yhu
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 12:27 pm

Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:21 am

I'm in need of an upgrade from the 18-55mm stock lens that came with my Canon 300D. I'd love a Canon L lens, but they're so darn expensive. I was looking at this guy, but I'm torn on whether I "need" Image stabilization or not.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-40mm-...TF8&s=photo&qid=1173118358&sr=1-49

The f/4 also seems a bit slow.

So my question is, does Sigma make a lens that offers the quality of Canon L Lenses, but at a slightly lower price? I know you get what you pay for, but I always feel that about 10% of the Canon L price is for having the Canon name on it.

Otherwise, do you guys have any other suggestions?

Thanks!

Dave
 
McG1967
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:13 am

Sigma make an EX series of lenses that would be their equivalent to a Canon L series lens. They offer a good quality lens at a reasonable price when compared to the L equivalent. I have a Sigma 24-60 F2.8 EX DG and a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM along with a Canon 400 F5.6L. I have had no problems with the Sigma lenses, and was able to get both for less than the cost of the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS. The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG is around the same cost as the new Canon 70-200 F4L IS in the UK. The Fred Miranda forums have a lens review section. When picking my Sigma lenses, I went with the ones that had the highest ratings.
Also a lot of people use the Sigma 50-500 - the Bigma - for aviation photography.
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:41 am

Quote:

Also a lot of people use the Sigma 50-500 - the Bigma - for aviation photography.

One thing to be careful with the Bigma is that the zoom lock switch has two screws that secure the lock mechanism to the switch. These screws can loosen over time and work their way into the lens, locking up the zoom mechanism or worse. I had this happen to me last week and I've sent the lens out to Sigma service.

Easy way to prevent this? Remove the switch from the lens body and tighten the screws down when you feel the switch loosening (or use some lock-tite and be done with it). Truthfully the switch should be a screwless design and they might have fixed this with the DG model.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
LIPH
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

Quoting YHU (Thread starter):
Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon

Dave,
I have both SIGMA and CANON and must say that, yes, Canon lenses are much more expensive, but hey, the speed, the contrast, in one word, the results, are completely different...Save your money for two months more and at the end go buy a Canon...

Ciao
Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:20 am

Quoting YHU (Thread starter):
The f/4 also seems a bit slow.

When and/or how many times do you think it will be a problem ?

I've used the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX for a couple of years and always liked it a lot but with 82mm(filter size) it is quite bulky.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2

The 28-70/2.8 is a bit cheaper and 67mm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3264&navigator=2

I've heard good things about the 24-60/2.8 which has a more common filter size of 77mm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3260&navigator=2

More equivalent to the Canon 17-40/4 would be the 15-30/3.5-4.5 which I also used for a few years.
It's a nice thingy as well but very flare sensitive for which I sold it.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3242&navigator=1

Then there is a 17-35/2.8-4
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3258&navigator=1

and probably the best in this range the 20-40/2.8 which like the 24-70/2.8 is 82mm again.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3259&navigator=1

If I had to choose I would take a serious look at the Tokina 16-50/2.8 DX
http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/pie2006/

[Edited 2007-03-06 18:29:25]
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
yhu
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:37 am

Hey, thanks for the replys (and all those links, Aviopic!). I probably wouldn't use anything below F4 for Aviation, but I'd be using it for non aviation as well. I think what it comes down to, if I'm paying a lot for a lens, I want to have the option of going lower if I need to.

So there seems to be a slight division on whether the Sigma EX is as good as the Canon L. I guess it comes down to personal preference.
 
LIPH
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
So there seems to be a slight division on whether the Sigma EX is as good as the Canon L. I guess it comes down to personal preference.

No division at all Dave, apart from one's salary....  Wink

Ciao
Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
 
User avatar
acontador
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:57 am

Hi Dave,

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
there seems to be a slight division on whether the Sigma EX is as good as the Canon L.

