| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2005 10:20:55 AM · #26 |
I couldn't find the magazine review online (I looked before I posted). It was either the January or February issue. No surprise that reviewers found the Sigma to be sharper than the Canon 18-55... so are Coke bottles. ;-)
I hadn't noticed the focus ring turning since I'm either using manual focus or holding the zoom ring. My only minor complaints are that the zoom ring is reversed (so I sometimes zoom out rather than in), and the lens cap can be tricky to snap on. Neither is a big deal.
This is one of my favorite shots:
 |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:23:37 AM · #27 |
The focus ring thing hasn't bothered me so far, but I can see how it could depending on how you hold your camera (the way I hold it dosen't affect me).
I haven't done the side by side comparisons yet but here are three 1:1 crops at differnt ISOs and different focal lengths with no post processing. Clicky |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:40:22 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by jlhudson:
The focus ring thing hasn't bothered me so far, but I can see how it could depending on how you hold your camera (the way I hold it dosen't affect me).
I haven't done the side by side comparisons yet but here are three 1:1 crops at differnt ISOs and different focal lengths with no post processing. Clicky |
I don't know about the Tamron, but if that's ISO 1600 on your 20D maybe the better investment for me rather than a lens for low light is to buy a 20D! I can't even shoot ISO 400 indoors on my 300D with that little noise. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:46:08 AM · #29 |
Love the 20D!
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 10:46:21. |
|
|
|
02/12/2005 05:07:11 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
It looks like it's only $329 here, unless I'm looking at a different lens.
-Terry |
Indeed you are. That's the 28-70 version, the lens I was considering was the first lens under the "You may also be interested in these items.." list. On Amazon, it's $409. This is the lens my thread was referring to.
Here are the FM.com reviews which almost have me sold: //www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=97&sort=7&cat=37&page=1
|
|
|
|
02/13/2005 11:59:25 AM · #31 |
| sounds to me like it's a hit or miss on getting a really sharp one vs a soft one. I hate taking that risk so i'm really thinking about primes, but for some things they're just not practical :-( |
|
|
|
02/13/2005 03:09:02 PM · #32 |
Bear in mind also that sharp-as-a-tack performance on calibration targets doesn't always lead you to the lens that produces the best results in the field, on the camera. There are many other variables, some built-in (chroma, abberations, all sorts of things) and others less tangible such as build quality and its relatiopnship to how good of a knocking-around the lens can take. Many of these variables affect the intangibles of the photograph; some lens just "look" good, and the aesthetically outperform some significantly sharper rivals.
Finally, as hinted below, there's manufacturing tolerances to consider; manufacturer "A" may make wildly expensive glass with extremely strict quality control, while manufacturer "B" cuts corners in materials and quality control, so their lenses may perform on the average not as well as (or better than, for that matter) the published tests suggest it should.
I'd be inclined to go with Canon's or Nikon's glass for this reason. I prize consistency and durability over price. Which is why I shoot the 5700 btw; it was way expensive when I got it (when it first came out) but it's a metal camera and it just is more solid than my fuji was.
Robt.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-02-13 15:10:12.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 06:00:44 PM EDT.
