New lens woes

[Big_B]

Have been waiting with great excitement for a couple of new lenses to arrive. Firstly the sigma 28mm f1.8 and secondly the 70-300mm sigma. They both arrived this morning and so far I'm rather underwealmed by them. They are heavy and the autofocus is slow and noisy. The kit lens with my camera is sooo much better - Is this how people get sucked into L??

On the bright side, at least I now have a nice range of lenses to play with. I'm going out later to take some pics and will report back.

BB

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sam.blackie/Public/DSC_2053.jpg

[Olegis]

Those are very good lenses for the money, just go out, shoot and enjoy !
Show us some samples of course ... 8)

[SENster7]

I have the Sigma 70-300 but the DL version, not the APO version. I see you have the APO version, I hope you have better results than I did with the DL version, the DL version I have is horrible, and I need to return it! Post some pics and let's see what the APO version can do!

[timmyquest]

I have the Sigma 70-300 but the DL version, not the APO version. I see you have the APO version, I hope you have better results than I did with the DL version, the DL version I have is horrible, and I need to return it! Post some pics and let's see what the APO version can do!

I agree, i have that lens and it is a POS. If it makes ya feel better though, it does a pretty good job with macros.

http://www.antiwall.com/June2004/images/white%20flower.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/pics/man-vs-nature2.jpg

[Big_B]

I have the Sigma 70-300 but the DL version, not the APO version. I see you have the APO version, I hope you have better results than I did with the DL version, the DL version I have is horrible, and I need to return it! Post some pics and let's see what the APO version can do!

I agree, i have that lens and it is a POS. If it makes ya feel better though, it does a pretty good job with macros.

http://www.antiwall.com/June2004/images/white%20flower.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/pics/man-vs-nature2.jpg

POS :?: :?:

.....ohhh I get it :oops:

Hope the APO is better - will report back soon.

[Mark Kemp]

I have noticed the same things with Sigma lenses sometimes. I have never owned any but sometimes borrowed a mates. The image quality is good for the money, but I find the handling can be awkward. Obviously they do a large range of lenses and they are all different but in general I find that a Sigma is often heavier than the equivalent Canon. They also sometimes have both a switch and a pull on the focus ring to disengage autofocus, which is slower and I usually forget to do one or the other.

It is worth trying a lens in a shop if you can before ordering, or at least having a look. You can get good advice here and in reviews on quality, but handling is often overlooked. However if you don't find the lens easy to use you won't use it and all the quality in the world is no use if you don't even take the picture.

[Belmondo]

Is this how people get sucked into L??

This is exactly how people get sucked into L. On average, L lenses are works of art and rarely do they disappoint. This is not to say that no one has ever had complaints about any of them, but as a rule of thumb, they are going to be better than any comparable third-party lens. Sadly, they will amost away be more expensive, too.

Sigma is really one of the more schyzophrenic companies out there. Some of their lenses are very good, and some of them are really marginal. That's just the way it is.

I will buy Canon lenses (especially L) sight unseen. Anything else I'll have to try on my own camera first.

[Scottes]

Sigma is really one of the more schyzophrenic companies out there. Some of their lenses are very good, and some of them are really marginal.

I'll gladly trade my Canon 28-90mm for *any* Sigma lens that will fit my 10D. And I don't particularly like Sigma...

[SENster7]

Is this how people get sucked into L??

This is exactly how people get sucked into L. On average, L lenses are works of art and rarely do they disappoint. This is not to say that no one has ever had complaints about any of them, but as a rule of thumb, they are going to be better than any comparable third-party lens. Sadly, they will amost away be more expensive, too.

Sigma is really one of the more schyzophrenic companies out there. Some of their lenses are very good, and some of them are really marginal. That's just the way it is.

I will buy Canon lenses (especially L) sight unseen. Anything else I'll have to try on my own camera first.