Not really. I tried both before deciding each time for the Canon L lens (I bought the 17-40 and the 70-200), and I saw a noticeable difference in overall image and building quality between the Sigmas and the Canons. Not to say the Sigmas are bad, but they are not as good as the Canon Ls.
So, in the end it all comes down to: Is the difference in quality worth the difference in price? If you think that you are probably going to use these lenses for a long time, for me the answer was clear...
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
 
graphic
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:41 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:06 am

As far as overall sharpness and lens quality goes, the EX lenses rank right up there with the L lenses, but specifically no, EX lenses aren't necessarily equivalent to L lenses, because the optics can be different. The "L" on Canon's lenses stands for "Ultra-Low Dispersion" meaning the lens has very thin glass elements inside it designed to reduce the effects of Chromatic Abherration. Sigma's equivalent to this is their APO lenses, APO standing for Apochromatic, meaning the inside of the lens elements are coated with special material designed to reduce chromatic abherration. These special lens elements are very expensive, hence Canon's L lenses and Sigma's APO lenses are very expensive.

btw I shoot the Sigma 80-400 EX OS APO, a fantastic lens.
Demand Media fails at life
 
yhu
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:16 am

At this point I feel that just about anything would be an upgrade. As I said, I'm currently using the lens that came with my Canon 300D, the EF-S 18-55 model. For longer range, I'm using this guy:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm...UTF8&s=photo&qid=1173208461&sr=1-3

Which is ULTRA Low End. But I feel the shorter lens should be replaced first since I use it a lot more.
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:25 am

I think select lenses by Sigma perform equally to the Canon's Ls. I've heard that not all lenses in Sigma's EX line perform equally unlike the "L"s by Canon, which have a more consistent pattern in regards to image quality.

I mean, do not be fooled by the EX logo. As said, some are equal to the Ls but some are said to be poor. My Sigma 100-300 F4 is a superb performer. Compared it with a friends 70-200 2.8 IS and boh were excellent.

Do some research before buying one. A lot say that Tamron's 28-75 2.8 is better than Canon's famous 24-70 2.8 which means that there are some that perform as equally to the Ls.

Regards.
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:42 am

Quoting Acontador (Reply 7):
I saw a noticeable difference in overall image and building quality between the Sigmas and the Canons.

You must have better eyes then me Big grin

Quoting Graphic (Reply 8):
I shoot the Sigma 80-400 EX OS APO, a fantastic lens.

Think it is sort of ok, optics are pretty good but to call it fantastic..... mwaw  expressionless 
Try the 70-200/2.8 and you'll know what fantastic is. Big grin

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
Hey, thanks for the replys (and all those links, Aviopic!).

You're welcome.

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
if I'm paying a lot for a lens, I want to have the option of going lower if I need to.

Understandable but with the modern DSLR is not a problem to increase the sensitivity to ISO 200, 400 or even 800.
Personally I think you can get away with F4 in 99.99% of the cases as long as we are talking about the 17 to 100mm range.
That one extra stop will about double the price of a lens and just the option of having it would not be enough reason for me but that's personal of course.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
LIPH
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:32 am

Quoting OD720 (Reply 10):
I think select lenses by Sigma perform equally to the Canon's Ls

No way man....Canon have better speed...sooooo much better speed...and better contrast/sharpness, soooooo much better contras/sharpness...I'm sorry. I told you : I have the Bigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400 L IS....There's a huge difference between the two... Canon is more expensive and, yes, I prefer to pay 10% more (to say the least) to have a Canon....Sorry.

Ciao
Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
 
yhu
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:41 am

Another follow-up question.

As I said above, I have a Canon 300D. My current long zoom is quite light. Is it recommended to mount the heavier Pro-end lenses onto the Digital rebel? I'd hate to damage the plastic frame because the lens was too heavy for it. I know at the very least I should be holding both the Camera and the lens, which I generally already do.
 
LIPH
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:09 am

Quoting YHU (Reply 13):
I'd hate to damage the plastic frame because the lens was too heavy for it. I know at the very least I should be holding both the Camera and the lens, which I generally already do.

Dave, no problem at all. You could also use a monopod if you need it, but usually it is not necessary...

Ciao
Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:46 am

Quoting YHU (Reply 9):
At this point I feel that just about anything would be an upgrade. As I said, I'm currently using the lens that came with my Canon 300D, the EF-S 18-55 model. For longer range, I'm using this guy:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm...UTF8&s=photo&qid=1173208461&sr=1-3

Which is ULTRA Low End. But I feel the shorter lens should be replaced first since I use it a lot more.

