Pro's using sigma lenses

I don't think most clients even know the difference..unless of course they images are not up to par or if they have knowledge of photography. I have a sigma macro and LOVE It, I have a canon and love it...I have a tamron 28-200-its okay, gets the job done but always needs a bit more sharpening unfortunately!

marian wrote in post #2461113
To cdi-ink.com

Your comment doesn't make any sense at all!

I have been to several Monte Zucker (I'm just using him, in this case) seminars and as every pro who does the circuit, you walk into the hall and there are all his large 20x20's (and larger) prints on display. At that time period (Film) he shot with Hasselbald and in close examination, I noticed prints that were out of focus! (I thought Hasselblad lenses were tack sharp!)

Let me "fast forward" now to just a few months back! I went to WPPI in Las Vegas (Did you?) and they had every print hanging up there from competition for display, for the genenral public to look at.

You could NOT walk down the displays and say...... "Oh, that was shot with a Sigma!" ..... "Oh, this was shot with a Tamron!"...... "There's a Canon lens that shot this picture!" "Now, here's a shot that was made with a Nikon lens!"

Get my point?

Keep reading my comment, as many times as necessary. One day you'll get it.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2462218
Keep reading my comment, as many times as necessary. One day you'll get it.

Do you have quantitative data that proves third party lenses miss focus more then Canons? My 30 is perfect, yet my friends 50 1.4 is in severe need of service.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2456790
Optically, no. Most of the time you can't see a difference or tell what camera/lens took a shot. But there's more to a lens than just optics. If someone showed me 2 identical, or nearly so, shots in which one was focused and the other missed, I would be certain the missed focus was from a 3rd party lens and the in focus one was OEM. Original Canon gear with USM just works better. It almost always focuses where 3rd party misses, or at the very least it misses a lot less often in the same conditions.

Man, this is one of the most silly comments I have read from someone who seems to have been around for a while. Canons consumer lenses perform just as crappy as other companies consumer lenses - even with Canon printed proudly on the side of them. There are tons of reasons to buy or not buy a lens but to make a sweeping generalization like this shows CDI that you have been drinking the juice way to long. The majority of the work I do is with Canon branded lenses - very often the little red ringed type. But I would never made such a broad sweeping statement.

Croasdail wrote in post #2462283
Man, this is one of the most silly comments I have read from someone who seems to have been around for a while. Canons consumer lenses perform just as crappy as other companies consumer lenses - even with Canon printed proudly on the side of them. There are tons of reasons to buy or not buy a lens but to make a sweeping generalization like this shows CDI that you have been drinking the juice way to long. The majority of the work I do is with Canon branded lenses - very often the little red ringed type. But I would never made such a broad sweeping statement.

Canon USM will focus better than 3rd party without HSM/USM. Most third party does not have any kind of HSM/USM motor. If you take the time to actually read and comprehend what I said, you'll probably agree with me.

I did NOT say all Canon beats all third party. I said if you give me 2 shots in less than perfect conditions (with all else being equal), and one being out of focus with the other in focus, then the out of focus is probably the third party glass. Even in the top end long/fast glass, Canon's USM is faster than, say, Sigma HSM. That's just how it is. I also said that Canon USM will focus where 3rd party hunts, and that's true too. You will rarely ever see a 3rd party lock focus with the Canon "equivalent" hunting. And no, Canon will not ALWAYS focus when 3rd party doesn't, but it has a better chance. If it's dismal enough, nothing will focus without IR assist.

Now autofocus is one thing that pisses me off when it comes to Canon cameras.

1. Supposedly the 350D, one of the most popular cameras, has 2nd generation focus algorithms, that are faulty with apertures larger than 2.8. That's not acceptable to me.

2. Why are Canon's 1D (pro) cameras faster with AF than my XT, or a 20/30D? Why should they be allowed to have faster AF, with the same lens?

3. Why does Canon keep their algorithms so secret, that 3rd party lenses can't perform the same, because they can't totally communicate properly.