I don't agree with the way Canon markets the "L" series. Take Nikon for example, they don't distinguish their top of the line lenses like Canon, their top of the line lenses are those with f/2.8 which is how Canon should do it. People should know that if they are getting a lens f/2.8 it is going to be the best in it's class. Nikon does have the VR line, but that's just image stablization like Canon has IS.

[Belmondo]

I don't agree with the way Canon markets the "L" series. Take Nikon for example, they don't distinguish their top of the line lenses like Canon, their top of the line lenses are those with f/2.8 which is how Canon should do it. People should know that if they are getting a lens f/2.8 it is going to be the best in it's class. Nikon does have the VR line, but that's just image stablization like Canon has IS.

There's much more to L-quality glass than just the aperture. In fact, there are many canon lenses that are better than f/2.8 and are still not L glass. What about the EF 50mm f/1.8, or the EF 28 f/2.8L, or any of the other lenses that are faster than f/2.8 and are not in the L lineup? Also, there are L lenses that are f/4. While I'm at it, the EF 1200 L is an f/5.6.

Among other things, L lenses have better glass in them and the build quality is better.

So your statement is a little too general, and not altogether accurate.

[SENster7]

I don't agree with the way Canon markets the "L" series. Take Nikon for example, they don't distinguish their top of the line lenses like Canon, their top of the line lenses are those with f/2.8 which is how Canon should do it. People should know that if they are getting a lens f/2.8 it is going to be the best in it's class. Nikon does have the VR line, but that's just image stablization like Canon has IS.

There's much more to L-quality glass than just the aperture. In fact, there are many canon lenses that are better than f/2.8 and are still not L glass. What about the EF 50mm f/1.8, or the EF 28 f/2.8L, or any of the other lenses that are faster than f/2.8 and are not in the L lineup? Also, there are L lenses that are f/4. While I'm at it, the EF 1200 L is an f/5.6.

Among other things, L lenses have better glass in them and the build quality is better.

So your statement is a little too general, and not altogether accurate.

I do agree that the optics and build are much better in the L series, however this adds to my point that it is a marketing ploy, especially since Canon markets a P&S Powershot Pro 1 with a supposed "L" series lens, don't you find this a little ridiculous? Canon markets the Pro 1 for the "prosumer" for a $999 P&S, just because it has a supposed "L" series lens(which is inferior on the Pro 1 I might add according to test data), hoping many will consider the Pro-1 for a cheaper alternative to a DSLR +L lenses, but ending up with an inferior product. That's my whole point, marketing, marketing, marketing. It should be about quality, and not marketing. I was comparing the f/2.8 lenses of Canon and Nikon, not f/4 or f/5.6, or saying that anything but f/2.8 isn't good. My point is that with Nikon the consumer and pro grade are distinguised by the focal length, aperture, and quaility, not by a lettter like Canon...

[PaulB]

The L series contain special optical elements which are not present in the 'normal' EF range. These elements may be aspheric, of special glass or of flourite, it has nothing to do with aperture. The heavier build quality of L lenses is necessary to more accurately postion the lens elements and groups whilst the 'white' finish on the larger zooms and telephotos is to keep the lens cooler in sunlight and thus better retain the mechanical accuracy by limiting the amount of expansion in the metal body. The DO lenses (400/4 and 75-300) are not L series as the lens elements which contribute to their compactness is a different technology.

[Belmondo]

It should be about quality, and not marketing. I was comparing the f/2.8 lenses of Canon and Nikon, not f/4 or f/5.6, or saying that anything but f/2.8 isn't good. My point is that with Nikon the consumer and pro grade are distinguised by the focal length, aperture, and quaility, not by a lettter like Canon...

I can't comment on the quality of the Pro-1 or its optics. I've heard generally good things about it, as I have about most of the other 8mp P&S cameras that are out there right now.

As far as the Canon lens lineup is concerned, the L designation is not a marketing ploy...it is a means of identifying their professi0nal quality lenses. I actually find Canon's lens designations to be quite clear as to the general quality and characteristics of the lens. For example: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. That tells me just about everything I need to know about that particular lens. It has low dispersion glass, ultrasonic focusing motor, image stabilization, and L build quality. Canon would not identify it by any of those designations if it weren't so.

