|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2006 06:14:49 PM · #26 |
In the spirit of helpful replies to the OP...
When I am going to buy a new lense, here is what I do. I would do the same for both lenses you are considering.
1) Make sure you are comparing apples to apples. First thing to note about the canon versus sigma is the canon is a faster lense. f3.5 versus f4 at the wide end. At the narrow end it is F4.5 canon to f5.6 sigma. That is part of the price difference right there, as well as the weight.
2) Go to fredmiranda.com and look at how each lense is rated. The ratings are based on a price and quality component. Read a few PAGES of the owner reviews for each lense. A lot of morons will dog a lense rating simply because it lacks IS or is not L. Look for reviews that discuss the lense as it is, not the lense they wish it were.
3) Go to photozone.de and read the reviews on both lenses. They are very indepth reviews using apples to apples comparison tests. I usually read the beginning, look at the sample photos, skip the hypertechnical bit in the middle (but that's just me) and then go to the summary at the end.
4) Go to photodo.com and read the reviews there, just to get a second opinion based on tests not user reviews.
There is a reason the Canon lense is a couple bills more and it is not because it has Canon stamped on it. Wether or not it is sufficient cause for you to spend the extra money is your choice. |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 06:58:57 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by B74A:
With regard to your suggestion, thanks, but I already have shaved as much weight off my belongings as I can :-) Example: The the holder for my Gilette Mach III went out a long time ago, and so I always look for how to save weight and space. |
Yeah but if 2 ounces is important enough for you to change which lens you'd get, wouldn't you be better off just using a nice little Schick double-blade disposable razor that does the same job as the Mach III at about half or a third of the weight? Do you keep the batteries in your mach III, because it's really a waste of way more than a few ounces being that the batteries really don't do that much at all. I mean I could keep going and going on ways to save you 2 ounces that don't involve choosing one lens over another.
And Bear_Music, as far as the Canon being better built, why is it that the Sigma comes with a 4-year warranty and the Canon only a 1-year warranty? Is build quality really that big of a concern if a company is guaranteeing its product to be free of defects for a good while longer than another company?
--
Anyway, like I said, we could probably go on all day about this, but the fact of the matter remains that Sigma makes a great lens...so does Nikon, so does Canon. I just can't see, personally, buying a Nikon or Canon over the Sigma equivalent until the two 'big dogs' start to realize that they are way over-charging for their similar-in-quality products.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2006 07:08:52 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
There is a reason the Canon lense is a couple bills more and it is not because it has Canon stamped on it. Wether or not it is sufficient cause for you to spend the extra money is your choice. |
Are you sure that's not the only reason it's more money though?
--
And as far as reading reviews, it's not really helpful to me. If I'm reading one review that says "oh this lens is slow to focus and build quality is horrible" then the very next one says "oh this lens is the best lens i've ever used, great picture quality..."
I mean what is the reviewer used to using? Anyone that's used to using a point and shoot will probably think any lens is the best one they've ever used. If the reviewer is used to using top of the line pro equipment with a constant 2.8 aperture, just about anything is going to seem inferior.
Not to mention the fact that the internet, and the photo industry as a whole, is completely flooded with these purists that truly believe, without ever trying a third-party lens, that the third-party lens sucks and doesn't compare to the Canon or Nikon counterpart.
One common reason from the purists mentioned above will be remarks on build quality. A lot of the time, this is a nice easy way to take a stab at a third-party company, but note that these folks will never have any statistical information to back up their claims.
Another common reason would be that you always get what you pay for. The Canon or the Nikon is more money, so it must be better, right? Well that's what they think, but for the most part, these folks have never tried a third-party lens, let alone compared any Canon or Nikon lens to the similar third-party lens. If, for some reason, you find someone who has done a comparison, it usually won't be very scientific at all. You'll usually get an opinionated purist that taints the results to make the reader believe what it is that they want you to believe. Examples of this would be not using a tripod to do tests or using unsharp mask on their Canon or Nikon photo and not on their Sigma photo. That's not to mention that most of these folks that do these comparisons are shooting in automatic mode, whereas any tests should be done on full manual including manual white balance.
