Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:58:59 PM

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

Since that last thread was so popular ;-)

In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?

I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).

More about : sigma tamron eos

December 7, 2004 9:59:00 PM

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

you know who maybe wrote:
> Since that last thread was so popular ;-)
>
> In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
>
> I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
> or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
> bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
>
>
I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used
one or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and
digital and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300,
the 19-35 and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm
looking to buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building
back up a bit ;-). I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago
and it was one of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go
wrong with Tamron glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in
many years but I was still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't
really know what their [Sigma's] quality is like now.

By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.

Zach
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:59:00 PM

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

you know who maybe wrote:

> Since that last thread was so popular ;-)
>
> In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
>
> I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
> or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
> bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).


My take on it is that Sigma make a lot of lens models, and Tamron fewer. Sigma
have a few decent lenses; Tamron have a higher % of decent lenses.

Another way to say it is if looking for a third party lens, I would examine
Tokina and Tamron lenses before looking at the equivalent Sigma and I'd make
sure the Sigma was better before selecting it over the other two.

The 28-75 f/2.8 is likely to perform close to the 28-70 f/2.8 from Canon (which
is a fine lens, and should be at over $1100). The Canon is better (and 3x the
price).

The 28-300 is a stay away lens except perhaps for travel where you want memories
but not necessarily the sharpest phots. (I did see a travelogue slide
presentation done with a 28-300 (Sigma or Tamron) and I was impressed. But the
photographer was much above average.)

Were I you, I'd consider something with more range than the 28-75 and better
optics than the 28-300 such as the Canon 28-135 IS.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:47:53 PM

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

"Zach" <zsmith@cox.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:o votd.70847$GN4.1794@okepread02...
> you know who maybe wrote:
>> Since that last thread was so popular ;-)
>>
>> In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
>>
>> I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
>> f/2.8 or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly
>> (not too bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
> I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used one
> or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and digital
> and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300, the 19-35
> and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm looking to
> buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building back up a bit
> ;-). I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago and it was one
> of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go wrong with Tamron
> glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in many years but I was
> still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't really know what their
> [Sigma's] quality is like now.
>
> By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.

Of my L glass (17-40, 70-200, 100-400) I've got nothing faster than f/4
except a Sigma 15mm fisheye which is pretty soft at max aperture f/2.8 so I
was wondering if the Tamron was like the Sigma in that it's not very good at
f/2.8, and a general comparison of the company and their standards.

Thanks
December 7, 2004 11:47:54 PM

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

you know who maybe wrote:
> "Zach" <zsmith@cox.net.nospam> wrote in message
> news:o votd.70847$GN4.1794@okepread02...
>
>>you know who maybe wrote:
>>
>>>Since that last thread was so popular ;-)
>>>
>>>In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
>>>
>>>I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
>>>f/2.8 or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly
>>>(not too bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
>>
>>I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used one
>>or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and digital
>>and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300, the 19-35
>>and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm looking to
>>buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building back up a bit
>>;-). I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago and it was one
>>of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go wrong with Tamron
>>glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in many years but I was
>>still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't really know what their
>>[Sigma's] quality is like now.
>>
>>By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.
>
>
> Of my L glass (17-40, 70-200, 100-400) I've got nothing faster than f/4
> except a Sigma 15mm fisheye which is pretty soft at max aperture f/2.8 so I
> was wondering if the Tamron was like the Sigma in that it's not very good at
> f/2.8, and a general comparison of the company and their standards.
>
> Thanks
>
>
The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack
sharp at any aperture. The ones I own now are either 3.5 or 4.0 but
still just as sharp although the view is slightly dimmer than with 2.8
on down (of course, that'll be the scenario w/ any make of lens). I
don't quite understand what you mean about the general comparison of the
company and their standards. I've never had a problem with any lens
from them either now or from 18 years ago (I just took up photography
again after that time lapse) so I can't speak for customer service or
other entities within the company. You can go to their web site to find
out more about them and what their business practices may entail.
http://www.tamron.com/

Zach
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:47:55 PM

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

Zach wrote:

> The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack
> sharp at any aperture.

