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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Linda_N, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:iGmbd.59790$...
    > Linda - I'm almost certain at this point that you are Preddy in another
    > disguise. There is somethign trollish about your devotion to Sigma.
    >

    ....and the statement pretty much demonstrates that your 'certain'[ty] has
    zero validity in fact. View the message source if you know how. It is
    evident to anyone that does know how that your statement is in error.

    There is something 'trollish' about your inability to read and comprehend
    what has been written. I don't have a devotion to Sigma, I've not talked
    about anything but Sigma lenses, and finally I'm devoted to only getting the
    best item to fill my needs in the most economical way possible. If it
    happens that Sigma comes out on top for a lens I want then that's what I'll
    buy, if not I buy the one that is on top for the need in question.

    I think the truth is that because I don't take your generalized opinions as
    significant in the larger scheme of things does not make me a troll or
    wrong. This simply makes me a person who has been left unconvinced by your
    arguments, and unpersuaded by what you have said to date, or as Bush says
    'Oh forget it'.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:50 -0300, "Linda_N"
    <> wrote:

    >"Tony" <> wrote in message
    >news:iGmbd.59790$...
    >> Linda - I'm almost certain at this point that you are Preddy in another
    >> disguise. There is somethign trollish about your devotion to Sigma.
    >>

    >...and the statement pretty much demonstrates that your 'certain'[ty] has
    >zero validity in fact. View the message source if you know how. It is
    >evident to anyone that does know how that your statement is in error.
    >
    >There is something 'trollish' about your inability to read and comprehend
    >what has been written. I don't have a devotion to Sigma, I've not talked
    >about anything but Sigma lenses, and finally I'm devoted to only getting the
    >best item to fill my needs in the most economical way possible. If it
    >happens that Sigma comes out on top for a lens I want then that's what I'll
    >buy, if not I buy the one that is on top for the need in question.
    >



    I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.
     
    GT40, Oct 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    > That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    > Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >
    > If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.


    When you say that you are always better going with camera brand lenses, do
    you mean that camera brand lenses 'always' produce a better image, are
    faster in autofocus, are more quiet and so on, or do you mean that they are
    better only because the mount is sure match? (no rechipping/refitting
    needed)

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:06 -0300, "Linda_N"
    <> wrote:

    >"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >> That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >> Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>
    >> If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.

    >
    >When you say that you are always better going with camera brand lenses, do
    >you mean that camera brand lenses 'always' produce a better image, are
    >faster in autofocus, are more quiet and so on, or do you mean that they are
    >better only because the mount is sure match? (no rechipping/refitting
    >needed)


    All of the above. I know professionals who use the Sigma 120-300mm
    2.8 EX APO IF HSF lens. They claim the AF is slower and makes a
    griding noise during autofocus and zoom, they also mentioned that
    sometimes the lens didn't auto focus, or stoped auto focusing
    unexpectadly. They like the optics just about the same as some of the
    Canon glass, but for them the only advantage is price (which maybe
    your issue).

    Another issue, although I've never seen it, if there is a problem with
    the camera and your not using the camera makes lens, they wont fix it.
    Like I say, never seen it happen.
     
    GT40, Oct 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..


    Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    shown here):

    http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >
    >>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    >
    >Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >shown here):
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985


    Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
     
    GT40, Oct 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    >>
    >>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >>shown here):
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985

    >
    >Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?


    Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:

    >>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..



    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>,
    >>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>
    >>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >>>shown here):
    >>>
    >>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985

    >>
    >>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?

    >
    >Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    >thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
    >
    >>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..


    Then you should have quoted that part to start with.
     
    GT40, Oct 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In message <>,
    >>>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>>
    >>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >>>>shown here):
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
    >>>
    >>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?

    >>
    >>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    >>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
    >>
    >>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..


    >Then you should have quoted that part to start with.


    My response was immediately after that statement, where it belonged.

    I am starting to realize that reading your posts is a total waste of
    time, as you bob and weave every time someone actually responds to what
    you write.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:19:18 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>,
    >>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In message <>,
    >>>>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >>>>>shown here):
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
    >>>>
    >>>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
    >>>
    >>>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    >>>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
    >>>
    >>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    >
    >>Then you should have quoted that part to start with.

