Am I Blind Here?????

[BCdives]

a.) I am brand new to the hi-end photography, but highly addicted at this point.

b.) Bought a 10D with what I was told were great quality sigma lenses (24-70 HF) and (70-300 Macro) and no doubt it takes nice pics........BUT!

c.) I was also told that the quality between the sigma and the same class canon lenses was un-noticable.

d.) After much more reading and seeing other people's photos I decided to buy some "L" Class glass. This week I got my new 16mm-35mm 2.8L USM and a new 100mm-400mm 1:4.5 5.6 L IS USM for telephoto.

e.) In my humble opinion THERE is NO comparison. I don't say this to upset any happy Sigma users, but please tell me if I'm dreaming here, the overall quality, color, sharpness, far and away flatens any of the pics I have taken thus far with my sigmas. I think I have the wide and the far away covered, and right now have ordered a Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM to cover the mid range. Am I blind or have I just figured out what all you pro's seem to already know?


Thanks for any feedback!

BC

p.s I have some brand new Sigma lenses for sale..cheap!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,

The Sigma lenses you are comparing?

The 24-70 HF is? This is a $100.00 lens!!!!

And the 70-300mm is a $150.00 cheap peice of junk. You are comparing these to lenses that cost $1,500.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !?????

At ten times the cost I should HOPE the Canons not only look a world apart,. but they should make you coffee in the morning after satisfying your desires the night before as well. :D :D :D :D

But seriously,

I am a very happy Sigma user,. but I simply could not afford the Canon glass you mention. I praise Sigma all the time and I am indeed impressed with the results,.

I have ONE pieice of Canon "L", the 17-40mm, and needless to say I am happy with that as well.

I still use my Sigma 70-200mm FAR more often than the 17-40mm,.. and I absolutely can not do anything but praise and in fact WORSHIP the Sigma 50-500mm,. which gives the absolute best bargain in 500mm supertelephoto Price Vs. Quality available,.

I mean for the cost of a Canon "L" 500mm I could buy 8 of the Sigma 50-500mm!!!!!!!!!

So,. all that said,. do I think the 50-500mm is as clear as the Canon 500mm f/4 L ?!!!!!!!!

NO!!!

Sigma is one of the best deals out there,. but like Canon,. they have good lenses and bad lenses,. and you have compared two of there absolute cheapies to two of Canon's absolute best.

Some of Sigma's lenses are much better than others... this is why I went Canon at the Wide end,. the price difference was minimal in comparison to the 8X cost of a 500mm prime....

But I swear the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is at worst only slightly inferior to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8.... but not enough for me to warrant the cost difference.

If you want to compare Canon to Sigma,. compare two lenses in the same class. Ohterwise,. compare the Canon 28-200mm to the Sigma's you own :)

[BCdives]

Hi CDS,

Thanks for the comeback, after reading your response my eyes are open even wider.

Perhaps if the salesperson I was dealing with wasn't trying to "Save me money" which I never asked him to do, I would already be playing with the "L Class lenses"

My post was not in disrespect to Sigma in any way, it was simply that the difference in pic's compared to the sigma lenses that I owned v.s. the Canon L series was remarkable, I honestly didn't realize that the particular sigma's I owned were that low on the lense food chain.

I was just wondering if I had been seeing things based on my side by side lense comparison.

Ill be quiet now and start learning the in's and out's of the EF L class from now on.

Thanks CDS, btw, I love your pic's and your posts, I read them alot.


BC

[CyberDyneSystems]

;)

I am glad that you are now able to get the best pics out of that excellent camera!

Thankl you for your kind words. :)

I hope I didn't come down on you too hard :D

There is indeed a huge difference to be seen through a quality lens! And by getting the Canon top of the line "L" you are garanteeing the best for your Camera and your images.

Would that I could afford some more of those lenses !!!! :(

So when do we get to see some of your pics?


CDS

[RichardtheSane]

I simply could not afford the Canon glass you mention
I couldn't afford my 10D or either of my 'L' lenses but I have them.... :D :D

[Belmondo]

We all have our comfort levels. For people whose needs are critical (i.e. professionals, 'serious' hobbyists, etc.), the extra cost of 'L' lenses is probably justified. Even if those indiviuals are on a tight budget, the sacrifice necessary to purchase high-end optics can likely be justified.

On the other hand, casual hobbyists, especially those whose pockets are not terribly deep, find the compromise of third party lenses, or less expensive Canon glass an acceptable one; their level of ability may very well be such that they don't even recognize the limitations of 'Less Than L' lenses.

Even though I'm fortunate enough to own a couple pretty good lenses, I probably fall into that second category. My hope is that in time, my abilities will begin to approach the capabilities inherent in my equipment.

Not likely, though.

The main thing is to help, encourage, and be supportive of each other. After all, we do share a common interest even if our financial wherewithall might vary widely. Just because we can't all afford magnificent lenses that rightfully should be sold in jewelry stores, we can all have a similarly good time with whatever we have in our camera bags.

In some respects, those among us who don't use the high-priced optics have one significant advantage over those who do.....when the picture turns out poorly, they can always blame the lens. Try doing that with 'L' glass.


Tom