I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of the
frame:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif

and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper tacks.

(Or get a real tack shooter:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif
from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).

I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
background properties than the Minolta.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:47:56 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cp5co3$e6c$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Zach wrote:
>
>> The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack sharp
>> at any aperture.
>
> I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of
> the frame:
> http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif
>
> and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
> tacks.
>
> (Or get a real tack shooter:
> http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif
> from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).
>
> I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
> background properties than the Minolta.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
> --

Could be a little problematic getting that Minolta lens to fit on his Canon
camera...<G>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:15:42 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cp5co3$e6c$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Zach wrote:
>
>> The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack sharp
>> at any aperture.
>
> I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of
> the frame:
> http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif
>
> and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
> tacks.
>
> (Or get a real tack shooter:
> http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif
> from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).
>
> I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
> background properties than the Minolta.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

I've got to learn to read these someday. Lower scores are better?
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:13:33 PM

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

Skip M wrote:


>>--
>
>
> Could be a little problematic getting that Minolta lens to fit on his Canon
> camera...<G>

I was referring to the sharpness, not the applicability. Plugging Minolta
again... what's the matter with me!?



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
December 8, 2004 6:10:24 PM

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

this is an anti Sigma group, you should go ask on dpreview.com forums
instead.


"you know who maybe" <nguser2u@spamnotAOL.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:T3ntd.9960$_3.116995@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Since that last thread was so popular ;-)
>
> In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
>
> I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
f/2.8
> or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not
too
> bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
>
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:35:44 PM

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

Chuck wrote:

> this is an anti Sigma group, you should go ask on dpreview.com forums
> instead.

Compared to some people, not at all...

http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
December 8, 2004 9:52:48 PM

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

from the photographer:

From: Dave Nitsche Date: 07-Oct-2004 11:41
With me the simplest answer is usually the answer. I dropped my lens and
shattered the back elements. So I took a 12" spike and broke the front
element. I then cut an arrow in two and placed it in the lens. Used tissues
to stick the arrow into the back element to support is.

I really loved that lens. Thanks for looking... Dave

http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656

bottom of the page
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:08:03 AM

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

Juergen . wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
>>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
>
>
> No.

Then what is it chief?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:15:01 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Juergen . wrote:
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >>http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
> >>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
> > No.
> Then what is it chief?

28-70/2,8 EX.

Hugh! ;-)
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 2:48:49 PM

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

Juergen . wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Juergen . wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
>>>>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Then what is it chief?
>
>
> 28-70/2,8 EX.

See Chuck's posts. I believe the lens reffered to is the lens that gets "shot".
I may be wrong, trying to id a lens from its look via the Sigma webpage is not
that easy.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:19:20 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Juergen . wrote:
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >>Juergen . wrote:
> >>>Alan Browne wrote:
> >>>>http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
> >>>>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
> >>>No.
> >>Then what is it chief?
> > 28-70/2,8 EX.
> See Chuck's posts. I believe the lens reffered to
> is the lens that gets "shot".
> I may be wrong, trying to id a lens from its look
> via the Sigma webpage is not that easy.

The lens pictured at
http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
is a Sigma EX 2,8/28-70. Period.


Juergen
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:17:12 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Juergen . wrote:
> > Are you drunken or what??
> Bye. It is clear you're a troll.

Good joke - the troll is you:
The lens pictured at
http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
is a Sigma EX 2,8/28-70 -
no matter what you are blabbering.

Juergen
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:17:13 AM

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

Juergen . wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Juergen . wrote:
>>
>>>Are you drunken or what??
>>
>>Bye. It is clear you're a troll.
>
>
> Good joke - the troll is you:
> The lens pictured at
> http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
> is a Sigma EX 2,8/28-70 -
> no matter what you are blabbering.

