Lens Testing

Chris,

I *had* the f/4 version, but it had some problems, if you recall (not optical!), and I couldn't replace it quickly enough, so I caved in and paid the difference! I have the non-IS model. The IS was worth an extra "new 85 f/1.8", and makes the lens even heavier, so I decided against it.

So far, no regrets, only when I have to carry it anywhere!

I got myself a pre-loved 300 f/4 L (non IS) this week, and this will have to do me for a while... (my dream lens is the 300 f/2.8 L IS, but I will have to wait until I can justify the expense to *myself*).

From looking at your latest photos (for which you got in trouble ), your Sigma is MUCH softer that your 28-135 IS. What distance were the first two shots taken at? The small text is almost non-existent with the Sigma, yet easily read with the 28-135 IS...

I was kinda disappointed when looking at my test photos taken with the Tokina. I was surprised that it was that much softer than my 28-135 IS, because I can't honestly see that in my photos, but your Sigma is much softer again! I think you're doing the right thing by returning it!

Have you decided on a lens yet? Personally, if you already budgeted for it, I'd go for the 16-35 L... that is, if wide-angle is very important to you. If you can live with the quality of the Tokina (so far I've been able to ), and you're lusting after the 28-70 f/2.8 L (as I do), then that's probably what I would do. The only thing with the 28-70 L is that it's a little short at the long end for my liking... (WHY can't we have everything???)

Good luck in choosing. Let us all know what you decide!

Conclusion

I *had* the f/4 version, but it had some problems, if you recall (not optical!), and I couldn't replace it quickly enough, so I caved in and paid the difference!

Ah, yes. I remember the dust speck in the f/4. You made the right move. Remember the thread recently about Canon's top 3 lenses? I listed each lens mentioned and the number of votes for each. The 70-200 f/2.8 was the huge favorite with 10 votes.

From looking at your latest photos (for which you got in trouble ), your Sigma is MUCH softer that your 28-135 IS. What distance were the first two shots taken at? The small text is almost non-existent with the Sigma, yet easily read with the 28-135 IS...

The first two were about 5.5 feet. The close-ups were about two feet. The 17-35 image quality does seem to fade with distance, which comes as no surprise.

Have you decided on a lens yet? Personally, if you already budgeted for it, I'd go for the 16-35 L... that is, if wide-angle is very important to you. If you can live with the quality of the Tokina (so far I've been able to ), and you're lusting after the 28-70 f/2.8 L (as I do), then that's probably what I would do.

I returned the Sigma 17-35 and ordered both the Tokina 19-35 and the 28-70L from B&H today. I will not be using the 19mm very often, it's just important to address the wide end for special shots.

My greatest need has been a high quality lens that lives on my camera most of the time and the 28-70L has filled that role for hundreds of photographers with far more discerning eyes than mine.

This thread has been fun! It is why I love this place so much. Buying decisions are much easier when done this way. Thanks for the help!

Chris,

there was more to it than just the dust speck, the mounting ring was also damaged (I think the lens was made on a Monday), and that was the last straw! I was willing to let the dust speck go, and maybe have it repaired under warranty later, but the fact that it was an "L" lens, and was not put together properly got to me in the end, and I decided not to let Canon get away with sloppy workmanship...

Let me know how you like the Tokina, and *definitely* let me know about your 28-70 L! It's one that has been at the back of my mind for some time, and it would be good to put my mind at ease one way or another...

You're welcome! It's been fun for me, too...


P.S. Please note that my lens test page has been moved to http://www.users.bigpo​nd.com …emo/lenstest/le​nstest.htm because the free web server on which it was originally was becoming VERY unreliable (I've left the original where it was, but decided to put up the page on my website as well...)

Hello oops

It was a suprice that 70-200L with the ceep 1.7x Converter is so sharp.

Roine

If you're interested in standardized and objective information, try www.photodo.com. They have MTF charts and detailed technical info for pretty much every lens on the market. It's my first stop when considering purchase of any lens.

You'll see that the Canon 28-70 is rated significantly higher than that Sigma.

Actually, that is a Rudi set up, but I agree. Give the credit to the 70-200L, not the 1.7x.

schlepper wrote:
If you're interested in standardized and objective information, try www.photodo.com. They have MTF charts and detailed technical info for pretty much every lens on the market. It's my first stop when considering purchase of any lens.

You'll see that the Canon 28-70 is rated significantly higher than that Sigma.

Thanks, I go there often. I must admit that I don't understand the graphs even after reading theirs and other explainations. I do love the grade system, even though sometimes those I think should be very high are low and visa-versa.

I also like the lens reviews from users @ http://www.photography​review.com/reviewscrx.​aspx

Chris

Great minds think alike!

I go to www.photographyreview.​com as well, and actually prefer to read through reports of actual users, rather than just compare the raw MTF graphs on www.photodo.com. There are things that MTF graphs won't tell you, IMO...

That said, I *always* double-check any potential purchase with photodo, just to make sure!

Oops wrote:
Actually, that is a Rudi set up, but I agree. Give the credit to the 70-200L, not the 1.7x.

Chris,

I think Roine is actually referring to his setup.

One thing I can definitely state is that the Canon EF 1.4x Extender is NOT cheap!

[Chris,

I think Roine is actually referring to his setup.

One thing I can definitely state is that the Canon EF 1.4x Extender is NOT cheap!

Oops. I got confused on that one. He was responding to my "any surprises" question. Sorry for the dim lights, Roine. How long was I out?

The Canon 1.4x has been out of my range for as little as I would use it at this point. I did buy the Tamron 1.4x and it does a very respectable job for now.

oops wrote:
Oops. I got confused on that one.

LOL!

Quote of the week!

Chris, that one cracked me up! Just the combination of your user name and then the comment was priceless!

Hi everyone,

In my quest for sharper and better lenses, here's an update of what I've been up to:

After running too late to pick it up on Saturday afternoon (the shop closes at 2PM), I picked up my brand new 20mm f/2.8 plus lens hood yesterday.

Damn! What a nice lens!

I could get used to this "prime" feeling! After using my new 28mm f/2.8 for most of the weekend (bought it last week), and now this new toy for a few hours, I can see that this will be addictive!

I have taken my 28-135 IS out of the camera bag, so as not to divert my attention from my other lens choices in that focal range (20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and the short end of the 70-200 f/2.8L), and I don't miss it at all! I have also just sold my Tokina 19-35mm zoom, and while I will miss it a little (it did such a good job for so little money), I always used it on the wide end, so the 20mm prime will replace it rather nicely. Plus, I found it a good home, even if it is in the colder climates.

So, keep your eyes peeled for an update of my "Rudi's lenses tested" page in the next few days:

http://www.users.bigpo​nd.com …emo/lenstest/le​nstest.htm

I will also post some new shots in the "critique corner" forum as soon as I get the chance.

Anyone want to offer me any money for a mint 28-135 IS with all original documentation and packaging? (I have had an offer of $325 so far...)