm
    > Sigma 18-125mm
    >
    > All prices are roughly the same, bought in a package with the 300d. I
    > don't have a big budget - want to get something that will keep me happy
    > for a while, before I decide wether I want high-quality glass.
    >
    > Any thoughts about what would be best for a keen amateur would be
    > appreciated.
     
    Gary Stewart, Oct 13, 2004
    #37
  18. Creeper

    Cyco Guest

    I bought my DRebel about 6 months ago and I love it. In terms of lens
    selection for this camera, I have selected EF 28-135mm IS USM as my
    everyday lens and EF 50mm 1.8 II as portrait lens. 28-135 is great
    because with its IS feature, I can stop down to about 2 steps without
    having to use a tripod and the images are very sharp (I mean very
    sharp) in right lighting conditions at aperature above f/5.6. The 50mm
    is great for low light situations and indoors. One drawback I
    experienced with 50mm 1.8 II is that it focuses very soft at wide open
    (especially if you're close to the subject). And since it only has 5
    blades, you don't get very nice bokeh... but at $70, it's a steal.

    I also used EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM with DRebel. This lens is very
    sharp and very fast. The color saturation is excellent.

    Hope this helps...

    More stuff at www.betastudio.com

    Cyco -


    Creeper wrote:
    > I've decided on the 300D for my first DSLR.
    >
    > I'm a bit stuck on what lens/lenses to buy.
    >
    > I'm going to be doing alot of low-light work - fireworks, aurora,
    > stars, etc.
    > I also would like to have some degree of telephoto, for my more
    > standard work.
    >
    > I'm torn between:
    >
    > canon twin lens kit 18-55mm & 55-300mm
    > Canon 18-55mm and sigma 55-200mm
    > Sigma 18-125mm
    >
    > All prices are roughly the same, bought in a package with the 300d.

    I
    > don't have a big budget - want to get something that will keep me
    > happy for a while, before I decide wether I want high-quality glass.
    >
    > Any thoughts about what would be best for a keen amateur would be
    > appreciated.
     
    Cyco, Mar 23, 2005
    #38
    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. Bryce

    Canon 300D and lenses from Rebel 1993-4ish

    Bryce, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    357
    Thor Henning Wegener
    Aug 25, 2003
  2. Witters©

    Lenses for use with the canon 300D

    Witters©, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    594
    Mark B.
    Oct 26, 2003
  3. Hans Joergensen

    Hong Kong prices on 300D, Canon S40+S45 + equipment for the 300D

    Hans Joergensen, Jan 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,527
    =?Big5-HKSCS?B?uXG4o6RwpGw=?=
    Jan 26, 2004
  4. Linda_N

    Re: Canon 300D...... LENSES?

    Linda_N, Oct 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    717
  5. Linda_N

    Re: Canon 300D...... LENSES?

    Linda_N, Oct 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    951
    Linda_N
    Oct 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page