| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2005 02:21:02 PM · #51 |
The only Zoo picture I have shown is of the Eagle!I assure you the rest are alfresco(The great outdoors)! I don`t really see needing 500mm at a zoo but I may be mistaken!
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 14:25:41. |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 02:23:48 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But to make the assertion that the Sigma 50-500 is as good as Canon L glass is absurd. |
Again you are wrong. You are making a technical argument on "goodness" when the judge is the eye beholding the photograph. To prove your point of "L" superiority for the masses, to "sacrifice" 7 grand for a lens, then the difference would need to be "apparent" in simple 5x7's and 8x10's. Surely you are not claiming that an "L" lens is so distinctly superior that any person off the street could immediately distinguish a photo taken with an "L" to one taken with the Sigma. Your Technical argument of superiority is beyond nitpicking, and truly borders on the "mine is better because...." mentality. If I paid 7000 dolars for a lens, then I would argue for its superiority also. It would seem a shame to have afterall wasted 6 grand.
Gotta take a break. Will return later.
Message edited by author 2005-03-27 11:00:56.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 02:29:38 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But to make the assertion that the Sigma 50-500 is as good as Canon L glass is absurd. |
Again you are wrong. You are making a technical argument on "goodness" when the judge is the eye beholding the photograph. To prove you point of "L" superiority for the masses to "sacrifice" 7 grand for a lens, then the difference would need to be "apparent" in simple 5x7's and 8x10's. Surely you are not claiming that an "L" lense is so distinctly superior that any person off the street could immediately distinguish a photo taken with an "L" to one taken with the Sigma. Your Technical argument of superiority is beyond nitpicking, and truly borders on the "mine is better" mentality. If I paid 7000 dolars for a lens, then I would argue for its superiority also. If would seem a shame to have afterall wasted 6 grand.
Gotta take a break. Will return later. |
I saw a good five nice L`s today while Owling,funny I didn`t here one person complain that they had wasted any money? |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 02:32:24 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Again you are wrong. You are making a technical argument on "goodness" when the judge is the eye beholding the photograph. To prove you point of "L" superiority for the masses to "sacrifice" 7 grand for a lens, then the difference would need to be "apparent" in simple 5x7's and 8x10's. Surely you are not claiming that an "L" lense is so distinctly superior that any person off the street could immediately distinguish a photo taken with an "L" to one taken with the Sigma. Your Technical argument of superiority is beyond nitpicking, and truly borders on the "mine is better" mentality. If I paid 7000 dolars for a lens, then I would argue for its superiority also. If would seem a shame to have afterall wasted 6 grand.
|
BS again. Better is better. Who said anything about limiting what was better to an uncropped 5x7. If that was the standard to which we judged the sharpness of a lens Vivitar would be king. Show me an unsharpened crop. It all come down to put up or shut up. If you had any idea what I do with my my prints taken with that lens you would understand how silly your statement about wasting money sounds.
Show me. Show me a 100% crop from an image that was taken with a 50-500 and I will show you just how much difference there is between the lenses. I really don't think you will do it.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 02:50:49 PM · #55 |
I am still in awe of my 200mm f2.8 L. Extremely sharp images at 100% crop and I did not get this from the 70-200mm EX speaking from my experience!!
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 14:51:49. |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 03:00:03 PM · #56 |
Jeez Guys - Give it a break.
There is no way to compare lens that are thousands of dollars apart. This thread started asking for "budget" lenes.
Here are two 100% crops of an eagle I took a few days ago. for the Tamron it does not get much better than this as it was good light for fast shutter. I used a monopod and braced against a tree. Still soft but workable. But pretty good for a little over $800. Someday I will get a $5k Nikon 200-400 F4 but for now ....
 
Edit - I know, exposure is off a little so the white blew out a bit. If this was RAW (but it was jpg) I could fix it. As it is I will just burn it a little.
As a side note I waited quite some time for this guy to fly off so I could get a good flight pic. He was facing into the wind as normal so I was in a good position. Damn if he did not turna and fly away. That happened twice to me in the last few days. I'll get the ultimate flight shot yet!
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 15:03:57.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 04:10:09 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
If you had any idea what I do with my my prints ... |
You use them instead of toilet roll because they give a much higher quality wipe than paper that costs less?
Thank you for turning another useful thread into yet another "mine is better than yours" rant. |
This has nothing to do with "mine is better then yours" this has everthing to do with backing up claim that a Sigma 50-500 is as good as L glass. The claim was made several times on this thread alone. How is the thread "useful" if it is completly misleading. Get a job.
All I asked for to begin with was an actual comparison. All I've gotten was BS. Add to the pile.
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 16:16:02.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 04:18:13 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
This has nothing to do with "mine is better then yours" this has everthing to do with backing up claim that a Sigma 50-500 is as good as L glass. The claim was made several times on this thread alone. How is the thread "useful" if it is completly misleading. Get a job. |
Then simply say that you don't believe that to be true. No need to turn a discussion about sub $1000 lenses into yet more "you show yours and I'll show mine and mine will be better so there" nonsense.
Your 600L is better than a 50-500. Now can the discussion get back to budget lens?
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 04:19:16 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
All I asked for to begin with was an actual comparison. All I've gotten was BS. Add to the pile. |
Then start a new thread instead of dragging this one off topic.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 04:30:00 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
All I asked for to begin with was an actual comparison. All I've gotten was BS. Add to the pile. |
Then start a new thread instead of dragging this one off topic. |
This was dragged off topic the minute someone made that absurd claim. A claim I had every right to respond to.