It sounds to my like you're suggesting that Canon takes an otherwise unremarkable lens, gives it the L designation, then charges a lot of money for it. That simply isn't the case. There are significant differences between L lenses and all others in the Canon line, and I can't recall a single instance when Canon did anything deliberately to create any confusion in that regard. Granted, not all L lenses are world-beaters, but neither are all Nikon lenses---even the ones they proclaim as professional quality. They are, however, a great deal better in just about every respect than their consumer grade counterparts, and those differences cost money. Whether or not the differences are worth the extra money that Canon demands (and gets) for these lenses is a matter of some speculation, but they don't seem to have any trouble selling all they can make. That is a simple economic fact of life and not an attempt at obfuscation by Canon.

I stand by my original summary of your statement:
your statement is a little too general, and not altogether accurate.

[SENster7]

Hmmm, it sounds like to me that you are putting words in my mouth...I never said the "L" lenses are unremarkable, remember I own one, and I think it's amazing, I just stated that Canon produces a great lens, but does use the "L" as a marketing tool especially regarding the Powershot Pro 1. The entire selling point around the Pro 1 is the supposed "L" lens, but in reality the quality is mediocre, this I find should anger those who hold the "L" series in high regard.

[timmyquest]

I don't agree with the way Canon markets the "L" series. Take Nikon for example, they don't distinguish their top of the line lenses like Canon, their top of the line lenses are those with f/2.8 which is how Canon should do it. People should know that if they are getting a lens f/2.8 it is going to be the best in it's class. Nikon does have the VR line, but that's just image stablization like Canon has IS.

There is one thing that makes a lens an L lens...it is not the use of the USM motors, it is not the addition of IS, it is the use of florite glass. Which is why the pro-1 is marketed as having an L lens...it does. Not all L lenses are going to be tac sharp.

When i threw my new 70-200 f/2.8 L on my camera i could tell it looked better then my crappy sigma just through the viewfinder. Then when i started looking at photos i noticed (aside from shaper images) better colors, high contrast shadows, and perhaps my biggest suprise...BLUE skies.

Just because Nikon doesnt do something doesnt mean that canon should stop...and just because a lens is f/2.8 doesnt mean it is a good, pro-quality lens.

[Belmondo]

Hmmm, it sounds like to me that you are putting words in my mouth...Nope. Don't want to put words in your mouth.

The problem with the PRO-1, or any P&S camera for that matter, is that there really isn't a 100% objective way to evaluate only the optics, at least as between different brands or between different models by the same manufacturer. You can't put the PRO-1 lens on another body, and you can't use another lens on a PRO-1 body. They are parts of integrated systems that include not just lenses, but sensors, shutters, and myriad other components all of which constitute a package. It really doesn't allow objective analysis of the optics without the possibility that the results are being skewed in some way by other considerations within the camera itself. You certainly can't objectively compare a fixed lens to an interchangeable SLR lens.

I haven't studied the PRO-1, so I have no idea why Canon chose to call that lens an L. Maybe it uses better materials---I just don't know. Apparently you have studied the matter, however, so I'll yield to your better understanding of the subject as it pertains to the PRO-1. Since this is the EOS board, however, I tend to look at things strictly from that standpoint.

I don't know that it's reasonable to feel the use of the L designation on a P&S, even if inappropriately, degrades all the other L lenses in the EF lineup, and on that one point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In any case, I welcome your opinion. It does stimulate some thought, and that's good.

[cmM]

There is one thing that makes a lens an L lens...it is not the use of the USM motors, it is not the addition of IS, it is the use of florite glass.