    >
    >My response was immediately after that statement, where it belonged.
    >
    >I am starting to realize that reading your posts is a total waste of
    >time, as you bob and weave every time someone actually responds to what
    >you write.


    Now your just lying
     
    GT40, Oct 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:06 -0300, "Linda_N"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>> I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>> That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>> Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>
    >>> If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.

    >>
    >>When you say that you are always better going with camera brand lenses, do
    >>you mean that camera brand lenses 'always' produce a better image, are
    >>faster in autofocus, are more quiet and so on, or do you mean that they
    >>are
    >>better only because the mount is sure match? (no rechipping/refitting
    >>needed)

    >
    > All of the above. I know professionals who use the Sigma 120-300mm
    > 2.8 EX APO IF HSF lens. They claim the AF is slower and makes a
    > griding noise during autofocus and zoom, they also mentioned that
    > sometimes the lens didn't auto focus, or stoped auto focusing
    > unexpectadly. They like the optics just about the same as some of the
    > Canon glass, but for them the only advantage is price (which maybe
    > your issue).
    >
    > Another issue, although I've never seen it, if there is a problem with
    > the camera and your not using the camera makes lens, they wont fix it.
    > Like I say, never seen it happen.


    I can't see that either because a person would only give the body. The
    manufacturer/authorized repair shop would not be aware of what lens(es) were
    used, they have test lenses in the shop.

    I'll look into your observations about only purchasing the HSF lenses from
    Sigma. I suppose the same arguement can be held for Canon consumer and pro
    lenses as well though. One would expect the consumer category to offer less
    quality for less money.

    Thanks,
    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In message <>,
    >>>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>>
    >>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >>>>shown here):
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
    >>>
    >>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?

    >>
    >>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    >>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
    >>
    >>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    >
    > Then you should have quoted that part to start with.
    >


    JPS did quote your statement in the original reply to you.

    Thanks for the example JPS. Oh noooooo now I have to check out Tamrons too
    argggggghhh.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:31:59 -0300, "Linda_N"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:06 -0300, "Linda_N"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>> That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>> Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>>
    >>>> If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.
    >>>
    >>>When you say that you are always better going with camera brand lenses, do
    >>>you mean that camera brand lenses 'always' produce a better image, are
    >>>faster in autofocus, are more quiet and so on, or do you mean that they
    >>>are
    >>>better only because the mount is sure match? (no rechipping/refitting
    >>>needed)

    >>
    >> All of the above. I know professionals who use the Sigma 120-300mm
    >> 2.8 EX APO IF HSF lens. They claim the AF is slower and makes a
    >> griding noise during autofocus and zoom, they also mentioned that
    >> sometimes the lens didn't auto focus, or stoped auto focusing
    >> unexpectadly. They like the optics just about the same as some of the
    >> Canon glass, but for them the only advantage is price (which maybe
    >> your issue).


    >I'll look into your observations about only purchasing the HSF lenses from
    >Sigma. I suppose the same arguement can be held for Canon consumer and pro
    >lenses as well though. One would expect the consumer category to offer less
    >quality for less money.


    I msut correct myself, they are HSM (HyerSonicMotor)
     
    GT40, Oct 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:34:27 -0300, "Linda_N"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message <>,
    >>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In message <>,
    >>>>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
    >>>>>shown here):
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
    >>>>
    >>>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
    >>>
    >>>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    >>>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
    >>>
    >>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    >>
    >> Then you should have quoted that part to start with.
    >>

    >
    >JPS did quote your statement in the original reply to you.
    >
    >Thanks for the example JPS. Oh noooooo now I have to check out Tamrons too
    >argggggghhh.


    You can also look at Tokina lenses too, Vivitar..... so many to look
    at.
     
    GT40, Oct 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:19:18 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In message <>,
    >>>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>In message <>,
    >>>>>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
    >>>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
    >>>>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
    >>>>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
    >>>>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
    >>>>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what
    >>>>>>is
    >>>>>>shown here):
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
    >>>>
    >>>>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
    >>>>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
    >>>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

    >>
    >>>Then you should have quoted that part to start with.

    >>
    >>My response was immediately after that statement, where it belonged.
    >>
    >>I am starting to realize that reading your posts is a total waste of
    >>time, as you bob and weave every time someone actually responds to what
    >>you write.

    >
    > Now your just lying


    Now you're just proving JPS' point.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >You can also look at Tokina lenses too, Vivitar..... so many to look
    >at.


    You can, but I think that Tamron makes the sharper macros. Not the
    fastest AF, but the sharpest optics.

    My Tamron 90mm macro is the only lens I've used on my 10D where the
    images really snap in the viewfinder when you are in focus.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > GT40 <> wrote:
    >
    >>You can also look at Tokina lenses too, Vivitar..... so many to look
    >>at.

    >
    > You can, but I think that Tamron makes the sharper macros. Not the
    > fastest AF, but the sharpest optics.
    >
    > My Tamron 90mm macro is the only lens I've used on my 10D where the
    > images really snap in the viewfinder when you are in focus.
    > --


    Tamron is not a brand I've considered, nor Tokina or Vivitar. I've just read
    too many bad things in the past about each. I've not checked ratings on any
    of them in the last few years and it could be that they too are getting
    better, like Sigma. Either way though when someone stands behind a
    particular lens they have I like to check it out. Sharpness is important. AF
    speed is not a big deal because I take very few shots that require very fast
    focusing. Add to that the fact that I like manual focus (ring especially)
    because it just makes me feel more important hehehe. AF makes photography
    monkey's work.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:31:59 -0300, "Linda_N"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I'll look into your observations about only purchasing the HSF lenses from
    >>Sigma. I suppose the same arguement can be held for Canon consumer and pro
    >>lenses as well though. One would expect the consumer category to offer
    >>less
    >>quality for less money.

    >
    > I must correct myself, they are HSM (HyerSonicMotor)


    Thanks. You had it as HSM in one of your ealier posts so I figured it was
    just a typo in the second post. It is similar to my constant mixing up of
    Minolota's Z series and Panasonic's FZ series. If they were completely
    different cameras fine, but both are ultra zoom consumer and now both have
    IS.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:06:37 -0300, "Linda_N"
    <> wrote:

    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In message <>,
    >> GT40 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>You can also look at Tokina lenses too, Vivitar..... so many to look
    >>>at.

    >>
    >> You can, but I think that Tamron makes the sharper macros. Not the
    >> fastest AF, but the sharpest optics.
    >>
    >> My Tamron 90mm macro is the only lens I've used on my 10D where the
    >> images really snap in the viewfinder when you are in focus.
    >> --

    >
    >Tamron is not a brand I've considered, nor Tokina or Vivitar. I've just read
    >too many bad things in the past about each. I've not checked ratings on any
    >of them in the last few years and it could be that they too are getting
    >better, like Sigma. Either way though when someone stands behind a
    >particular lens they have I like to check it out. Sharpness is important. AF
    >speed is not a big deal because I take very few shots that require very fast
    >focusing. Add to that the fact that I like manual focus (ring especially)
    >because it just makes me feel more important hehehe. AF makes photography
    >monkey's work.


    If you like to manual focus, then I suggest your try each lens before
    you buy it. Some of them can have such small MF controls its hard to
    use, as they market the lenses for AF.
     
    GT40, Oct 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Linda_N

    GT40 Guest

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:11:08 -0300, "Linda_N"
    <> wrote:

    >"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:31:59 -0300, "Linda_N"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I'll look into your observations about only purchasing the HSF lenses from
    >>>Sigma. I suppose the same arguement can be held for Canon consumer and pro
    >>>lenses as well though. One would expect the consumer category to offer
    >>>less
    >>>quality for less money.

    >>
    >> I must correct myself, they are HSM (HyerSonicMotor)

    >
    >Thanks. You had it as HSM in one of your ealier posts so I figured it was
    >just a typo in the second post. It is similar to my constant mixing up of
    >Minolota's Z series and Panasonic's FZ series. If they were completely
    >different cameras fine, but both are ultra zoom consumer and now both have
    >IS.


    HSM is the same concept as the Canon USM or Nikon AF-S
     
    GT40, Oct 22, 2004
    #20
    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:
    371
    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:
    602
    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:
    2,542
    =?Big5-HKSCS?B?uXG4o6RwpGw=?=
    Jan 26, 2004
  4. Creeper

    Canon 300D...... LENSES?

    Creeper, Sep 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,887
  5. Linda_N

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

    Linda_N, Oct 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    724
Loading...

Share This Page