Is it slander if it's true?

[timmyquest]

I was working on my bike today when two little peckers found themselves in a tree. I ran inside and snapped away with my 300D and this hunk of junk attatched to it. After work i downloaded them and much to my...hatred to this lens..well:

I'm going to show you a picture, and then the info from the shot which i think will show the reader that there is plenty of room for human error.

And then i want to see who can guess what type of lens i'm using...the first to get it right will get a nickle from my paypal account

The picture is a 100% crop it is larger hten 800pixles so click on it for the full effect (if i understand the term that is, it is a crop without adjusting image size)

http://www.antiwall.com/pics/crap.jpg (click to enlarge)

http://www.antiwall.com/pics/crap1.jpg

[nosquare2003]

It really looks like camera shake though the shutter speed was 1/1600. Were you drunk? :lol:

[drisley]

Canon 75-300mm F4-5.6

[ron chappel]

Mmm
seems to be in focus and with that shutter speed...
Well i guess it's a cheapo lens but i suspect there is some other story attached?

[timmyquest]

Canon 75-300mm F4-5.6

Close, but please dont give it that much credit.

I thought maybe this lens was just touchy so when i saw how bright it was out there i said "damn, this is an opertunity" yet i still get...this...slop even at 1/1600

[garethhhhh]

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?

[timmyquest]

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?

Wrong

:twisted:

Everything is black or white to you inst it :-D

[PaulB]

You have answered this question yourself in another post - it's your 70-300 Sigma!

[garethhhhh]

OK OK! my last try, then I'm going outside. :lol:

70-300mm sigma?

*EDIT* Doh!! Beaten by a few milliseconds! :lol:

[timmyquest]

You have answered this question yourself in another post - it's your 70-300 Sigma!

LOL, i was wondering who has paid attention :-)

Yes...i'd rather slap a pile of burning dog crap on this thing. No matter what i do, this thing treats me like a peice junk. I hate it, and it hates me.

[sdommin]

Pretty good shot, considering it was taken at 2:40am!

[nosquare2003]

Pretty good shot, considering it was taken at 2:40am!

Yeah! :P

[ron chappel]

Ah,win XP was hiding the true size of the crop!
Now that i can see it properly...it's not all the good is it.

How many shots did you take?
I notice when i had a stigma 100-300DL (cheaper than yours?!) ,i had a to throw a large proportion of them.Alot for bad composition and alot for unsharpness.With a very good lens i was only throwing the badly composed ones.

So a cheapo lens would do the job...*IF* one had the opportunity to take more pics than needed! :shock:

But then again maybe you just have a dud?

[Guillermo Freige]

mmm, Sigma 70-300 used wideopen... mmmm... bad idea :)

Next time try to use f/8 at 1/800 or f/11 at 1/400 if your hand is steady enough. Most lenses are REALLY not good wideopen.

[rodbunn]

I did this with a Canon lense I hated and it feels SOOOO good.

Take it to a shoot where there is a lake.
Throw it as far into the lake as you can.

It feels great ! :lol:

Rod

[garethhhhh]

I did this with a Canon lense I hated and it feels SOOOO good.

Take it to a shoot where there is a lake.
Throw it as far into the lake as you can.

It feels great ! :lol:

Rod

I'm sure it does! :lol:

...but then I wouldn't have any thing with that sort of range anymore :(

my Canon 75-300mm still produces nice shots though, but the success rate is not high... :|

But what doesn't know is that I'm saving for a 100-400L, so its days are numbered :twisted:

[timmyquest]

mmm, Sigma 70-300 used wideopen... mmmm... bad idea :)

Next time try to use f/8 at 1/800 or f/11 at 1/400 if your hand is steady enough. Most lenses are REALLY not good wideopen.

No most are not great wide open, but this is just ridicules

[MarkH]

mmm, Sigma 70-300 used wideopen... mmmm... bad idea :)

Next time try to use f/8 at 1/800 or f/11 at 1/400 if your hand is steady enough. Most lenses are REALLY not good wideopen.

No most are not great wide open, but this is just ridicules

I hear that L lenses are good wide open.

Step 1
Save money

Step 2
Buy L Lens

Step 3
Be happy with lens, but wish you had more L Lenses

Repeat

[timmyquest]

mmm, Sigma 70-300 used wideopen... mmmm... bad idea :)

Next time try to use f/8 at 1/800 or f/11 at 1/400 if your hand is steady enough. Most lenses are REALLY not good wideopen.

No most are not great wide open, but this is just ridicules

I hear that L lenses are good wide open.

Step 1
Save money

Step 2
Buy L Lens

Step 3
Be happy with lens, but wish you had more L Lenses

Repeat

i just spent $1500 onn this lens, i cant afford to save for another

[IndyJeff]

Ok so you want to get rid of this lens? Put it on eBay. Maybe it will find a new owner that it will work for.