Take a deep breath (and optionally remove whatever large object is lodged in
your ass). I never stated absolutely what the lens was, just that it looked
like a particular lens on the Sigma website. As one of the lenses on D.N's site
is listed as the 15-30 I assumed it was that lens.
http://www.davenitsche.com/equipment.htm

Okay? Clear 'nuff chief?

Bye.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 5:52:58 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Take a deep breath (and optionally remove whatever
> large object is lodged in your ass).

I overread that - such expressions are too far
below my standard.


> I never stated absolutely what the lens was, just that it looked
> like a particular lens on the Sigma website. As one of the lenses on D.N's site
> is listed as the 15-30 I assumed it was that lens.
> http://www.davenitsche.com/equipment.htm
> Okay? Clear 'nuff chief?

It's completely simple:
Two of my lenses are the Sigma 15-30 and the
28-70/2,8 EX so I know what they look like
and I do not have to look on a Sigma website
to identify them:
The 15-30 not only is _much_ bigger, but it
also has no bajonet mount for a sunshade, but
a non-removable sunshade and an extremely
round front glass element (bulged) so it looks
_very_ different to the pictured 28-70 which
clearly has a sunshade bajonet mount and a
flat front glass element.

So the lens pictured in
http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
is a 28-70/2,8 EX - it is not metioned at
http://www.davenitsche.com/equipment.htm
where the 15-30 is mentioned.


Juergen
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 5:52:59 AM

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

Juergen . wrote:


> where the 15-30 is mentioned.

You still don't get it. From the art photo and the little phots on the sigma
site it is not possible to differentiate well. It was a guess not a determination.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
December 10, 2004 5:53:00 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:cpb4eu$nua$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Juergen . wrote:
>
>
> > where the 15-30 is mentioned.
>
> You still don't get it. From the art photo and the little phots on the
sigma
> site it is not possible to differentiate well. It was a guess not a
determination

cmon, just ask to the guy damn it instead of fighting
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 6:45:50 AM

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

On 2004-12-07, you know who maybe <nguser2u@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
> Since that last thread was so popular ;-)
>
> In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
>
> I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
> or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
> bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
>
>
I'm going to repeat something I read a while back, don't recall where.

It seems that some reliable sources have said that there is more
variation between lenses of the same brand and type, than there are
between the same types of lenses of different manufacture. AIUI, modern
lenses are of such sophisticated design, and materials are so good, that
the variables are in manufacture and assembly. IIRC, it was assembly
that was the main culprit.

Expensive lenses made by major camera manufacturers are more closely
QCed, which might mean that there are more rejects, and/or more
attention is paid to the work, don't know which. I suppose that Leica
is the standard for lens quality, and because Leica rejects anything
less than perfection. Probably Canon and Nikon follow somewhere nearby,
with other camera manufacturers close behind.

Third party lenses are a different story. I remember reading that
Vivitar never built a lens, that they had them designed and manufactured
to their specs, probably price point. Kiron built lenses for Vivitar
for a while, for instance. Tamron and Tokina market some expensive
lenses and some inexpensive lenses, and the main difference aside from
bells and whistles, is quality control.

Don't know what the story with Sigma is, but I'd be willing to guess
that they have their stuff manufactured, even though they offer camera
bodies as well as lenses. So the "third party" ideas would apply, in
that case.

So the conclusion is that you get what you pay for. For inexpensive
third party lenses, one can sometimes get a real jewel, and sometimes a
real lemon, depending on the luck of the draw. What you pay for seems
to be related to the probability that the lens you get is a good one.

I really don't know about all this, but it makes sense to me.

Will D.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 6:45:51 AM

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

In article <10ri6veof4ovk77@corp.supernews.com>, Will D.
<willd@no.spam> wrote:

> Third party lenses are a different story. I remember reading that
> Vivitar never built a lens, that they had them designed and manufactured
> to their specs, probably price point. Kiron built lenses for Vivitar
> for a while, for instance. Tamron and Tokina market some expensive
> lenses and some inexpensive lenses, and the main difference aside from
> bells and whistles, is quality control.

Vivitar never made anything. They're a marketing company.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 8:09:27 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Juergen . wrote:
> > where the 15-30 is mentioned.
> You still don't get it. From the art photo and the
> little phots on the sigma site it is not possible to
> differentiate well. It was a guess not a determination.

I have understood _you_ made a wrong guess -
but I really do _not_ understand why you
make all the fuss about me and my positive
identification of the lens pictured at
http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656:

A) You posted
> http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
> Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

B) I answered
> No.
Because I can see _clearly and without ANY doubt_
the lens on http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
is NOT a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF.
As explained in a later answer it is VERY VERY easy
to see the pictured lens is NOT a 15-30 - to see if
it is an 28-70 or another lens is a much more difficult.

C) Then you asked a bit aggressively
> Then what is it chief?

D) I replied then
> 28-70/2,8 EX.
> Hugh! ;-)
And YES, _I_ can _clearly_ see it is an 28-70/2,8 EX

E) you then wrote
> See Chuck's posts.
I am NOT interested in any of Chuck's post,
I simply wrote your assumption
> http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
> Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
is wrong - not more, not less, and that in short and
friendly
> No.

You continued
> I may be wrong, trying to id a lens from its look via the
> Sigma webpage is not that easy.
As I told you in a later answer I do NOT need any Sigma
website to identify the 28-70/2,8 EX because I know very
well how it looks, so your
> I may be wrong, trying to id a lens from its look via the
> Sigma webpage is not that easy.
is _completely_ irrelevant to me as I can _positively_
identify the lens at
http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
as Sigma 28-70/2,8 EX.


Ok, that is already too many posts about your
> http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
> Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF


Juergen
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:10:43 AM

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

"Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:31pi24F3do21iU1@individual.net...
> from the photographer:
>
> From: Dave Nitsche Date: 07-Oct-2004 11:41
> With me the simplest answer is usually the answer. I dropped my lens and
> shattered the back elements. So I took a 12" spike and broke the front
> element. I then cut an arrow in two and placed it in the lens. Used
tissues
> to stick the arrow into the back element to support is.
>
> I really loved that lens. Thanks for looking... Dave
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
>
> bottom of the page
>
Interesting lens that one. Some of the sharpest (digital) photos I have ever
enlarged to 24"x36" were taken with one of these lenses on a 10D. I sold the
lens with the camera when I bought the 20D. A few days later, I bought a 24
~ 70 f2.8 Sigma lens. I am yet to become as close to the new one as I was to
the old one... Camera and lens!

The Camera is unreliable in the extreme and could itself be responsible for
soft (er) images. The DOF focus is spot on and very sharp pictures obtained
by using a remote shutter release and mirror up function at f 2.8 and about
24" distance. I'm inclined to think the noisy 20D is producing mirror-slap
shocks which result in vibration at shutter speeds under 1/30th and
subsequently soft pictures.

I also have a Sigma 120 ~300 f2.8 which I use with a 2x Extender (600mm f4)
and a Sigma 100~300 f4 lens. I highly recommend the EX DG Sigma lens models
over and above Tamrons. The difference between Canon 'L' series lenses and
Sigma EX DG lenses is basically in the way the focus and zoom works. The
Sigma's have a rougher focus motor which smooths out with use. The zoom
often gets stiff as it realigns elements where the Canon is smooth from new.
Otherwise...

No one can tell which photos I take with a 'L' series lens and which I take
with the Sigma lenses. I simply couldn't afford a 600 mm lens of the quality
of my 120~300 with a 2x extender if I had to buy a Canon lens. As it is I
have a problem with the cost of filters for it! Every Tamron I used on my
old 35mm Nikon was bad in the extreme. They may have gotten better recently
but if they have, no one is telling anyone.

Doug
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:10:44 AM

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

In article <31rt0kF3e6015U1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Camera is unreliable in the extreme and could itself be responsible for
> soft (er) images. The DOF focus is spot on and very sharp pictures obtained
> by using a remote shutter release and mirror up function at f 2.8 and about
> 24" distance. I'm inclined to think the noisy 20D is producing mirror-slap
> shocks which result in vibration at shutter speeds under 1/30th and
> subsequently soft pictures.

Noisy 20D? You're still an imbecile.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:52:26 AM

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

Chuck wrote:

>> You still don't get it. From the art photo and the little phots on
>> the sigma site it is not possible to differentiate well. It was a
>> guess not a determination
>
> cmon, just ask to the guy damn it instead of fighting

Nah, that'd be like stopping to ask directions. It ain't manly.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:58:46 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:10:43 +1000, "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm inclined to think the noisy 20D is producing mirror-slap
>shocks which result in vibration at shutter speeds under 1/30th and
>subsequently soft pictures.

Noisy? The 20D has to be the most noise free digital I've ever used.
Do you acutally know the difference between noise and soft images?
What does noise have to do with vibrations?

Ron


Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Ron's Photos
http://ronsfotos.com

Ron's Cartoons
http://ronstoons.com

The Adventures of Ron and Dave
http://ronanddave.com

Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:09:58 PM

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

Juergen . wrote:


> B) I answered
>
>>No.

And this is precisely where the problem lies chief. This is usenet. It is here
for the most part to exchange information. Simply stating "no" without stating
what it really is, is rude and contrary to the spirit of why people discuss
things on usenet.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:13:04 PM

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

> Ron
>
>
> Ron Lacey
> Murillo Ontario
> ron@ronsfotos.com
>
> Ron's Photos
> http://ronsfotos.com
>
> Ron's Cartoons
> http://ronstoons.com
>
> The Adventures of Ron and Dave
> http://ronanddave.com
>
> Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
> http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/


Wanna trim down that sig to something a little more in keeping with generally
accepted nettiquette Ron? 3-4 lines is the commonly agreed limit.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 6:09:27 PM

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

Ron Lacey wrote:
[]
> Noisy? The 20D has to be the most noise free digital I've ever used.
> Do you acutally know the difference between noise and soft images?
> What does noise have to do with vibrations?
>
> Ron

The vibrations make acoustic noise.

David
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 7:30:58 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:13:04 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Wanna trim down that sig to something a little more in keeping with generally
>accepted nettiquette Ron? 3-4 lines is the commonly agreed limit.

Four, eight, twelve what's the difference, plaiin text takes very
little bandwidthy, my one or two posts a week aren't gonna affect
anybody's retention.

Ron

Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Ron's Photos
http://ronsfotos.com

Ron's Cartoons
http://ronstoons.com

The Adventures of Ron and Dave
http://ronanddave.com

Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 8:00:53 PM

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

Ron Lacey wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:13:04 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Wanna trim down that sig to something a little more in keeping with generally
>>accepted nettiquette Ron? 3-4 lines is the commonly agreed limit.
>
>
> Four, eight, twelve what's the difference, plaiin text takes very
> little bandwidthy, my one or two posts a week aren't gonna affect
> anybody's retention.

It affects clutter which is why it's a commonly accepted rule. It is also a
charter rule of this NG. You could, for instance, use more horizontal space.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:17:56 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:00:53 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>It affects clutter which is why it's a commonly accepted rule.

Commonly accepted by you maybe. If you were so worried about clutter
you might consider selective quoting, your habit of quoting an entire
post in a followup far out clutters my sig.

ron


Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Ron's Photos
http://ronsfotos.com

Ron's Cartoons
http://ronstoons.com

The Adventures of Ron and Dave
http://ronanddave.com

Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:33:07 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Juergen . wrote:
> > B) I answered
> >>No.
> And this is precisely where the problem lies chief.

Here is your aggressive tone again...


> This is usenet. It is here
> for the most part to exchange information.
> Simply stating "no" without stating
> what it really is, is rude and contrary to
> the spirit of why people discuss
> things on usenet.

Besides the fact I answered later
> 28-70/2,8 EX.
you have some severe problems, one of it being
talking about _spirit_ and lack of it with others
but you yourself writing things like
> (and optionally remove whatever large object is
> lodged in your ass).

So it is clear you have _severe_ personal problems
and as this is a photographic group it's EOD here -
you obviously need professional help by a psychiatrist.


Juergen
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:33:08 AM

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

Juergen . wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Juergen . wrote:
>>
>>>B) I answered
>>>
>>>>No.
>>
>>And this is precisely where the problem lies chief.
>
>
> Here is your aggressive tone again...

There is nothing more agressive than simply answering "no" without backing it up
with why you said "no".

Bye Chief.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:34:15 AM

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

"Ron Lacey" <ron@ronstoons.com> wrote in message
news:58ejr0t3hbh8co8fj7d988d9ifqfqn9ibv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:10:43 +1000, "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> Noisy? The 20D has to be the most noise free digital I've ever used.
> Do you acutally know the difference between noise and soft images?
> What does noise have to do with vibrations?
>
> Ron

Noise as in the noise you hear!
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:34:16 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:34:15 +1000, "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Noise as in the noise you hear!

Ahh okay, thought you were talking about digital noise<g>.

Ron


Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Ron's Photos
http://ronsfotos.com

Ron's Cartoons
http://ronstoons.com

The Adventures of Ron and Dave
http://ronanddave.com

Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:34:16 AM

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

In article <31um8uF3dn3qaU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Noise as in the noise you hear!

I haven't had the pleasure to see/hold/try a 20D yet, but my 10D is
much quieter than 35mm SLRs and certainly quieter than my Hasselblads
and the RB & Pentax 6x7I used to own.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:46:06 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cpd6aj$ap2$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Ron Lacey wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:13:04 -0500, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wanna trim down that sig to something a little more in keeping with
generally
> >>accepted nettiquette Ron? 3-4 lines is the commonly agreed limit.
> >
Sheez... And I thought your sig was too long!!
His must surely produce some hilarity for top posters who get the shits
scrolling down through dozens on lines of irrelevant rubbish just to read a
one line, equally irrelevant comment! Ha, ha, ha. God I love Usenet!

And what about the turkeys who are so obsessed with granularity they think
any reference to noise is about the sensor noise?
Are they all deaf?
Have we gone this far away from mechanical cameras, so soon?
Can't they hear the shutter go off on a 20D like a firecracker?
Maybe they only ever shoot in heavy traffic?
And through all this foliage of a hijacked thread there comes the Knight in
rusted armour...
*Trim your Sig, you peon*!!

Give me Bret's pictures any time!

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

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

Ryadia wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:cpd6aj$ap2$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Ron Lacey wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:13:04 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wanna trim down that sig to something a little more in keeping
>>>> with generally accepted nettiquette Ron? 3-4 lines is the
>>>> commonly agreed limit.
>>>
> Sheez... And I thought your sig was too long!!
> His must surely produce some hilarity for top posters who get the
> shits scrolling down through dozens on lines of irrelevant rubbish
> just to read a one line, equally irrelevant comment! Ha, ha, ha. God
> I love Usenet!
>
> And what about the turkeys who are so obsessed with granularity they
> think any reference to noise is about the sensor noise?
> Are they all deaf?
> Have we gone this far away from mechanical cameras, so soon?
> Can't they hear the shutter go off on a 20D like a firecracker?
> Maybe they only ever shoot in heavy traffic?
> And through all this foliage of a hijacked thread there comes the
> Knight in rusted armour...
> *Trim your Sig, you peon*!!
>
> Give me Bret's pictures any time!
>
> Doug

