Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sigma 12-24 vs Canon 10-22

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 7:45:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side comparison
of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...

More about : sigma canon

Anonymous
December 9, 2004 7:45:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041209114557.23249.00001847@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side
> comparison
> of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...

Bill, thanks for posting this as I am thinking about buying such a lens. I
find it hard to believe that the Sigma is that bad. I read the whole page
(including the quality control issue) and still find it puzzling. I'd
rather get the Sigma because I am worried about EF-S lenses rapidly
decreasing in value in the future (say two years). I now own one Sigma lens
and like it.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:

> Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side comparison
> of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...

Really almost unbelievable that the Sigma could be that bad. Did he get
a lemon?

Phil
Related resources
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:43:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Phil Wheeler w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com
>
>Really almost unbelievable that the Sigma could be that bad. Did he get
>a lemon?

He asks this same question in the "Update" at the bottom of the page, after
Sigma owners wrote in suggesting it was a problem with Sigma's quality control
....
December 9, 2004 8:45:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

While I'm sure the Canon is significantly better than the Sigma, The
Landscaper has a tendency to fudge his tests to make a point. I'd look to a
serious reviewer before trusting anything on his site.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041209114557.23249.00001847@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side
comparison
> of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:29:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) writes:

> Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side
> comparison of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...

I've often thought that quality control is a bigger difference between
"top" and "good" lens makers than actual lens design. And since no
testing group/magazine I know of tests enough independent samples of
lenses to determine anything useful in this area, the tests are of
considerably reduced value.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:30:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>> Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side comparison
>> of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...
>
> Really almost unbelievable that the Sigma could be that bad. Did he
> get a lemon?

Yes, he did. At least, the added notes towards the bottom of the page
clearly suggest that to me, and the one I tested was not nearly as bad
as the one he had (I don't think; it's not actually clear to me how
much of a crop that horrid example is showing). In fact it was pretty
darned good, especially for a < $700 lens that covers full frame.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:52:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Charles Schuler" charleschuler@comcast.net
>
>Bill, thanks for posting this as I am thinking about buying such a lens. I
>find it hard to believe that the Sigma is that bad. I read the whole page
>(including the quality control issue) and still find it puzzling. I'd
>rather get the Sigma because I am worried about EF-S lenses rapidly
>decreasing in value in the future (say two years). I now own one Sigma lens
>and like it.

What I took from the discussion is this ... if you're going to buy a Sigma lens
then test it thorougly as soon as you get it and if it's a lemon exchange it
right away ...
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 6:19:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side comparison
>>>of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>>>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...
>>
>>Really almost unbelievable that the Sigma could be that bad. Did he
>>get a lemon?
>
>
> Yes, he did. At least, the added notes towards the bottom of the page
> clearly suggest that to me, and the one I tested was not nearly as bad
> as the one he had (I don't think; it's not actually clear to me how
> much of a crop that horrid example is showing). In fact it was pretty
> darned good, especially for a < $700 lens that covers full frame.

My take, too, David. I've seen some very nice results posted using the
Sigma 12-24 lens -- and some not-great ones with the Canon 10-22.
While I'm not a Sigma fan (use only their 15 mm f/2.8 fisheye), I
believe the 12-24 to be far better than the sample posted at the above
link suggests.

Phil
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:25:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LW%td.3983$hd.2362@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
>
> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
> > Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side
comparison
> > of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
> >
> >
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...
>
> Really almost unbelievable that the Sigma could be that bad. Did he get
> a lemon?
>
> Phil
>
I've seen this sort of thing before... Between 2 Canon lenses! The problem
in that instance was 'back focus'. The distance between the film plane and
the rear element that each type of lens relies on for focus.

The information missing from that article is related to short distance
(digital only) lenses and a conventional lens. I have discovered with my
own tests with the 20D that it has "issues" with conventional 35mm lenses if
they are not adjusted specifically for that camera.

The digital only lenses are less likely to produce out of focus results
because of the closeness to the film plane (sensor) compared to 35mm lenses.
Minute adjustments are critical now where in the past they were not. 1D II
users won't notice the problem anywhere near as much as owners of the new
300D and 20D will. Even the 10D owners won't see these differences. A cheap
($50- or free under warranty) back focus adjustment of the lens fixes that
issue. Why do you suppose he posted those 2 shots without mentioning this
factor?