So anyway, be very weary of what you read on the internet. Go to bhphotovideo.com and buy the Sigma. You have a couple of weeks to try it out. If you don't like it, return it and get your Nikon or Canon counterpart at that point. I'm sure, from my experience anyway, that B&H will have no problem swapping a cheaper lens for a more expensive lens as long as it's within the time they give you to return the lens in the first place.
Oh well, either way, good luck...I say get the Sigma.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2006 07:23:38 PM · #29 |
*pops this thread on watch then wonders if he should drive home in his Ford Fiesta or Porsche Boxster*
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 12:32:14 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Yeah but if 2 ounces is important enough for you to change which lens you'd get, wouldn't you be better off just using a nice little Schick double-blade disposable razor that does the same job as the Mach III at about half or a third of the weight? ...
|
I have written what my opinion is, and what is important to ME, and you keep telling us what is right and wrong, as if you have the answer sheet to the world. I am not trying to impose MY views on anyone, just telling what is significant for me! Ounces, pounds whatever, it all adds up, and I DO have to consider both weight and space, maybe more than you think. And in case you don't know, then a Mach III razor IS a disposable razor, and lightweight, it was just an example, but it seems you have to twist and turn every word and take things out of perspective.
I am NOT saying I got the Canon JUST because of the weight, but since I didn't know which one, the weight finally did it - something had to break - as I definately was not going to get BOTH of them, OK? I have seen your profile and that you have some Sigma lenses and even a different camera than me, so what works for me does not work for you - perfectly OK!
Can we not agree to disagree, please? Some people will not stop until the other part is convinced (or gives up, for peace), I am perfectly fine with people having different views, needs, opinions and even feeling about what is right and what is not.
Puhleeeas! Argh, I give up ...
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 12:39:15 AM · #31 |
That's fine and I agree that we all are different. If everyone had the same ideas and wanted the same things, the world would be borring.
John asked for personal opinions on which lens he should get. Recommending the Canon because it's 2 ounces lighter (or less than a polarizer lighter) is absurd, and I'm just trying to point that out.
Sure, we all have our reasons, but assuming that your lens was 2 ounces heavier than it is, I'm sure you could come up with another solution as to how to shed those extra 2 ounces pretty easily from your carry-on luggage.
And as far as me trying to 'impose my views' on anyone, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm just trying to point out the obvious, and give anyone who is considering a Sigma vs. a Canon/Nikon something good to read that is free of the elitests out there cluttering things up with their hoo-ha.
You're right, you selected the Canon for certain reasons which you're entitled to and allowed to share. At the same time, if anyone doesn't agree with those reasons, they're allowed to let you know that they don't agree and let you know why it is that they don't agree without being accused of trying to 'force their will' on anyone or being called rough, brash, or anything else along those lines.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 12:40:45 AM · #32 |
SC-
Please lock this thread. It has deviated way off course but it has served it's original purpose.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 12:41:58 AM · #33 |
Why lock it? Maybe others haven't decided which lens they want to get yet.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 12:52:45 AM · #34 |
| Hey John. Though I shoot Nikon, I currently own the Sigma. Great lens as I've also shot with the Nikon 12-24 and the Tamron 11-18. Only thing I can say is that you be mindful of your toes as this lens is really wide. The weight is a non-issue and the sharpness is fantastic. You would not be disappointed. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 01:00:33 AM · #35 |
| Am only experienced with the Canon, and it is very good. Reviews of the Sigma indicate the lens is excellent as are fotos I have seen from it. John, either one in your hands on whatever camera you use will produce amazing images. Looking forward to viewing your results from out west. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 01:17:48 AM · #36 |
I want to get a super-wide later this fall...I've used the Tokina 12-24 and like it, it's constant ap and price.
The canon is pricey, but faster than the Sigma...the tamron is less range, and slow but i like their SP glass...