I have the same equipment for my 400D except the EF 75-300mm that came in the kit that I bought was not USM III, just the standard kit lens. I also have the EF-S 18-55mm.

What I recommend you consider, and I was in your position last week is this lens - USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=pd_ys_qtk_rvi/102-0525788-0888158" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-205mm L IS.

I got it for just over $1100US delivered on eBay but I can't buy from amazon so if I were you I'd consider saving the extra money and getting something like this. It covers a good zoom range, is a great L series lens and if you go for something like the Canon EF 100-400 L IS in the future, you have yourself covered.

Just what I did, but I felt it was a good idea.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:48 am

Edit: Original message posted twice.

[Edited 2007-03-07 00:19:25]
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:53 am

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 2):
One thing to be careful with the Bigma is that the zoom lock switch has two screws that secure the lock mechanism to the switch. These screws can loosen over time and work their way into the lens, locking up the zoom mechanism or worse. I had this happen to me last week and I've sent the lens out to Sigma service.

I've had that happen in ACE, locked up and after a while the screw made some pretty deep grooves into the barrel. Service was really good tho, it was out of warranty but they repaired it free of charge within 2 weeks (including ordering parts).
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
agd
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:59 pm

Quoting OD720 (Reply 10):
Do some research before buying one. A lot say that Tamron's 28-75 2.8 is better than Canon's famous 24-70 2.8 which means that there are some that perform as equally to the Ls.

Agreed! I have this lens and it performs really well! Only downside to me would be the build quality of the lense. Otherwise, it is a great piece of glass (sharpness is awesome). I wouldn't say it is as good as Canon's 24-70 2.8 lens, but for a third of the price, I will never complain.

I would highly recommend to anyone looking for something in that range to get that lens.

Alex
NO URLS in signature
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:09 pm

Quoting LIPH (Reply 12):
I have the Bigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400 L IS....There's a huge difference between the two

In my post I said select lenses which means some and not all.

You are comparing two lenses which are very different. The 50-500 is a hyperzoom while the 100-400 is standard telezoom and it should perform a lot better.

It will be better to compare Sigma's 70-200 2.8 against Canon's 70-200 2.8. Some say, they are equal.

Regards.
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:57 pm

Quoting OD720 (Reply 10):
A lot say that Tamron's 28-75 2.8 is better than Canon's famous 24-70 2.8 which means that there are some that perform as equally to the Ls.

I've used the Tamron as well and I have to say with all pleasure, think it is even a little better then the Sigma 24-70/2.8.
Downside was the distortion and the Sigma feels a lot more solid.
However is the Canon 24-70/2.8L is a very good lens and I don't think the Tamron nor the Sigma will be equal let alone better then the Canon.
Whether the price difference is worth it remains a personal issue, for me it never was/will be.

Quoting OD720 (Reply 19):
It will be better to compare Sigma's 70-200 2.8 against Canon's 70-200 2.8. Some say, they are equal.

I am one of some  Wink
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
IngemarE
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:46 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:55 pm

Quoting LIPH (Reply 12):
No way man....Canon have better speed...sooooo much better speed...and better contrast/sharpness, soooooo much better contras/sharpness...I'm sorry.

...and I trust you have tried/tested them all in comparison to each other!?  scratchchin  Allow me to give you the benefit of doubt......

I'm actually surprized that the Tamron 28-75 only been mentioned twice, and the Tamron 17-50 not at all.
OK, so they give a little more distortion! So what!? (...unless you're doing architectual stuff!) Fix it PS! It's easy as pie.

Personally, I'd rather have a lens that I dare bring with me and actually use in all kinds of situations, without having to constantly worry about my "prrrrecioussss".
If I happen to break it, I can afford buying a new one,.....again, again, again and again. Finally adding up to the cost a signle new Canon or Nikon would run me.
See what I mean?
In thrust I trust.
 
yhu
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:48 am

All very interesting.