Originally posted by ovenbird:
Also mentioned were some tests done by Pop photography magazine which compared the Sigma 50-500 to a Canon 500mm f/4 that came to the conclusion that the 50-500 was just as good.
|
Originally posted by coolhar:
You've posted about your experience with the 50-500 a few times in the past. But others have said that it is a sharp lens, some like the mag test saying it is as sharp as L. I'm beginning to think that you had a bad experience with a bad copy, and are perhaps holding a grudge. |
Originally posted by ovenbird:
I think that has more to do with the lighting than anything. I will suggest that any expensive Nikon or Canon prime would not fare much better with this sort of lighting and metering. There certainly appears to be a great deal of detail in the photo.
|
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:28:22 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
So then you can't give me an example. I already knew that. The point is it was stated that the 50-500 was a lens in the same class as Canon L and Nikon ED S glass. I countered that the claim was BS. No one has been able to do any thing to prove me wrong. All I hear is "lens snob", "egotistical" and "condescending". If you are happy with your lens I am trully happy that you are. I know not everyone has the means or is willing to make the sacrafice to buy a 2 to 7 thousand dollar lens. But to make the assertion that the Sigma 50-500 is as good as Canon L glass is absurd. |
You keep asking people to give you examples to balance out your opinion, and dismissing their arguements and opinions as BS. But the origin of the notion that the Bigma is equal to L was the magazine article. Do you think we should take your opinion over a magazine that did tests? We try to be a little more objective than talk radio here. You don't get to carry the point by talking longest or loudest, you need to be correct too.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:43:57 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
So then you can't give me an example. I already knew that. The point is it was stated that the 50-500 was a lens in the same class as Canon L and Nikon ED S glass. I countered that the claim was BS. No one has been able to do any thing to prove me wrong. All I hear is "lens snob", "egotistical" and "condescending". If you are happy with your lens I am trully happy that you are. I know not everyone has the means or is willing to make the sacrafice to buy a 2 to 7 thousand dollar lens. But to make the assertion that the Sigma 50-500 is as good as Canon L glass is absurd. |
You keep asking people to give you examples to balance out your opinion, and dismissing their arguements and opinions as BS. But the origin of the notion that the Bigma is equal to L was the magazine article. Do you think we should take your opinion over a magazine that did tests? We try to be a little more objective than talk radio here. You don't get to carry the point by talking longest or loudest, you need to be correct too. |
What tests? You believe everything you read in a magazine? Does having an article published in a magazine give someone the final word? The best test is definatly the end product which would best be ilistrated on the web as a cropped photo. I'll post this image, just because I have it handy.
And this crop from it.
If anyone making these claims thinks they can replicate these results with a Sigma 50-500 give it a try. I won't hold my breath.
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 19:45:30.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:49:50 PM · #63 |
ENOUGH! If yáll feel the need to continue to argue back and forth here take it to rant. This is my thread darnit! ;) Guys, thanks for the help. My friend is going with the 50-500 Bigma. Yes he knows it's not L glass, yes he knows there's a quality difference. Again, thanks. :)
Now shoo! Go argue in the Schivo thread in rant. ;)
Clara
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:51:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by blemt:
ENOUGH! If yáll feel the need to continue to argue back and forth here take it to rant. This is my thread darnit! ;) Guys, thanks for the help. My friend is going with the 50-500 Bigma. Yes he knows it's not L glass, yes he knows there's a quality difference. Again, thanks. :)
Now shoo! Go argue in the Schivo thread in rant. ;)
Clara |
You bought this thread? When you post it it is open.
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 19:51:45.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:53:32 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
You bought this thread? When you post it it is open. |
*big smoochy kiss* MWAH! Yer a love. Now go rant elsewhere. Pretty please. :) With sugar on top.
Clara
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:55:38 PM · #66 |
OK Clara, but let us know how your friend likes their new lens after they have had a chance to do some bird shooting.
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 19:56:26.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:56:45 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
You bought this thread? When you post it it is open. |
*big smoochy kiss* MWAH! Yer a love. Now go rant elsewhere. Pretty please. :) With sugar on top.
Clara |
Seems you like to rant too. I'll join you down at the Schivo rant.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:59:04 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
OK Clara, but let us know how your friend likes their new lens after they have had a chance to do some bird shooting. |
I shall. And again, thanks for all the input and suggestions. This is also good for me. I may get a customer down the line who wants to do some birding. You guys rock. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 08:06:00 PM · #69 |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 08:17:04 PM · #70 |
Good grief. That's so bad it's not even funny! (It's not the Bigma though).
I can show something to compare to that, though I only have the sharpened version handy. You should be able to tell that it's at least better than the 170-500 though (I hope!) ...
Sigma 100-300 + Sigma 2x Extender 100% crop
I wouldn't recommend this combo for birding though - you're stuck with manual focus which is fine for pre-focusing motorsports shots, but hopeless for trying to lock onto birds.
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 20:25:57.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 08:29:45 PM · #71 |
Oh,well. I'm going to step in here in defense of the 50-500 Sigma. I've used it for distance shots - including birds - since December 2003 and find it quite useful. It's heavy and I need some kind of support, either a tripod or the car door, but if you look at my profile and check out the bird pictures, you'll see it does a pretty good job. (there are 6 closeup type shots that were not done with the "Bigma")
But these examples are pretty sharp, I think. Indeed there might be better lenses, don't dispute that, but the 50-500 is, in my estimation, a good lens.
  
Alice |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 09:09:00 PM · #72 |
I don't remember the 50-500 being anywhere near that bad.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 10:48:45 AM · #73 |
|
|
|
03/27/2005 01:16:15 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Flash:
 |
Why is one eye sharper then the other?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 01:18:23 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Why is one eye sharper then the other? |
The sharper one has been usm-ed judging by the filename.
|
|
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: 08/16/2025 03:40:44 AM EDT.