I am awaiting the Tokina 10-17 3.5-4.5 fisheye zoom (basic info) - sufficiently fast and wide, and priced right ($450ish i hear).
PS can correct the fisheye (i've seen the results on a 15mm canon fisheye on a 1Dn mk2). I also have seen that 15mm fisheye on my 30D and it's not too fishy, so it should work as a wide angle for my purposes and a fisheye too.
I shoot weddings and want wider than 18. I have a sigma, my second lens form them, and both are excellent lenses and even better values. Given that, I plan to one day have some canon L glass.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 01:37:44 AM · #37 |
I own some Sigma, some Tamron, and some Canon glass. I went with 10-22 because the reviews said it was near L-quality. I do not regret spending the extra money. I wish it was weather sealed, but it is well made, and the paralax correction is amazing.
As far as the warranty advantage of Sigma over Canon, I have no idea how good or bad the Canon service is since I have never had to send in anything to them. The folks at Sigma ave very good at dealing with issues under warranty, but I wish that I did not know this. The only peices of photography equipment I have had fail before the "just pain worn out point" were both made by Sigma. They are repaired and working fine, but the experience has made me Sigma shy.
Lest I be taken for another Canon zombie, my favorite "pick one and use it only" lens is the Tamron 28-75xr/di.
Message edited by author 2006-09-18 01:38:49. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 03:01:09 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by deapee:
And Bear_Music, as far as the Canon being better built, why is it that the Sigma comes with a 4-year warranty and the Canon only a 1-year warranty? Is build quality really that big of a concern if a company is guaranteeing its product to be free of defects for a good while longer than another company? |
It's got nothing to do with warranties as far as I'm concerned. The lens just feels better to me, I'm glad I got it. I couldn't ask for more than it has given me; essentially distortion free, as fast as can be expected, feels good in the hands, looks good to the eye. And I'm not a Canon brand snob either; my most-used lens is the Tamron 28-75mm, which I felt was a much better value than the Canon 24-70mm; in fact, my original shopping list had no superwide and the 24-70L was on it; then I realized I could get the 10-22mm AND the 28-75mm and still save money. In any case, the Sigma 10-20mm wasn't on the market when I bought. I just happened to get a chance to handle one last week, and I'm glad I have what I have.
Good enough for ya?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 04:21:52 AM · #39 |
//www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=user_review&no=14563
In Korean, but look at the pics. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 04:27:58 AM · #40 |
Hiya Doc :-) Long time no see! Parsed the URL for ya.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 04:55:42 AM · #41 |
Dave, What the heck?
Calling guys out for misinformation?
I've used my Canon L telephoto for macro shooting using just a tiny part of the lens and it does very well. It shows up the miserable quality of the 50mm f/1.8 quite easily.
But the way that you are responding to people in this thread is uncalled for.
The FACTS are that more expensive lenses usually ARE better optically and functionally (drive motors and stuff). Sure the difference is often minimal and not noticeable with the uses of most people, but there often is a difference.
Check the difference between the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8. You CERTAINLY get what you pay for there. How about the difference between the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM compared with any of its competitors.
Photozone.de gives detailed breakdowns of how this lens performs and you can use your own mind to decide whether it's worth it or not for you. At least there IS real information there that can hardly be considered misinformation.
It's not the whole picture, but it's a good chunk of it.
Canon L lenses do NOT always outperform third party alternatives, but they OFTEN do.
Photozone offers the information that Canon outperforms the other competitors specifically in the area of Chromatic Aberration.
You don't trust lens reviews. Fine, but chill out a bit. Geesh!
As far as Nikon always being better than Canon, watch yourself. Photozone also mentions that the results are NOT cross-brand compatible. One notable difference in the Canon vs Nikon lens comparison is the difference in the CoC.
And JMSetzler started this thread. He feels that the thread has deviated from its original purpose. He didn't name any names when he asked for it to be locked, but it's totally appropriate. If anyone else hasn't had their questions answered, they can start their own thread.