I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.

jcw122 wrote in post #2462966
I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.

Pretty much explains everything right there, but Nikon isn't any differen't

Just the nature of the beast I guess

jcw122 wrote in post #2462966
Now autofocus is one thing that pisses me off when it comes to Canon cameras.

1. Supposedly the 350D, one of the most popular cameras, has 2nd generation focus algorithms, that are faulty with apertures larger than 2.8. That's not acceptable to me.

2. Why are Canon's 1D (pro) cameras faster with AF than my XT, or a 20/30D? Why should they be allowed to have faster AF, with the same lens?

3. Why does Canon keep their algorithms so secret, that 3rd party lenses can't perform the same, because they can't totally communicate properly.


I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.

If you want/need 1 series autofocus, buy a 1 series. Are they expensive? Yes, of course. But they're worth it if you need it.

What irritates me (not really because I don't truly care) is people who complain because a for-profit company doesn't give them a 5 star meal for the price of fast food.

.... except Canon's advertising campaign is very misleading. Canon keeps showing "shots" taken by mom or pop using an xt or a point and shoot that are increadably timed sports shot. And yet they dumb down those cameras with shutter lag and poor focusing speed. It is a total misrepresentation of what the cameras really can be reasonably be expected to do. Chevy doesn't run adds implying their mini van can carve up a mountain pass like a Corvette.

Back to subject though, it is well known that Canon will not share with the 3rd parties, but I think they take it a step further and overtly try to make their stuff incompatible. I know that my Sigma zoom used to focus faster with my 20D before I had a firmware update when Canon replaced the shutter box. On the 1D which has not had a firmware update in years, it performs just as well. It's one thing to not share, it is another thing to retroactively make things so that don't work as well.

I know many will say it is within their right... and thay may be true. But not many would put up with Canon having propriatary memory cards. Car owners wouldn't like it if car companies made it so you could only use their brand parts on the car - windshield wipers, oil filters, spark plugs, belts, tires, etc. I think a reasonable person would expect a cheaper part to not last as long. But that some person I think would not expect the car company to make the car sense a 3rd party product and then tune itself to run poorer.

Last stop on this ramble.... to CDI's remark that some of these 3rd party lenses may focus slower. That may be true, but it also may not matter. Lets say the Sigma 70-200 is a slower focusing lens then it's Canon counterpart. So what. I still get as many keepers and in focus shots as I do with the Canon. It just doesn't matter. Back to the car example... lets say the Canon car can pull .94 g and the Sigma car .91 g. The Canon clearly can handle better. But even on the Autobahn, neither would be coming close to need meeting that limit... you could run the road at the same speed because neither is running anywhere near it's max G limit. The same is true of the lenses and their focusing speed. If you know what your doing, you will track properly, have the right sight lines, you will never get to the point that focus speed is even an issue. Heck I have even shot indoor basketball with a Tamron 28-70, hardly a fast focusing lens, and had no problem getting shots. And I am by far not the best sports shooter out there, so others should be able to do it as well.

Focus speed is such an over hyped issue. Where I have more issues with 3rd party lenses is with color, contrast, saturation, and back ground blur shaped by blade design. That is where sometimes you can see a real difference. And yes, you can fix most of these in post production... but the canon lenses really reduce this work a lot. And to a pro who has hundreds if not thousands of shots to work per week, anything that reduces your work flow effort - is worth the extra money.

Ah.. I am done .... sorry all.

jcw122 wrote in post #2462966
Now autofocus is one thing that pisses me off when it comes to Canon cameras.

1. Supposedly the 350D, one of the most popular cameras, has 2nd generation focus algorithms, that are faulty with apertures larger than 2.8. That's not acceptable to me.

What? Supposedly? Sounds like DPreview Bunk to me.