Of course, I'm also wondering if I really NEED and L Lens. I've also had my eye on this guy.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=9517A002

A couple of hundred cheaper than the 17-40 L lens, has IS and the extra zoom. Keeping in mind I'm currently using this lens:

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=9475A002

...the 17-85 4-5.6 IS must still be quite an upgrade in quality. Is anyone using that lens?

Sorry if I'm full of questions. I've just been a lurker in this forum and have built up all of these questions.
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting YHU (Reply 22):
the 17-85 4-5.6 IS must still be quite an upgrade in quality. Is anyone using that lens?

I did.... for exactly 2 weeks then I was fed up with it and sold it with an enormous smile on my face.
It is of course not fair to compare a consumer with an L lens but for that money I would go for one of the other options.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4645
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting Graphic (Reply 8):
The "L" on Canon's lenses stands for "Ultra-Low Dispersion"

No it doesn't, it simply stands for 'Luxury'.

Go with the L series - tried and tested, with positive results every time. Think about it - some folk here with Sigmas and Tamrons are questioning the quality of their lenses when compared with Canon equivalents. You never get L owners doing the same. Everyone I know with an L is extremely happy and wouldn't swap it for the world. Says a lot.

In addition, whenever you go to a major sporting event (certainly here in Europe anyway), be if football, rugby, tennis or whatever, the pro photographers will all be using the grey Ls. They can't be wrong. If Sigmas and the like were better don't you think the pro's would be using them? Not to say Sigmas and the rest are bad lenses but I think my point is clear.

Karl
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24):
will all be using the grey Ls.

All? Isn't that a bit exaggerated? There are quite a few with D2Hs (right?) and huge black Nikkors on the matches.  Wink
 
Tin67
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 3:49 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:59 am

I've written this on a number of occasions, but this is my experience.

In 2004 I wanted to buy a 300mm prime, I weighed up the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX HSM and the Canon 300mm f/4 IS L and finaly decided in the Sigma. This was mainly due to a cracking deal on it and I couldn't find a Canon model to test.

I cannot fault the Sigma's performance in terms of quality of results, it was excellent. However it did have it's downsides. The autofocus was not good enough. It was too slow and had a tendancy to hunt through the full focussing range if anything go infront of the lens, such as shooting through a fence. This was extremely annoying. What killed it for me was the build of my lens, it started falling apart, bits seals broke internally and fell on to the optics and the mount became loose. I took it back to the supplier and was provided with a new one with the option to return it for a refund if I was not happy after a week. I managed to test the Sigma back to back with the Canon f4 IS L and the difference was amazing. The AF was so much faster and more accurate, the AF distance setting switch meant no hunting and the results were as good. I switched to the Canon with no hesitation. I recently upgraded to the 300mm f2.8 IS L and would never look at anything other than Canon L glass from now on.

There are also the EOS/Sigma compatibilty issues too as Sigma are not officially licensed by Canon to make EF or EF-S mounts. This doesn't mean they can't it means they don't get the support from Canon and the latest technology updates to ensure their lenses are future proof to new EOS models. Like me in the past I ended up with 3 Sigma lenses that didn't work on my new EOS model.

I think Sigma make good value and good quality lenses, but I've not had good experieinces but know others that have and swear by them. They are certainly better than the consumer Canon lenses.

The other positive about Canon L glass is it's resale. I've owned and sold a 100-400L, a 300 f4 IS L and a 17-40 L and all fetched very good prices as there is a big demand for well looked after used L glass.

Cheers
Martin
 
ChrisH
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:25 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:13 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24):
In addition, whenever you go to a major sporting event (certainly here in Europe anyway),

change the record, your needle's skipping...


they are used at sports thanks to the IS in the big lenses. thats all.

I know 4 people who own 100-400 Ls, 3 of them have failed, 2 have broken twice... L glass is not gods gift to photographers. Theyre just really good lenses, and so are many other brands.
what seems to be the officer, problem?
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24):
You never get L owners doing the same.

Because the get a hard dick from the Canon sticker Big grin

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24):
Everyone I know with an L is extremely happy and wouldn't swap it for the world. Says a lot.