Why does it have to get hostile? |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 05:09:47 AM · #42 |
I have a couple of L lenses, but these were all bought after I was unhappy with the performance of the equivilent Sigma lenses.
After this I thought I wouldn't try Sigma again, but I then had a bit of time with a friends Sigma 10-22mm and was amazed by it. The image quality was great and it feld really nice to me.
It had a nice finish and looked really nice. It seemed quite fast to focus and I couldn't fault the image quality.
I should stress that I haven't tried the Canon 10-22 so I can't say how the Sigma compares, but I do know that I am delighted with the Sigma 10-20mm performance and quality.
My advice, go to a shop, try the sigma and if you like it, buy it and save 200+ bucks |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 09:37:53 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Check the difference between the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8. You CERTAINLY get what you pay for there.
|
Those are two completely different lenses, geared for different things. Unlike, for example, the 70-200 2.8's or the 105 2.8's (canon's I believe may be a 100 2.8).
Originally posted by eschelar:
As far as Nikon always being better than Canon, watch yourself.
|
I was referring specifically to the lenses that I had been talking about, which were the 105/100 2.8's vs. eachother.
Originally posted by eschelar:
And JMSetzler started this thread. He feels that the thread has deviated from its original purpose. He didn't name any names when he asked for it to be locked, but it's totally appropriate. If anyone else hasn't had their questions answered, they can start their own thread.
|
How stupid would it be if every time someone had a question, the thread got locked the second the original poster got an answer? Threads are for more than one person, that's why more than one person can read the responses. Here's what the front page would look like.
Seed Scores [locked]
10-20 vs 10-22 [locked]
canon or nikon [locked]
post your seed scores [locked]
Hey everyone I had a good weekend.
seed scores
10-20 vs 10-22 [locked]
50 1.8 vs 50 1.4 [locked]
Is canon better than nikon? [locked]
Anyway, you get the idea. And as far as being hostile, no one's being hostile here. Like I said, I want to give folks who are looking for the truth the option to find the truth for themselves. Even your statement that the L lenses are 'usually better functionally' due to things like drive motors makes no sense here. We're comparing, I thought, a 10-22 to a 10-20, and both have high speed focusing motors. Actually, since you mention it, I'd be willing to bet that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with HSM focuses faster than a 70-200 f/4L and pretty much the same, if not faster than the 70-200 f/2.8L.
I'll agree with you that a 17-40 L is a better lens than a 18-55 non L, but that doesn't mean that the 17-40 L is any better than Nikon's 17-55. In fact, it's not even in the same league as Nikon's. My main point with the L statements is that just because something is an L, doesn't make it any better than any other piece of pro glass out there. Sure some L lenses are great and are the best at what they do, but the ones mentioned specifically so far in this thread are certainly not the best in that specific area of lenses. It's clear, however, that Canon's marketing team is in full effect. There are so many misinformed folks out there missing out on a lot of great lenses because they're saving every penny they have for something that is an L lens just because it's an L lens. I've been down that road before, so I know what I'm talking about and I ventured to the other side and I've found the truth for myself.
Oh well, and as far as being hostile, I suppose it depends on what definition you want to use. Sure I'm trying to be opposed to some of the views that people hold, but my main goal is to try and open the eyes of the folks that are newer to the fact that there are great third-party lenses available that compare equally with, and in some cases surpass, the quality available from the camera manufacturer, at a fraction of the price. I apologize if I've been a bit blunt about it, but that's just the type of poster that I am. If we could have this converstation in person, I think you'd see that while I do feel strongly about the topic at hand, that my true intentions are to help.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 10:06:13 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by deapee:
be very weary of what you read on the internet. |
It makes me wearier by the day.
OP - go read user reviews, technical/benchmark results, and if possible put both lenses on and take them for a spin.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 10:22:01 AM · #45 |
I dont want to repeat myself here, but go to a shop and try the Sigma, take the test images home and take a good look. If your impressed with them (and I reckon you will be) go for the Sigma, its not as if your only saving a few bucks, we are talking about a large wedge of cash here!