So, a $600.00 camera should AF and have all the features and advances of a $5000.00 camera?
This makes no sense at all. I'm also not sure what "algorithms" means, the difference in AF between the $5K 1-series and the $600.00 XT is hardware, not any form of programming.
Much more involved, denser AF sensors, and more advance and more expensive processing hardware make the 1 series AF what it is. Not some arbitrary programing by Canon. If the XT had the 1 series AF system it would jack the price up by $2k

Again, having differing products at differing price points for different users is hardly a conspiracy plot executed by Canon, this is both business and reality based on the cost of technology.

CW, I don't mean to sound like I'm coming down hard on you, but I'm not sure what it is that you honestly expect from what you are saying. It reads to me that you would prefer that Canon not make any cameras better than the $600.00 models, and abandon the high end models all together. You can find that currently Sony is limited to one model, and Pentax line are all similar specs,. is this the preferred model?

Croasdail wrote in post #2463977
.... except Canon's advertising campaign is very misleading. Canon keeps showing "shots" taken by mom or pop using an xt or a point and shoot that are increadably timed sports shot. And yet they dumb down those cameras with shutter lag and poor focusing speed.

Again, these cameras are not "dumbed down" or crippled in any way. They are cost effective. Faster AF and shutter speeds simply costs more.
Canon is offering a lower cost alternative, and these cameras are fully capable of taking the images that the advertisements illustrate, in fact they did take those pics. In fact the New XTI can take images in lower light than my aging 1D MkII due to the improvements in AF tech incorporated into that "dumbed down" model,. but this does not mean that Canon can incorporate the 1D 45 point AF system and all the associated dedicated processing hardware into that body and still sell it for the same low price.

C'mon guys this is basic real world economics,. if you really fell that Canon is just ripping you off then ditch your XT's for the Pentax or Sony. See if they AF a lot better.

CYber...being able to take shots at lower LUX levels hardly means you can track a fast moving object. Canon is advertising your going to get SI level shots with an xti and a kit lens. Total BS. Not going to happen - in real world conditions. No way. There is way more to it then low light focusing. There is also a little factor of shutter lag. And Canon had better have upped the low lux performance. The Canons focus faster then the Nikons, but the Nikons keep focus lock when the Canons start hunting in low light. The difference isn't even funny. Spend some time over in the sports forum and see how many unhappy peps are out there they are now surprised to know they need to drop 1500 on a 70-200 lens to realistically be able to take those shots. It's this little thing called truth in advertising.

No one is saying put the 45 point AF system into the entry camera... no one. But at the same time, I don't expect that when I send a camera in for service, that lenses that worked fine before from third parties now focus at half the speed they did before. Call me a cry baby - but I don't think that is right. I guess it is Canons right to F with my camera, but I think I also have the right to not be happy with it.

So then, Croasdail, your beef is with marketing. That has nothing to do with 3rd party vs OEM glass. And guess what....AF speed does matter to some people. It really does. Maybe not to you, but to others.

Too many people are trying to spend there way into being good photographers - rather then putting in the time to learn how to be good photographers. That's kind of where the marketing message meets the road. All the white lenses in the world will not make you good shooter if you don't first learn the basics. Once you master those, you may find you don't "need" those expensive lenses to get good results.

Croasdail wrote in post #2464640
Too many people are trying to spend there way into being good photographers - rather then putting in the time to learn how to be good photographers. That's kind of where the marketing message meets the road. All the white lenses in the world will not make you good shooter if you don't first learn the basics. Once you master those, you may find you don't "need" those expensive lenses to get good results.

This seems to be directly in contradiction of your posts that say that Canon's ad's for the Rebel line are so wrong because no one could possibly use a rebel to get the images they use in the ads..

Canon is saying (and rightly so IMHO) that you can get some great images with there low budget digital,. and you poopooed them above for this same thing. Now your mad that Canon is saying you need expensive gear and White lenses to get good photos? When and where have they said that?

Also, If AF speed does not matter to you, then why is it such a shame that Canon won't put faster AF speed into the lower priced models?

Hate to badger anyone in any thread, but really I can;'t follow any of what you are saying as all your posts seem to contradict the ones you just made prior.