 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Another mag trashes kit lens(s)
Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom? And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money" don't hold? -Rich > Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does > lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive > zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom? > And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it > handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money" > don't hold? So don't buy one...  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does >> lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So don't buy one... Good advice. SignatureStacey At least I feel a bit better for getting a 350D body with a Sigma 18-50mm lense. :) Got it for the same price as the Canon Kit at Henrys.ca, but the stand-alone lense has greater trade-in value. I was thinking of trading it in for a Sigma 18-125mm as a cost-effective upgrade... the Canon 17-85mm IS EF-S is almost double the price with less zoom, and I suspect at the 135mm range IS is still probably overkill. >At least I feel a bit better for getting a 350D body with a Sigma >18-50mm lense. :) Got it for the same price as the Canon Kit at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the price with less zoom, and I suspect at the 135mm range IS is still >probably overkill. Even Sigma's 18-200 seems to be getting good reviews. They are pushing it as a "do all" lens that you can leave on the camera. Maybe as a way of swaying people from going the P&S route? -Rich interesting...18-200 is a fairly big range, i'd assume there would be more aperature compromises in that model than the 18-125. Also without IS the 200 end of the range (@ 1.6) would be nigh useless without a tripod, which kind of defeats the 'walk round' lense appeal. i'll still look into it though. >interesting...18-200 is a fairly big range, i'd assume there would be >more aperature compromises in that model than the 18-125. Also without >IS the 200 end of the range (@ 1.6) would be nigh useless without a >tripod, which kind of defeats the 'walk round' lense appeal. i'll still >look into it though. Depends on the lighting. It might be difficult outdoors at dusk or dawn, but should be fine on a bright day. ISO 400, 1/400 f/11-f/16 is very doable in suny conditions. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does > lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't hold? > -Rich *Yawn* Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does >> lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > *Yawn* Well you asked: "So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is appropriate, shut your f.cking yap." Now I guess you don't want to hear the results? SignatureStacey > Well you asked: > > "So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is > appropriate, shut your f.cking yap." I don't know how C. d'Images tested it. Hell, they were the ones who came up with the wacky Nikon ISO results. Who should trust them above all others? > Now I guess you don't want to hear the results? I want to SEE results of a PROPERLY performed test. You idiots have yet to provide me with such. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Well you asked: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I want to SEE results of a PROPERLY performed test. You idiots have yet >to provide me with such. Check out the magazine, they did a thorough test. -Rich >>I want to SEE results of a PROPERLY performed test. You idiots have yet >>to provide me with such. > > Check out the magazine, they did a thorough test. The only "thorough" test is one where a canon product shines above all others.. Then they never question how it was done, only ones that don't proclaim it's greatness must be flawed. That's something worth yawning over. SignatureStacey In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL the others they tested (12-24 f4,5-5,6 DG EX, 15-30 f3,5-4,5DG Asph EX and 20-40 f2,8 DG Asph EX) came out either as good or worse. The verdict for all these lenses were to use them at f8 or smaller aperture. Even Canon's own lenses perform differently on different bodies, The 10D/300D will have better results with any lens while the 1Ds is more demanding. For example the 17-40 f4 L got a 4/5 on the 10D and only a 3/5 on the 1Ds. Jean > Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does > lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't hold? > -Rich >In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated >higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >demanding. For example the 17-40 f4 L got a 4/5 on the 10D and only a 3/5 >on the 1Ds. Did they find anything better with that focal range for the 1Ds? -Rich >Jean > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> don't hold? >> -Rich RichA yet again demonstrates his pointlessness: >>"RichA" <none@none.com> a écrit: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Did they find anything better with that focal range for the 1Ds? You tell us: you read the review. Or did you? > >In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated > >higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Did they find anything better with that focal range for the 1Ds? The Canon 24-70 f2,8 L or the older 28-70 f2,8 L were both rated highly on the 1Ds (4/5) Jean BTW, the Canon 28-105 f3,5-4,5 is a very good performer (4/5) on the 10D/300D. > -Rich > >Jean [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> don't hold? > >> -Rich > In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated > higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jean What ever gave you the idea a Sigma "DG" lens would fit on a 10D? For that matter, where did you get the notion one of Canon's digital Kit lenses would for on a 10D? SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > > In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was rated > > higher overall than the Kit lens (and only on a 300D or 10D body BTW), ALL [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For that matter, where did you get the notion one of Canon's digital Kit > lenses would for on a 10D? It's in the magazine, writtent textually AND B+H has 3 pages of Sigma lenses for Canon cameras many of which are "DG". I had a 28mm f1,8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro blablabla which fitted on my 300D and on my daughter's 10D. Why would a "DG" lens NOT fit on a 10D??? As for the "kit" lens, it is indeed an EFs lens which does not normally fit on a 10D, the tests were obviously done on a 300D (my mistake), but as many people know, it can be modified to fit on a 10D just as I have done (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html) Jean > It's in the magazine, writtent textually AND B+H has 3 pages of Sigma lenses > for Canon cameras many of which are "DG". I had a 28mm f1,8 EX Aspherical > DG DF Macro blablabla which fitted on my 300D and on my daughter's 10D. Why > would a "DG" lens NOT fit on a 10D??? My guess is that Douglas is under the mistaken impression that the Sigma DG lenses for Canon use the EF-S mount. They don't. To the best of my knowledge, only Canon makes EF-S lenses. It's easy to get confused by this. My Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, although it's EF mount, is not designed to be used on any current production Canon DSLR that isn't EF-S capable. :-) SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Jean So it's OK then to use a Sigma lens designed specifically to compete with "S" series canon stuff, on a 10D and not expect to experience any unusual behavior, is it? And before we use any of this information on a 10D, we need to put our lenses in a lathe and machine off the flange which would otherwise shatter the mirror? Very precise and totally informative stuff - *NOT*. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > >>>In Chasseur D'Images #261, only one Sigma lens (the 24-70 f2,8 EX) was > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > with "S" series canon stuff, on a 10D and not expect to experience any > unusual behavior, is it? The Sigma lens I had (DG btw) dit NOT work on my 300D but did on a 10D! AFAIK, the 300D is designed for EFs lenses so the Sigma "should" have worked better on it than on a 10D. I guess the "unusual behaviour" is having a Sigma lens work on a Canon body! > And before we use any of this information on a 10D, we need to put our > lenses in a lathe and machine off the flange which would otherwise > shatter the mirror? Very precise and totally informative stuff - *NOT*. I had the lens and a 10D, the only way to mate the two was to modify the lens, worked like a charm. I do have a lathe so it wasn't a big deal to do. If you don't have a 10D or the kit lens, what's your gripe? Jean > Chasseurs De Images is a terrific French photo mag that does > lots of tests. Their most recent issue tested out some inexpensive > zooms, six of them. Guess which one came out on the bottom? > And Sigma's equivalent (same price or slightly cheaper) beat it > handily, so I guess the arguments about it being "good for the money" > don't hold? I sold mine this week for $60. Also got rid of the Tamron 28-75mm. I now only own lenses that I use (and one lens I bought this week that I haven't used yet but probably will). That's a nice feeling. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.