Canon 10D & Sigma lens issue

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Philip Rofe, Jan 3, 2004.

  1. If the game is putting super sharp glass in front of blurry Canon sensors.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 4, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Read http://sigma-photo.com/html/pages/17_35_ex.htm

    Only the AF HSM mount is for Canon AF. Both shops sound inept.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 4, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Philip Rofe

    Chris Brown Guest

    I just hope you don't live to regret those words. When I had a D30, I had 3
    Sigma lenses at various points, a 14mm f/3.5, a 28mm f/1.8 and a 600mm
    mirror lens. I bought the mirror lens because I wanted a long telephoto and
    thought that, at less than half the price I could get a 300mm f/4 L IS +
    1.4TC for, I would have a longer telephoto, and the manual focus + fixed
    aperture was no big deal really.

    I was wrong, the lens was utterly dreadful. I part exchanged it and bought
    the 300mm F/4 L IS and 1.4TC option.

    As for the other two, used the 14mm a lot, didn't use the 28mm, as it had
    disappointing amounts of flare. However, when I upgraded to the 10D, neither
    of the bloody things worked - they could take pictures wide-open, but stop
    them down and it was "Err 99" time.

    I got rid of both of these lenses as well. The useless 28mm was replaced
    with a Canon 20-35 zoom, which lacks the aperture but seems to be a pretty
    decent lens. Didn't quite learn my lesson with the 14, and swapped to the
    Sigma f/2.8 version, which did work on the 10D (anybody's guess whether it
    will work on what comes after though). However, I was never really satisfied
    with its optical performance, which was mostly OK but suffered really badly
    on high contrast backlit stuff. Finally I sold that on too and bought a
    second hand Canon 15mm fisheye.

    I thought I was saving money. In the event, buyign Sigma was false economy
    because every Sigma lens I bought has since been replaced with a genuine
    Canon lens. I've learned my lesson now, and I'll not buy one again.
     
    Chris Brown, Jan 4, 2004
    #23
  4. I can't believe how much your are hyping the Sigma SD9/SD10.
    It is almost as bad as SCO hyping their lawsuit so the insiders can sell
    their stocks at 15x the value it was before the lawsuit.

    I do agree that my Canon EOS 300D does not have full 6+ Mpix resolution,
    as the pixels are not full color, and thus I can misssomething. It takes
    4 pixels of the CCD to generate an exact color match. But the the
    interpolation is working pretty well.

    As for the Sigma, there is 3Mpix only (enough for for many things) resolution,
    but 3 sensors at each location, allowing better color depth. If you need
    the 6 Mpix of the Canon, interpolation will happen at this stage.

    If you prefer the one or the other is up to you, but don't run
    a religious crusade. Religious crusaders are a danger to US national security.
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Jan 4, 2004
    #24
  5. I can't believe how much you don't hype Sigma glass. It's just plain mean
    to recommend Canon L to a 300D user. L glass is fantastic film glass, it'll
    make little to no difference on a soft 6MP sensor. Sigma EX is usually
    1/3rd the price, and an 80-110% solution compared to Canon L, average 95%.
    Counting pixels is for amateurs, like you said above, optical resolution is
    all that matters. The SD9 outputs 14MP interpolated for those who think
    outputing 4 pixels per sensed full color is better. And 14MP-interpolated
    can be better for huge enlargements (talking >20x30) on less than top end
    printers. But I wouldn't try that with only 6MP-interpolated.
    security.

    Then why do you put down much higher value Sigma EX glass. No, it's not
    close. Perhaps you've never held a weighty, gorgeously built, 9 blade Sigma
    EX lens? The newer models are superb, and they make all the sense in the
    world for a 6MP-interpolated sensor that has little to no hope of fully
    expoiting them.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 4, 2004
    #25
  6. It's a darn shame that we can't all measure up to the standards you'd
    like to impose on us.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 4, 2004
    #26
  7. Randall, I take offence at that. I use Sigma because it is what I can afford
    Digital photography is an expensive hobby. I don't have a lot of money
    either, but I have enough experience to know that 3rd party lenses just
    don't cut it.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 4, 2004
    #27
  8. It's a darn shame that we can't all measure up to the standards you'd
    If I could only run the world, what a better place it would be for
    everyone.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 4, 2004
    #28
  9. Philip Rofe

    Lionel Guest

    You've obviously never used a Canon DSLR with a consumer zoom & then an
    L zoom or good prime. The difference in image sharpness & clarity is
    painfully visible to anyone who has. But of course, it's typical of a
    clown like you to make such clueless statements, which prove only that
    you've either never used the equipment yourself, or are suffering from
    some of mental disability.
     
    Lionel, Jan 4, 2004
    #29
  10. Philip Rofe

    Philip Rofe Guest

    Just so you all know: having bought the Sigma EX, I spent the day taking
    photos and was very disappointed with the results - very soft focus and
    blurry. Went back to shop and showed them some of the printed results and
    they agreed it wasn't good. Choice now is whether to go much more expensive
    with a Canon or maybe another/better Sigma, or to go cheaper with a Tokina
    or Cosina. And to really anger Randall, he may like to know that having
    taken a few shots with the 19-35 Tokina, it's not bad - it's certainly
    sharper than the Sig17-35. I also saw a shot taken by some other guy using
    a 10D with a cosina 17-35mm which was very impressive - shame the lens felt
    so light and rickety. Does it really matter if the lens isn't expensive?
    Surely it's the photographer's eye to spot the creative and unusual in life
    that's important - who needs some boring and mundane shot, however perfectly
    represented.
     
    Philip Rofe, Jan 4, 2004
    #30
  11. LOL!!!
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 4, 2004
    #31
  12. Philip Rofe

    Michael Guest

    Hi,
    "I just upgraded from a rusty old Sigma lens to a sparkling new Canon L
    lens".

    /Michael
     
    Michael, Jan 4, 2004
    #32
  13. Philip Rofe

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Well, we know for sure that good ole' George doesn't have good eyes,
    as he can't even see the horrible color aberration and all sorts of
    artifacts
    produced by his SD9.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Jan 4, 2004
    #33
  14. Philip Rofe

    Mark B. Guest

    I killfiled Randull a long time ago.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Jan 5, 2004
    #34
  15. Philip Rofe

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Jan 5, 2004
    #35
  16. Philip Rofe

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Avoid teh Cosina - they have NO quality control whatsoever. You might get a
    so-so one or you might get a real dog, and I'm not sure either would last
    any time at all. I've heard good things about that Tokina, but with digital
    that extra 2mm has a pretty big effect.

    --
    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 my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jan 5, 2004
    #36
  17. You've obviously never used a Canon DSLR with a consumer zoom & then an
    George Preddy is a shill for Fuji.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 5, 2004
    #37
  18. Jesus, Lionel ,you are SO oblique! Why don't you tell it like it is
    instead of sugar-coating everything?
     
    Reginald Beckwith, Jan 6, 2004
    #38
  19. Philip Rofe

    Lionel Guest

    <grin>

    Well, it is "Be Kind To Trolls Week", isn't it?
     
    Lionel, Jan 6, 2004
    #39
  20. With 176,000 10D images on pbase, maybe you could find a sharp full sized
    sample and post a link instead of yapping about how incredible they are?

    I haven't found one yet. Oh wait, this one is actually posted bigger than
    the usual 10D 640x480...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/21465764/original
     
    George Preddy, Jan 6, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.