Pretty much....
Here's a quote from Canon's Website:
A single Fluorite element has the corrective power of 2 UD glass elements, which gives these L series lenses their spectacular performance

there was a whole article about this on Canon's website, but I can;t find it anymore (they changed the site)... I have it printed :wink:

[SENster7]

I think you are all missing my point here. I don't disagree that the "L" lenses are of great quality, I too have the 70-200L 2.8 and love it. I just think Canon went too far when they marketed the Pro 1 with the supposed "L" lens thats all, to me that somewhat tainted the "L" name associating it with a mediocre P&S camera, and making a lot of people think that Canon is in it to market the name, rather than produce the quality. One cannot simply sidestep this issue about the Pro 1 and the "L" lens issue...

[Big_B]

Have posted some results from the lenses here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253112#253112

and here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37702


They aren't as nice to handle as my existing lens but I'm pretty happy with the results. Especially considering the price.

[timmyquest]

that 28mm looks even more tempting now

[Belmondo]

I think you are all missing my point here. I don't disagree that the "L" lenses are of great quality, I too have the 70-200L 2.8 and love it. I just think Canon went too far when they marketed the Pro 1 with the supposed "L" lens thats all, to me that somewhat tainted the "L" name associating it with a mediocre P&S camera, and making a lot of people think that Canon is in it to market the name, rather than produce the quality. One cannot simply sidestep this issue about the Pro 1 and the "L" lens issue...

I guess we'll never know how good the PRO-1 would have been without the L lens.

If I misinterpeted your original remark, I apologize. It sounded like you were suggesting that the quality of a lens was tied mainly to its aperture. In certain lens sizes, it's a good indicator, but not the only measure (as we have now discussed ad nauseum.)

FREE MARTHA!

[SENster7]

I think you are all missing my point here. I don't disagree that the "L" lenses are of great quality, I too have the 70-200L 2.8 and love it. I just think Canon went too far when they marketed the Pro 1 with the supposed "L" lens thats all, to me that somewhat tainted the "L" name associating it with a mediocre P&S camera, and making a lot of people think that Canon is in it to market the name, rather than produce the quality. One cannot simply sidestep this issue about the Pro 1 and the "L" lens issue...

I guess we'll never know how good the PRO-1 would have been without the L lens.

If I misinterpeted your original remark, I apologize. It sounded like you were suggesting that the quality of a lens was tied mainly to its aperture. In certain lens sizes, it's a good indicator, but not the only measure (as we have now discussed ad nauseum.)

FREE MARTHA!

Apology accepted :) Remember I am on your side, I bleed Canon as well :)

[robertwgross]

Sigma is really one of the more schyzophrenic companies out there. Some of their lenses are very good, and some of them are really marginal. That's just the way it is.


That is typical of any technology company that has high turnover in its design staff or management staff.

---Bob Gross---

[Olegis]

Have posted some results from the lenses here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253112#253112

and here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37702


They aren't as nice to handle as my existing lens but I'm pretty happy with the results. Especially considering the price.

Nice work with the telephoto, I like the picture of a flower. Any post-processing on that one ?

[sds4kst8]

I've had great experiences the three Sigma lenses I've owned (or currently own). I started with the 70-200 f2.8, then added the 28-70 fe.28 and, finally, the 120-300 f2.8.

All three lenses have worked find and are great values...maybe the best lens values out there. There certainly isn't anything like the 120-300 and some people can't tell the difference between shots taken with the Canon or Sigma 70-200.

The one constant about all these lenses...they are the EX line. Yea, there are other lenses that might work well enough for certain situations (same with Canon's lineup), but I'd only recommend/use the EX line.

[Big_B]

Nice work with the telephoto

Thanks :oops:


I like the picture of a flower. Any post-processing on that one ?

I can't decide whether my camera does some sharpening when shooting RAW. If so there's a little of that but nothing otherwise. I was pleased with it but the GF wasn't impressed. 'Seen too many bloody flowers....' :twisted:

[robertwgross]

The L series contain special optical elements which are not present in the 'normal' EF range. These elements may be aspheric, of special glass or of flourite, it has nothing to do with aperture. ...

I think you'll find it is fluorite, CaF2 and variations of that.

---Bob Gross---