Yes, I used to have a 17-35/2.8L Which didn't perform very good on a DSLR and was shortly after replaced by the 16-35/2.8L.
I still have a 24-105/4L and I am still wandering what the heck I payed for.  dollarsign 

Quoting Tin67 (Reply 26):
The other positive about Canon L glass is it's resale. I've owned and sold a 100-400L, a 300 f4 IS L and a 17-40 L and all fetched very good prices as there is a big demand for well looked after used L glass

That's a valid point.

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 27):
I know 4 people who own 100-400 Ls, 3 of them have failed, 2 have broken twice

And are of course well known to be a dust pump Big grin
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
yhu
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:57 am

May I ask what about the 17-35/4L didn't perform well on a DSLR? The quality of the shot? Or it just didn't cooperate very well with the camera?
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 27):
they are used at sports thanks to the IS in the big lenses

Then why do many people say that you should turn off the IS on your lens (if it has got one at all) if you're shooting sports (e.g. soccer)? I may be wrong, but I thought IS is for two things: Steady shots with slow shutter speeds (mode 1), and steady panning shots (mode 2). Is soccer like that?
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting YHU (Reply 29):
May I ask what about the 17-35/4L didn't perform well on a DSLR?

he said 17-35 F/2.8L, not the 17-40 F/4L. The lens he talks about was replaced by the 16-35 F/2.8L (which has a II version now)
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting YHU (Reply 29):
May I ask what about the 17-35/4L didn't perform well on a DSLR? The quality of the shot? Or it just didn't cooperate very well with the camera?



Quoting JRadier (Reply 31):
he said 17-35 F/2.8L, not the 17-40 F/4L. The lens he talks about was replaced by the 16-35 F/2.8L (which has a II version now)

 checkmark 

I think the problem was that the 17-35/2.8 was developed before the digital age.
On my analog EOS the thing always performed quite well but on my first DSLR it performed very poor.
Canon spotted the problem too I think because it was quickly replaced by the 16-35/2.8L
This story will clearly show the differences between the 17 and 16-35.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
Still you have to pay quite a lot for a used one.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
ChrisH
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:25 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:33 am

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 30):
Is soccer like that?

soccer players tend to move along the Z axis mostly. id say some panning is in order  Smile Also imagine the set pieces, IS surely helps when you want to focus on the right thing in those situations.

Also, there's an obvious trend among sports journos to use Canon i think... Just as most nature photogs ive come across in my work all shoot Nikon for some reason...
what seems to be the officer, problem?
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:39 am

An extra note about the 16-35/2.8L and why I think a lot more people wander about Canon L glass policy.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 28):
I still have a 24-105/4L and I am still wandering what the heck I payed for.

To illustrate this read this report: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
The 17-40/4L is in most area's a better performer then the twice as expensive 16-35/2.8L
My very own 24-105/4L is a reasonable lens but nothing more then that, in my view not worth the 1000,-EU I payed for it.
Don't get me wrong please I am not against Canon L, glass like the 17-40/4, 70-200/2.8(and 4) are masterpieces but if it stinks it stinks L or no L and doesn't make any sense to say that every L is so much better then the competition.
Those days are long gone.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 33):
soccer players tend to move along the Z axis mostly. id say some panning is in order Smile Also imagine the set pieces, IS surely helps when you want to focus on the right thing in those situations.

Understand. Big grin

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 33):
Also, there's an obvious trend among sports journos to use Canon i think... Just as most nature photogs ive come across in my work all shoot Nikon for some reason...

No surprise! You just found a place to work where everybody shoots Nikon.  devil 

 stirthepot 
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4645
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:11 pm

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 27):
change the record, your needle's skipping...

I think you mean stylus...

And mine's not skipping - being a disc jockey, I know  Big grin

The question has been asked, admittedly for the umpteenth time, and I answered - for the umpteenth time. There's no getting away from the fact that, for the most part, Canon's L series is the best for Canon EOS cameras.

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 27):
they are used at sports thanks to the IS in the big lenses. thats all.

Oh right. I though they were used for their other attributes too, like simply being good lenses. Obviously I'm wrong. Whilst there are other brands on the pro sporting circuit, the majority are Canons - and they're employed for their speed, which is exactly what you need when a plane's hurtling towards you at 200mph.

Karl

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests