Canon L versus Sigma EX, any true in what George Preddy wr..

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

"eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:428ccb31$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
> Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
>
> John

Yes - I have 2 A3+ glossy film prints from images shot about a year ago on
my 10D. One was taken with my EF 135 f2L, and the other was shot with my
Sigma 17-35 EX HSM (original version, and re-chipped by Sigma UK). There is
no difference in sharpness between this pair of shots - both are excellent
and can be critically examined close up.
However, six months earlier I was in despair about the Sigma zoom.
Performance was truly awful. Then I got my 10D's AF calibrated and the lens
which appeared to benefit most from this was the Sigma (and my EF 50 f1.4 at
full aperture, no more coloured fringes). I was pleasantly surprised with
the improvement on the Sigma. Wish I knew what was going on.

An earlier Sigma lens, the APO 500 f7.2 is too old to work on my 10D, but is
excellent on my EOS3.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

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

"Malcolm Stewart" <malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in news6ik10$i6b$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:

> "eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:428ccb31$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L
>> lenses. Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
>>
>> John
>
> Yes - I have 2 A3+ glossy film prints from images shot about a
> year ago on my 10D. One was taken with my EF 135 f2L, and the
> other was shot with my Sigma 17-35 EX HSM (original version, and
> re-chipped by Sigma UK). There is no difference in sharpness
> between this pair of shots - both are excellent and can be
> critically examined close up. However, six months earlier I was in
> despair about the Sigma zoom. Performance was truly awful. Then I
> got my 10D's AF calibrated and the lens which appeared to benefit
> most from this was the Sigma (and my EF 50 f1.4 at full aperture,
> no more coloured fringes). I was pleasantly surprised with the
> improvement on the Sigma.

Indeed. The Sigma EX pro series lenses are certainly on par, and
actually slightly better than Canon L according to the results of my
extensive testing. Best of all, the price is right.

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

"Malcolm Stewart" <malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news6ik10$i6b$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> --
> M Stewart
> Milton Keynes, UK
> http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
>
>
George Preddy is an American war hero and one time great aviator who does
not deserver to be impersonated by a wanna-be, almost-did, reject like this
idiot. The numb nutted kook who uses his name for Usenet posts is a pathetic
reject of society who has done Sigma more harm with his fanatical ravings
than any lens or camera they ever made has done. Who ever gave him back his
computer ought to go see a counsellor.

Having said that... Sigma do make some lenses which no one can distinguish
the pictures they take from those taken with a genuine camera brand lens.
They are not a pinch on Canon lenses for quality of manufacturer and they
'hunt' back and forth to find the focus point when a true "L" series lens
just goes to the point of focus.

Sigma lenses have noisier motors than a USM lens and the focus motor on
their 100 ~300 EX lens is substantially slower to focus than a USM powered
lens. It is totally unacceptable to me to have paid out $3700 for a lens
claimed and promoted as being a top of the range "Professional" lens and
have it jam it's zoom ring, 80 Klm into the bush. It is even worse to
discover the importer has no stock of the lenses to replace it with and have
to send it to Hong Kong for repair. I'm talking about the 120 ~ 300 f2.8
with a front element so large, it's almost impossible to find any filters
for it. Recalled by Sigma to fix the very same problem mine had... No one
bothered to inform the Aussies.

If you want a cheap lens which can take sharp pictures, DG EX HSM are the
only ones likely to suit. If you want a lens that does all that but focuses
faster, runs quieter and pulls focus in lower light, buy the Canon USM or
'L' series. None of them are as good as Nikon lenses but then Nikon are
still playing with the digital fantasy.

Douglas

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

>
> If you want a cheap lens which can take sharp pictures, DG EX HSM are the
> only ones likely to suit. If you want a lens that does all that but
focuses
> faster, runs quieter and pulls focus in lower light, buy the Canon USM or
> 'L' series. None of them are as good as Nikon lenses but then Nikon are
> still playing with the digital fantasy.
>
> Douglas

So you won't save me any money. I bought my first L lens 2 weeks ago and was
amazed. Now I have to buy 2 or 3 more to complete the set. I imagined I
might be clutching at straws when GP suggested Sigma as the way forward. L
it is now and ever shall be.

John

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

"eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:428ccb31$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
> Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
>
> John

George is a seriously disturbed individual who has made a hobby of spreading
his idiocy on this and other forums for several years now. You would do
well to ALWAYS ignore any advice or information that comes via George.

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

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:SM7je.4376$M36.3051@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> In case you aren't familiar with "Preddy" his statements on Sigma need to
> be
> taken with thousands of pounds of salt.

And yours are to be taken with thousands of more pounds.

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

eatmorepies <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
> Anyone have any experience of using both makes?

I own or have used a fair amount of Canon glass (10-22 EF-S, 17-85
f/4-5.6 EF-S IS, 70-200 f/2.8 EF IS L, 75-300 f/4-5.6 EF IS, 85 f/1.8
EF), and own one Sigma 28-200 that was quite happy with throughout its
life (though I don't use it anymore), and I've been reading a lot of
Sigma and Canon reviews fairly carefully.

