 |
 | 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 / January 2005The Sigma EX 12-24
Hi, Has anyone tried this lens? I was thinking of getting it for my EOS PDW > Hi, > > Has anyone tried this lens? I was thinking of getting it for my EOS > > PDW I have one and have used it on my EOS30, 300D and 20D. Excellent lens. Have a look at this review: http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12- 24_f4.5-5.6.html#N105E3 (Watch line wrap) Alan. >From what I've been able to gather, the Fuji S3 seems to offer the lowest noise and widest dynamic range of the current crop of SLRS. Is this accurate? Also, are the Olympus 300 and E1 the only SLRS with the ultrasonic CCD cleaner? Thanks! > >From what I've been able to gather, the Fuji S3 seems to offer the > lowest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cleaner? > Thanks! I can't find a review of the S3, just previews, which is odd for a camera that was announced back in Feb. But DPReview only has a preview, and Steve's Digicams doesn't list it with their reviews. So I can't really comment on which has the lowest noise, but the 20D Canon has set the standard for less than full size sensors, as far as noise goes. I've heard that the Fuji is supposed to set new standards for dynamic range, due to its odd primary/secondary arrangement of pixels. And, yes, the two Oly bodies are the only ones with the sensor cleaner.  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Has anyone tried this lens? I was thinking of getting it for my EOS. If you google for reviews, you'll find very mixed reports. Some are downright euphoric, others complain about "softness". When I was considering it, I read a large number of reviews. I found one site (can't find it now) with full size crops from a complex street scene (street signs, newspaper stands, etc.) - and even the corners seemed to be very, very crisp and sharp. Judging from that particular set of images - it looked like an incredible bargain. But other samples I've seen show a lens that just fall apart at the corners. So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really bad. If/when I buy this one (I'm tempted) I would not buy online, but would go to a b&m store and actually try out the samples they have in stock to make sure that it's a «good» one. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? > So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. > The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really > bad. Sigma has quality control problems with all of their products. >> So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. >> The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really >> bad. > > Sigma has quality control problems with all of their products. If the 12-24 is anything like their 15-30, I wouldnt use it as a paperweight. I had the 15-30 for just over a week and returned it. Pure crap. Image fall off and the most heinous flaring I have ever seen. > If the 12-24 is anything like their 15-30, I wouldnt use it as a > paperweight. I had the 15-30 for just over a week and returned it. Pure > crap. Image fall off and the most heinous flaring I have ever seen. I managed 24 hours with the 12-24. It was hideous. >> If the 12-24 is anything like their 15-30, I wouldnt use it as a >> paperweight. I had the 15-30 for just over a week and returned it. Pure >> crap. Image fall off and the most heinous flaring I have ever seen. > > I managed 24 hours with the 12-24. It was hideous. I had one for 24 hours on loan from a friend, and I found it very useful, and produced great images. I ran a brief set of formal tests, my first try at doing careful comparisons, and it stood up quite well to a Nikon 20mm f2.8 (widest manufacturer prime I have) and a Tokina 17mm f3.5. (This was on a Fuji S2, so I was only using the central portion of the image, not the full 35mm coverage.) SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. >> The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really >> bad. > > Sigma has quality control problems with all of their products. They always have. John > >> So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. > >> The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John Oh, I know. But there are always those out there looking to save a buck and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products...just waiting to suck in another cheapskate amateur. Randall Ainsworth posted: > > >> So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. > > >> The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products...just > waiting to suck in another cheapskate amateur. Feel better now? SignaturePetros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos > > Oh, I know. But there are always those out there looking to save a buck > > and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products...just > > waiting to suck in another cheapskate amateur. > > > Feel better now? The truth hurts, doesn't it? Randall Ainsworth posted: > > > Oh, I know. But there are always those out there looking to save a buck > > > and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products...just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The truth hurts, doesn't it? Or it sets you free... SignaturePetros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos > Oh, I know. But there are always those out there looking to save a buck > and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products...just > waiting to suck in another cheapskate amateur. Oh? What about the cheapscate Professionals? Do they get "sucked in" too? > > Oh, I know. But there are always those out there looking to save a buck > > and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products...just > > waiting to suck in another cheapskate amateur. > > Oh? What about the cheapscate Professionals? > Do they get "sucked in" too? I can only speak for myself and my professional career. I never wasted my hard earned money on Sigma products. And none of my friends still in the business do either. > I can only speak for myself and my professional career. I never wasted > my hard earned money on Sigma products. And none of my friends still in > the business do either. SO what you are saying is you really have no knowledge of Sigma lenses at all. Just condem them from hearsay and conjecture. Nice one Randall. > SO what you are saying is you really have no knowledge of Sigma lenses at > all. Just condem them from hearsay and conjecture. Nice one Randall. No, I've seen enough of their products and been around long enough to see what kind of company they are. > > SO what you are saying is you really have no knowledge of Sigma lenses at > > all. Just condem them from hearsay and conjecture. Nice one Randall. > > No, I've seen enough of their products and been around long enough to > see what kind of company they are. Now if that is not an admission of bigotry, what is? I suppose you saw a female human once and now they are all the same to you?... On second thoughts... Hmmm. Anyway. Get your head out of the sand Randall. Sigma do make some crappy lenses but the also make some very nice ones too. And Canon never made crappy lens either , eh? Doug > Now if that is not an admission of bigotry, what is? > I suppose you saw a female human once and now they are all the same to > you?... On second thoughts... Hmmm. > Anyway. Get your head out of the sand Randall. Sigma do make some crappy > lenses but the also make some very nice ones too. And Canon never made > crappy lens either , eh? Bigotry? We're talking about a frigging lens here! You are free to spend your money on whatever photographic equipment that you want. But I'm not the only one around here that's going to tell you to avoid Sigma products. > > Now if that is not an admission of bigotry, what is? > > I suppose you saw a female human once and now they are all the same to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that you want. But I'm not the only one around here that's going to > tell you to avoid Sigma products. ------------- So far all of you have done is *try* to tell us that a product you have never owned and never used is no good. It simply doesn't work Randall. All you are doing is pushing a statement without any support behind it - being a bigot. Quite a number of Professional Photographers use Sigma SD cameras. Even more use Sigma's EX lenses and make a lot of money from the sale of their photos. It's only the crappy junk Sigma sold 10 and 5 years ago that people try to make work on DSLRs that is really bad. Today's Sigma lenses carrying the EX prefix are quite capable of mixing it with Canon's 'L' series lenses in just about every way. The 12~24 Sigma under discussion is every bit the equal to Canon's newly released 10~22 which only fits 2 of Canon's cameras, incidently. The Sigma is able to be used on all EOS cameras. I concede that when doing this, you can expect to see some drop off in sharpness at the edges. It is after all just a consumer grade lens, not an EX series ...but on a 20D or 300D? Nah... It's as good in image rendition as the Canon lens is. Of 6 lenses I used in the past year, 4 were Sigma's and 2 Canon. Only the Canon (70~200 'L') had have adjustment for a focus problem. You really ought to open you eyes wider Randall. Doug Let's try this again since you are obviously reading-impaired. I have never wasted my money on any Sigma product because I've seen enough of them and the images they produce to know they're crap. I've held them in my hands...I've seen the images they produce. I've watched the Sigma company through the years produce mediocre products aimed at amateurs who are too cheap to buy OEM products. I don't give a sh.t if you waste your money on them or not, but don't try to tell me they're on a par with Canon or Nikon or any other major manufacturer because they're not. They've been crappy through the years, they're crappy today, and they'll continue to be crappy into the future unless the company goes tits up. >Let's try this again since you are obviously reading-impaired. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >years, they're crappy today, and they'll continue to be crappy into the >future unless the company goes tits up. You can say this till your face turns blue, but the fact remains that even if Canon lenses are better in general, Sigma still makes some lenses that are optically superior to some Canon lenses. Do you actually believe that the worst Canon lens is better than the best Sigma lens, in optical quality? In smoothness of manual focusing? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Now if that is not an admission of bigotry, what is? >> I suppose you saw a female human once and now they are all the same to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that you want. But I'm not the only one around here that's going to > tell you to avoid Sigma products. Thought I would come back to the photo groups after a long absence. However, having seen that Mr Ainsworth is still around verbally abusing anyone who dares mention Sigma, I won't stay for long. Bye > Thought I would come back to the photo groups after a long absence. > However, having seen that Mr Ainsworth is still around verbally abusing > anyone who dares mention Sigma, I won't stay for long. Huh? R.A. is like a whiney child. Irritating but not something to get angry over. Like all whiney children he is best ignored such that he eventually learns how to behave. Probably your news reader can filter him out if you can't do it yourself. Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. > > Thought I would come back to the photo groups after a long absence. > > However, having seen that Mr Ainsworth is still around verbally abusing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Personally I have yet to find anyone other than the troll posting obscenities to 35mm group I'd bother filtering. Even idiots sometimes might have a lucid comment or two. Unfortunately for Randall, he is yet to do this! Doug >Oh, I know. But there are always those out there looking to save a buck >and Sigma will be right there with their mediocre products. In some ways, it would be better if Sigma's products were mediocre. Nobody would pay any attention to them and they'd soon disappear off the radar screen, much like Cosina/Vivitar has today. The problem is that many of their products aren't mediocre. The optics are frequently well-designed, but what comes out of manufacturing is of such variable quality that you feel like you're coming out of a casino instead of a camera store. The compatibility issues, especially with Canon bodies, make things even worse. The one Sigma lens I own is the 12-24mm. (Since I use film, the Nikon was not an option.) My copy seems fine, but a friend of mine ended up exchanging his twice. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >> So - it looks like Sima has quality control issues with this one. >> The good samples are very, very good - and the bad samples are really >> bad. > > Sigma has quality control problems with all of their products. I don't know about quality control that as much as they are just not always 100% compatible and are usually soft at the fast ends. IMO, it's not about controlling the quality, it's just making quality equipment in the first place. You're not buying L glass when you buy a Sigma, but you don't always have to have L glass to get the shot. > Hi, > > Has anyone tried this lens? I was thinking of getting it for my EOS Error99'd on my Rebel when I tried the lens at Samy's in LA last spring. I bought the Sigma 15" fisheye instead. Not too fishy on the Rebel with the 1.6x. > Has anyone tried this lens? I was thinking of getting it for my EOS Michael Reichmann is testing a Canon EF-S 10-12mm lens on his page (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml) and a small part of this test is about comparing it with the Sigma lens. Martin |
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.