Doug
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:25:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31rts2F3edt8mU1@individual.net:

> The digital only lenses are less likely to produce out of focus
> results because of the closeness to the film plane (sensor) compared
> to 35mm lenses.

Why should that be so?

> Minute adjustments are critical now where in the past
> they were not. 1D II users won't notice the problem anywhere near as
> much as owners of the new 300D and 20D will. Even the 10D owners won't
> see these differences.

300D and 10D has almost the same sensor. So ... what
are you talking about?

> A cheap ($50- or free under warranty) back
> focus adjustment of the lens fixes that issue.

What issue?

> Why do you suppose he
> posted those 2 shots without mentioning this factor?

What factor?



/Roland
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:25:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> "Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LW%td.3983$hd.2362@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
>>
>>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Check this link and scroll down a couple of pages to a side-by-side
>
> comparison
>
>>>of these two lenses at f/8 ... amazing ...
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-...
>
>>Really almost unbelievable that the Sigma could be that bad. Did he get
>>a lemon?
>>
>>Phil
>>
>
> I've seen this sort of thing before... Between 2 Canon lenses! The problem
> in that instance was 'back focus'. The distance between the film plane and
> the rear element that each type of lens relies on for focus.
>
> The information missing from that article is related to short distance
> (digital only) lenses and a conventional lens. I have discovered with my
> own tests with the 20D that it has "issues" with conventional 35mm lenses if
> they are not adjusted specifically for that camera.
>
> The digital only lenses are less likely to produce out of focus results
> because of the closeness to the film plane (sensor) compared to 35mm lenses.
> Minute adjustments are critical now where in the past they were not. 1D II
> users won't notice the problem anywhere near as much as owners of the new
> 300D and 20D will. Even the 10D owners won't see these differences. A cheap
> ($50- or free under warranty) back focus adjustment of the lens fixes that
> issue. Why do you suppose he posted those 2 shots without mentioning this
> factor?
>

Interesting question!
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:42:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BAE8BFC72E1klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:31rts2F3edt8mU1@individual.net:
>
>
> Why should that be so?
> 300D and 10D has almost the same sensor. So ... what are you talking
about?
> What issue?
> What factor?
> /Roland

No doubt about it Roland... You sure know how to communicate!
Sensor size has nought to do with the back plane distance, Roland.

10D is not able to accept EF-S lenses which protrude further into the camera
than a 35mm SLR lens. This means they don't have the rather unique
'problems' that the 300D and 20D have. These are the only two cameras which
accept Canon's 10~22 zoom lens. Meaningful comparison between the Canon and
Sigma lenses are not possible because they could only be done on a 20D. The
300D does not have the (unmodified) functionality to carry out such a test.

The 2, 20D's I bought had issues when using pure 35mm lenses which were
perfect on the 10D. The Sigma lens is a 35mm lens and was designed before
the 20D existed.

As the man who built my boat told me when I questioned the accuracy of his
measurements after I saw him mark the plating with 10mm wide piece of chalk:
" 3mm variation might be significant on a foot rule but hell man, I'm
building a 48 foot boat here!"

The closer you move the rear element to the sensor, the less focus errors
you'll get. When you then attempt to use a different element to sensor
distance, the potential for focus errors increase. If the Sigma lenses are
adjusted and the focus point properly re-calibrated, their will be less
variation between the two lenses.

Starting to get in inkling yet Roland?

Doug
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:07:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31s2cjF3eqj7jU1@individual.net:

> The closer you move the rear element to the sensor, the less focus
> errors you'll get.

That I don't believe until you show me why. Do you have any
technically valid explanation for this claim or maybe a reference.
And this is really the essence of my questions. My knowledge in
optics tells me that the distance between rear lens and the sensor
has nothing at all to do with accuracy in focussing. The rear
lens is just a part of the optical path. With a rear lens
further away, it is air that plays that part. How can this
affect focussing accuracy?

> When you then attempt to use a different element to
> sensor distance, the potential for focus errors increase. If the Sigma
> lenses are adjusted and the focus point properly re-calibrated, their
> will be less variation between the two lenses.

Now - please tell me about focus recalibration. What do you
do with the lens to improve focussing? It must be something
that the focussing measurement in the camera uses. What is
it?

> Starting to get in inkling yet Roland?