The ultra-short version is that Sigma does make lenses that can
outperform equivalent Canon L-series lenses... and have a 50%
defective lens rate on most of them. Be prepared to test and return.

Also, not many Sigma lenses have HSM (their equivalent to USM, which
is now standard on just about every Canon lens), and only one has OS
(the equivalent of Canon IS). This means that most of their lenses
will focus slowly and noisily, and they tend to have very stiff zoom
rings to top it off. Also, they don't make lenses to match everything
in the Canon lineup (there's no equivalent to my Canon 85mm f/1.8, for
instance, and I doubt they could match the sharpness if they did,
since that lens at f/2.8 has the sharpness of God's razor).

On the other hand, they range between around 40% to 60% of the price
of equivalent Canon lenses, and if you can get a good one, sharpness
is as good as or better than Canon. The Sigma 80-400 EX OS is getting
rave reviews from every single source I can find, with the only
complaints being the lack of HSM/USM, stiff zoom ring, and inverted
zoom ring/focus ring positions from what most people are used to.

That doesn't mean that George Preddy isn't a net kook, however (he
certainly comes off that way). I advise checking the user reviews at
www.fredmiranda.com as a good starting point, and checking for others
via Google before making any buying decisions.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

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

In message <200520050612520778%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article
><428dae5c$0$250$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.
>au>, Ben Cramer <bencramer7@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I have certainly found the Sigma 80-400 OS to be a very capable lens. It is
>> far and away a better lens than my Canon 28-300L

>Guess you haven't set your standards very high.

He didn't; his standard was the Canon 28-300L, which is a very
low-quality lens, optically.
--

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

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

"Tumbleweed" <Shovels@five.paces> wrote in message
news6pb6h$jlq$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> There's a combination of factors.
> The volume of air displaced depends on the maximum aperture of the lens
and
> also the optical construction. (does it have moving internal optics rather
> than using physical extension of the lens barrel.) Then there is the speed
> of extension. Typically a trombone zoom moves faster than a helical zoom,
> creating a greater instantaneous pressure drop or rise. Then there's the
> physical construction of the lens - how effective the seals are.

Would you know if any zooms incorporate low resistance but filtered internal
air paths, so that the seals don't have to work so hard?
It's not a problem which bothers me much as I now tend to use primes most of
the time, and my zooms are gathering dust on their lens caps!

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

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

In article <rdjke.3314$Xh.2037@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net says...
> >> That is the one drawback to the Canon 100-400 that I've observed, you can
> >> hear the air moving in and out in the lens as you zoom.
> >
> > It is a bit disconseriting when you hear that sound and realize what's
> > going on...
> > On the other hand, my 100-400 was almost entirely free of internal dust
> > after 5 years of heavy use.
> >
> >
> >
> Mine isn't...
>
> --
>
There is a big variation in the amount of dust present in different
environments and operation for a short time in a very dusty environment
can make a mess.

You would think it would be simple to build a small filter onto the vent
and eliminate this problem, especially for an L lens. Is the vent
evident? If so, you may be able to add a tiny filter by glueing a small
ring of filter paper from a car aircleaner over the hole.

Looking at my lowly 100-300 I can't see any vent hole - it seems as
though the air enters around the front edge of the zoom ring. Maybe I
can put a filter around the front ring? You have me thinking anyway.

cheers - Bruce G

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

In article <gIuke.43870$Qp.975@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> says...
>
> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cfd0dc9e1e51637989872@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <rdjke.3314$Xh.2037@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net says...
> >> >> That is the one drawback to the Canon 100-400 that I've observed, you
> >> >> can
> >> >> hear the air moving in and out in the lens as you zoom.
> >> >
> >> > It is a bit disconseriting when you hear that sound and realize what's
> >> > going on...
> >> > On the other hand, my 100-400 was almost entirely free of internal dust
> >> > after 5 years of heavy use.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Mine isn't...
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> > There is a big variation in the amount of dust present in different
> > environments and operation for a short time in a very dusty environment
> > can make a mess.
> >
> > You would think it would be simple to build a small filter onto the vent
> > and eliminate this problem, especially for an L lens. Is the vent
> > evident? If so, you may be able to add a tiny filter by glueing a small
> > ring of filter paper from a car aircleaner over the hole.
> >
> > Looking at my lowly 100-300 I can't see any vent hole - it seems as
> > though the air enters around the front edge of the zoom ring. Maybe I
> > can put a filter around the front ring? You have me thinking anyway.
> >
> > cheers - Bruce G
>
> I don't have the lens any more (sold it), but there's no dedicated vent.
> From what I could tell...the air just seemed to go in and out around the
> barrel of the lens where the outer barrel slid over the inner barrel as you
> moved teh push/pull zoom. I think it would be pretty tough to make a filter
> for this...
>
a tight weave sweatband that I have heard some people use *might* filter
more than it sheds - you would need to be careful about the material used
though and I don't know how you could test for shedding.