Have you been mean-mouthing that lens when it could hear you? Well, there ya go. Clearly a case of Lens abuse. You've hurt it's feelings.

[Tom W]

mmm, Sigma 70-300 used wideopen... mmmm... bad idea :)

Next time try to use f/8 at 1/800 or f/11 at 1/400 if your hand is steady enough. Most lenses are REALLY not good wideopen.

No most are not great wide open, but this is just ridicules

I hear that L lenses are good wide open.

Step 1
Save money

Step 2
Buy L Lens

Step 3
Be happy with lens, but wish you had more L Lenses

Repeat

i just spent $1500 onn this lens, i cant afford to save for another

If you just bought it, send it back. Its defective, IMHO. If you bought it used, you might consider contacting Sigma anyway to see if they can adjust or align it or whatever it is that they do to lenses.

[Canuck]

Hmmm...
The 70-300 lens I bash that I had was a $120 lens on a $1500 camera w/o Big Ed. I am surprised, though. If you spent $1500 on a lens, I'd definitely expect more! Maybe it is a lemon?? The $1900 120-300 F2.8 EX lens I have is out of this world and I can shoot 100ISO, 1/500 sec and get clear pic all day. I have done it numerous times. This intrugues me. Dare I mention front/back focus? LOL!

[iwatkins]

i just spent $1500 onn this lens, i cant afford to save for another

$1500 on a Sigma 70-300 ? Didn't know Sigma made a 70-300 that costs more than about $250.

Either you have the lens wrong or you were seriously ripped off.

Cheers

Ian

[timmyquest]

I was just joking about the 1500 on this lens. I got it and another sigma for 250 when i bought my rebel 2000 ;-D

Anyways, i supose i was too quick to be mad. I should have (and for some reason didnt) think about te appature. So i ran a little test.

Here are a few pics, the first being wide open and the last be stopped all the way down. The best is the second to last which is f/22 second to smallest. All taken in AV, no post proc.

I'd imagine that the last is blurry due to camera shake but at f/32 there isnt much you can do about that even at ISO800 (i supose ISO 1600 would have helped :twisted: )

www.antiwall.com/70-300

[Tom W]

I was just joking about the 1500 on this lens. I got it and another sigma for 250 when i bought my rebel 2000 ;-D

That doggone April first thing makes us all crazy sometimes. :)

Anyways, i supose i was too quick to be mad. I should have (and for some reason didnt) think about te appature. So i ran a little test.

Here are a few pics, the first being wide open and the last be stopped all the way down. The best is the second to last which is f/22 second to smallest. All taken in AV, no post proc.

I'd imagine that the last is blurry due to camera shake but at f/32 there isnt much you can do about that even at ISO800 (i supose ISO 1600 would have helped :twisted: )

www.antiwall.com/70-300

Actually, I thought the third one was the best, with the 4th as second best. The rest are not good. Based on pictures I've seen on this site, the Canon 75-300 blows this particular Sigma away. If you're short of funds, ditch that lens and get the Canon 75-300 or the 100-300. Then you can take respectable pictures while you're saving up for your "L" lenses. :)

[timmyquest]

I was just joking about the 1500 on this lens. I got it and another sigma for 250 when i bought my rebel 2000 ;-D

That doggone April first thing makes us all crazy sometimes. :)

Anyways, i supose i was too quick to be mad. I should have (and for some reason didnt) think about te appature. So i ran a little test.

Here are a few pics, the first being wide open and the last be stopped all the way down. The best is the second to last which is f/22 second to smallest. All taken in AV, no post proc.

I'd imagine that the last is blurry due to camera shake but at f/32 there isnt much you can do about that even at ISO800 (i supose ISO 1600 would have helped :twisted: )

www.antiwall.com/70-300

Actually, I thought the third one was the best, with the 4th as second best. The rest are not good. Based on pictures I've seen on this site, the Canon 75-300 blows this particular Sigma away. If you're short of funds, ditch that lens and get the Canon 75-300 or the 100-300. Then you can take respectable pictures while you're saving up for your "L" lenses. :)

Actually your right, and infact thats the one i posted in the share photos. I had forgotten that i took one out due to severe camera shake ;-).

Anyways, yes. The thing is still a peice of crap, which is why i'm saving for a 100-400mm L. No point in skimping, i never skimp on stuff unless i dont know what i'm doing, at the time i didnt. (of course i didnt have much cash then either so it really doesnt matter)

[Tom W]

Anyways, yes. The thing is still a peice of crap, which is why i'm saving for a 100-400mm L. No point in skimping, i never skimp on stuff unless i dont know what i'm doing, at the time i didnt. (of course i didnt have much cash then either so it really doesnt matter)

I see we have attended the same school - the school of "hard knocks". I've skimped to my own detriment at times. That's not to say that buying a mid-range Canon lens is a terrible thing to do, but if your ultimate goal is "L", you need to decide the route with which to get there.