Bret who?
--

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

These eight lines of silence brought to you by

Frank ess
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:11:13 PM

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

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10ri6veof4ovk77@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Don't know what the story with Sigma is, but I'd be willing to guess
> that they have their stuff manufactured, even though they offer camera
> bodies as well as lenses. So the "third party" ideas would apply, in
> that case.
>
> So the conclusion is that you get what you pay for. For inexpensive
> third party lenses, one can sometimes get a real jewel, and sometimes a
> real lemon, depending on the luck of the draw. What you pay for seems
> to be related to the probability that the lens you get is a good one.
>
> I really don't know about all this, but it makes sense to me.
>
> Will D.
>
Sigma is a well established Japanese manufacturer. They are not an American
marketing company like Vivatar was/is.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/company.htm
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:11:14 PM

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

In article <31uoe9F3ggprbU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sigma is a well established Japanese manufacturer. They are not an American
> marketing company like Vivatar was/is.

Well established - yes. Manufacturer of quality equipment - not even
close.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:11:14 PM

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

On 2004-12-10, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10ri6veof4ovk77@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Don't know what the story with Sigma is, but I'd be willing to guess
>> that they have their stuff manufactured, even though they offer camera
>> bodies as well as lenses. So the "third party" ideas would apply, in
>> that case.
>>
>> So the conclusion is that you get what you pay for. For inexpensive
>> third party lenses, one can sometimes get a real jewel, and sometimes a
>> real lemon, depending on the luck of the draw. What you pay for seems
>> to be related to the probability that the lens you get is a good one.
>>
>> I really don't know about all this, but it makes sense to me.
>>
>> Will D.
>>
> Sigma is a well established Japanese manufacturer. They are not an American
> marketing company like Vivatar was/is.
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/company.htm
>
Took a look at their site. They say that they coordinate development,
manufacture and distribution world-wide. I wonder if perhaps they don't
farm out the less expensive items and concentrate on the high end stuff.

Not very many manufactures build all of their own products, I think.
The trick seems to be in making sure the low end stuff doesn't harm the
reputation of the whole line, and some companies don't manage to do that
overly well. Don't know about Sigma, but it does seem like a good
question.

Also, Sigma has bought into Carver Mead's "Foveon technology", and it
looks like Mead is using Sigma as the test bed for what could turn out
to be a real winner. If Mead wins, Sigma probably figures they will
too, I suppose. Seems to me that the three layer technology might be a
bit difficult to do. Guess we'll see.

Will D.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:11:15 PM

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

In article <31vq3bF3gu6l1U1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:101220042148010162%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>
> For a while you had me fooled Randal...
> You really are the anti Preddy, aren't you?

Preddy (or whatever his real name is) is an idiot. He spouts lies and
distortions and calls them truth.

You can buy everything in the Sigma catalog for all I care. Just don't
sit there and try to tell me it's on a par with real digital cameras
like Canon and Nikon...because it's not. I've been around this stuff
for too long to know better.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:12:32 PM

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

Skip M wrote:

> If that mirror slap is louder than your EOS3, you'd better have it checked!
> Mine is quieter than my 1n, which is only slightly louder than your 3, and
> close to my A2, which is much quieter than your 3. It is louder than my
> wife's 10D, though, but quieter than her Elan II.

ROTFLMAO! (Yes, I realize you're serious.)


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:12:33 PM

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

? Why was that funny? The Elan II is much louder than the 7, which is also
much quieter than the old A2, or any of the digital bodies, including the
10.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cpfust$eeg$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> If that mirror slap is louder than your EOS3, you'd better have it
>> checked! Mine is quieter than my 1n, which is only slightly louder than
>> your 3, and close to my A2, which is much quieter than your 3. It is
>> louder than my wife's 10D, though, but quieter than her Elan II.
>
> ROTFLMAO! (Yes, I realize you're serious.)
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
!