Nope - not a clue.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:58:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BBEB486AD58klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>
> Now - please tell me about focus recalibration. What do you
> do with the lens to improve focussing? It must be something
> that the focussing measurement in the camera uses. What is
> it?
>
> > Starting to get in inkling yet Roland?
>
> Nope - not a clue.
>
You are not as wise about cameras and optics as you claim Roland if you need
to ask this question.
Here you are attempting to include the electronics of a camera in the
physical alignment of elements of a lens. You cannot do this. The Canon
autofocus system drives a motor in the lens. The electronics of the camera
can only therefore make 2 focus adjustments to a lens. In and out of the
focus element(s).

The distance between the rear element of a lens and the film plane is the
"back focus" and miss-alignment of which is responsible for more "fuzzy
focus" claims of otherwise decent lenses than any other single reason. As
the back focus distance reduces, the opportunity for correction by shims
(the old way) or adjustment to the position of the sensor becomes less
tolerant to variation as it could be.

The Canon plastic lenses, with plastic mounts cannot be calibrated. The
mount is moulded into the body of the lens. To offset the need for accurate
calibration to obtain sharp(er) focus, Canon have not produced a wide
aperture lens of this type. Instead they rely on the accuracy of 'L' series
lenses to provide sharp focus with wide apertures.

Canon's specs for 20D are that the auto focus shall be anywhere inside the
DOF of a lens. Quite obviously the DOF of f5.6 is going to be greater than
the DOF of f2.8 so... The 35mm lenses which have f2.8 apertures often need
to be recalibrated to match the back focus of any given camera which varies
more than it should.

I don't know how to accurately adjust the Canon 'D' bodies for back focus
errors. My shims are not thin enough for this purpose. I can however
calibrate a 35mm lens to adjust the back focus which basically gives the
same results. To ascertain if the camera/lens combination has back focus
errors is time consuming but a lot easier now than with film cameras.

Create a 'chart' of vertical lines about 2 or 3 mm apart and as thin as your
printer will produce. Make one line in the centre more pronounced than the
rest and make this the point of focus. Stick the chart flat on a wall and
position the camera on a tripod at 45 degree angle to the wall and
vertically aligned. Preferably via a spirit level. I have a special setup in
my workshop which is more elaborate than this but this is good enough for
most users.

At about 600 mm distance (more or less) from the chart, focus at full
aperture on the focus point. If you can, lock the mirror up and shoot a
picture. From examination of the picture you can see exactly which point the
camera is focusing on. Forward or back of the actual focus point. Lenses
with f3.5 and smaller apertures will have more of the lines either side of
the focus point in focus but you can count them and if there are more one
side than the other, it has a back focus problem.

I highly recommend anyone who buys a lens to carry out this test before they
do anything else. Even if they choose to accept the focus error, at least
they will know the lenses capability. Tests like the one that started this
thread are only put up to develop conjecture and provide publicity for a
site not deserving of such publicity in the first place.

Doug
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:58:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:31ur76F3b02e0U1@individual.net...
>
>
> The Canon plastic lenses, with plastic mounts cannot be calibrated. The
> mount is moulded into the body of the lens. To offset the need for
> accurate
> calibration to obtain sharp(er) focus, Canon have not produced a wide
> aperture lens of this type. Instead they rely on the accuracy of 'L'
> series
> lenses to provide sharp focus with wide apertures.
>


If Canon produces no plastic mount lenses with a "wide" aperture, just what
is the 50mm f1.8 II?
But I'll agree, I can see where this could lead to focus problems with
lenses designed for film. But it I have them calibrated, will they still
function properly on a film camera?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 4:07:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in news:31ur76F3b02e0U1@individual.net:

> The distance between the rear element of a lens and the film plane is the
> "back focus" and miss-alignment of which is responsible for more "fuzzy
> focus" claims of otherwise decent lenses than any other single reason. As
> the back focus distance reduces, the opportunity for correction by shims
> (the old way) or adjustment to the position of the sensor becomes less
> tolerant to variation as it could be.

Both the sensor and the focus meassurement CCD are
positioned in the camera body. I cannot see how adjusting
the mount of the lens can improve anything at all. If you
put shims to increase the distance lens-sensor you will
also increase the distance lens-autofocussensor. Therefore,
the auto focus mechanism will adjust to the same faulty
focussed image.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 10:23:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:D Nqud.621$2r.13@fed1read02...
> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:31ur76F3b02e0U1@individual.net...
> >
> >
> > The Canon plastic lenses, with plastic mounts cannot be calibrated. The
> > mount is moulded into the body of the lens. To offset the need for
> > accurate
> > calibration to obtain sharp(er) focus, Canon have not produced a wide
> > aperture lens of this type. Instead they rely on the accuracy of 'L'
> > series
> > lenses to provide sharp focus with wide apertures.
> >
>
>
> If Canon produces no plastic mount lenses with a "wide" aperture, just
what
> is the 50mm f1.8 II?
> But I'll agree, I can see where this could lead to focus problems with
> lenses designed for film. But it I have them calibrated, will they still
> function properly on a film camera?
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Skip...
After you actually fit a 50mm f1.8 II lens to your 20D and take some photos,
come back and answer your own question! The problem of calibrating a lens to
suit a camera is that it probably won't suit any other camera. I said
earlier that I didn't know how to adjust the back focus on a 20D body so I
did it with the lenses instead.

In Australia it is against the law to refuse to provide service data to
independent technicians. This hasn't stopped Canon. Each and every day they
refuse to provide parts and essencial service data to independant
technicians. Claiming they have a service network in place and to supply
such information outside of that network would/could result in a low
standared of repair. If some of the stuff I get after an "Authorised" Canon
repairer has stuffed it is any indication, I'd say the reverse is true!

One day, I'll do to them what my former boss did to Philips and take them
on. He got the circuit diagrams for Philips TVs - 2 years after they were
asked for! The part I get so angry about with rogue multinational companies
is that they come to my country intent of profiting from it population and
simply ignore it's laws. Canon are past masters at this.

Doug
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 10:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:31vsaqF3fva6aU1@individual.net...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:D Nqud.621$2r.13@fed1read02...
>> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:31ur76F3b02e0U1@individual.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > The Canon plastic lenses, with plastic mounts cannot be calibrated. The
>> > mount is moulded into the body of the lens. To offset the need for
>> > accurate
>> > calibration to obtain sharp(er) focus, Canon have not produced a wide
>> > aperture lens of this type. Instead they rely on the accuracy of 'L'
>> > series
>> > lenses to provide sharp focus with wide apertures.
>> >
>>
>>
>> If Canon produces no plastic mount lenses with a "wide" aperture, just
> what
>> is the 50mm f1.8 II?
>> But I'll agree, I can see where this could lead to focus problems with
>> lenses designed for film. But it I have them calibrated, will they still
>> function properly on a film camera?
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
> Skip...
> After you actually fit a 50mm f1.8 II lens to your 20D and take some
> photos,
> come back and answer your own question! The problem of calibrating a lens
> to
> suit a camera is that it probably won't suit any other camera. I said
> earlier that I didn't know how to adjust the back focus on a 20D body so I
> did it with the lenses instead.
>
> In Australia it is against the law to refuse to provide service data to
> independent technicians. This hasn't stopped Canon. Each and every day
> they
> refuse to provide parts and essencial service data to independant
> technicians. Claiming they have a service network in place and to supply
> such information outside of that network would/could result in a low
> standared of repair. If some of the stuff I get after an "Authorised"
> Canon
> repairer has stuffed it is any indication, I'd say the reverse is true!
>
> One day, I'll do to them what my former boss did to Philips and take them
> on. He got the circuit diagrams for Philips TVs - 2 years after they were
> asked for! The part I get so angry about with rogue multinational
> companies
> is that they come to my country intent of profiting from it population and
> simply ignore it's laws. Canon are past masters at this.
>
> Doug
>
>
I've taken some stuff with the 50mm f1.8, they're ok, but not great. I'd
hesitate to have my lenses recalibrated, since I do still use them on other
cameras, and the problem hasn't manifested itself to a horrifying degree.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 3:01:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <31rts2F3edt8mU1@individual.net>,
"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have discovered with my
>own tests with the 20D that it has "issues" with conventional 35mm lenses if
>they are not adjusted specifically for that camera.

I have discovered that my 20D auto-focuses near-perfectly with every one
of 12 lenses I own, out of the box with no adjustments, and my 10D was
at least a little backfocused with all of them, and way off with one of
them (24mm f/1.4 L).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!