If your not impressed with the Sigma, then take a look at the Canon, but take your credit card with you! Don't give in to Lense snobbery, I will be the first to agree that Canon lenses are often the better equipment, but not always!
I subscribe to 3 magazines now, and they each often do lense comparisons, and its surprising how often the Sigmas and Tamerons come out on top or a VERY CLOSE second.
GO try the Sigma first, it might save you a bundle! |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 10:31:35 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Check the difference between the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8. You CERTAINLY get what you pay for there.
|
my point: pay more and you usually get better quality
Those are two completely different lenses, geared for different things. Unlike, for example, the 70-200 2.8's or the 105 2.8's (canon's I believe may be a 100 2.8).
I was under the impression that you were comparing the 70-200 f/whatever plus extension tubes to a 10#mm f/2.8 macro when you said:
Originally posted by deapee:
The glass used in the Sigma 105 2.8 is better at shooting close up than the 70-200 L is because there's a big difference in how you make the glass for shooting far away or close up. That's not soemthing that's open to argument John, it's pure fact. |
I believe that the 70-200 should have little trouble providing roughly equivalent image quality with appropriate extension tubes. The primary difference between the two is the minimum focal distance. Optical quality shouldn't be toooo far different between those two options. I don't really agree that the "L" advantage would have anything to do with this comparison, but I'm not going to jump on someone for 'spreading misinformation' because of that statement either.
Originally posted by eschelar:
As far as Nikon always being better than Canon, watch yourself.
|
I was referring specifically to the lenses that I had been talking about, which were the 105/100 2.8's vs. eachother.
fair enough - in reading this the first time, I did miss the critical qualifying word 'Macro', so I misinterpreted your statement. I will add though that your own reasoning certainly seems a bit dubious in this matter: Originally posted by deapee:
I don't get too into technical details of lenses, I let those that feel like putting the time into pixel peeping, peep the pixels for me. It's no hidden fact that the Sigma rivals the Nikkor as far as image quality goes and I believe it's also common knowledge that the Nikkor macro exceeds the Canon as far as quality is concerned as well. |
So the argument goes: "N" is better than "C". "S" is almost as good as "N". Therefore it's reasonable to assume that "S" is probably better than "C".
I would wager that the Canon 100mm f/2.8 also 'rivals the quality of' the Nikon equivalent.
Originally posted by eschelar:
And JMSetzler started this thread. He feels that the thread has deviated from its original purpose. He didn't name any names when he asked for it to be locked, but it's totally appropriate. If anyone else hasn't had their questions answered, they can start their own thread.
|
How stupid would it be if every time someone had a question, the thread got locked the second the original poster got an answer? Threads are for more than one person, that's why more than one person can read the responses. Here's what the front page would look like.
Seed Scores [locked]
10-20 vs 10-22 [locked]
canon or nikon [locked]
post your seed scores [locked]
Hey everyone I had a good weekend.
seed scores
10-20 vs 10-22 [locked]
50 1.8 vs 50 1.4 [locked]
Is canon better than nikon? [locked]
Anyway, you get the idea. And as far as being hostile, no one's being hostile here. Like I said, I want to give folks who are looking for the truth the option to find the truth for themselves. Even your statement that the L lenses are 'usually better functionally' due to things like drive motors makes no sense here. We're comparing, I thought, a 10-22 to a 10-20, and both have high speed focusing motors. Actually, since you mention it, I'd be willing to bet that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with HSM focuses faster than a 70-200 f/4L and pretty much the same, if not faster than the 70-200 f/2.8L. |
You are quite correct in stating that such an argument makes no sense because it's not an argument I was making. In this statement: Originally posted by eschelar:
'The FACTS are that more expensive lenses usually ARE better optically and functionally (drive motors and stuff). Sure the difference is often minimal and not noticeable with the uses of most people, but there often is a difference. |
My point was: more expensive lenses usually ARE better optically and functionally. I added the 'drive motors and stuff' as a means of defining what I meant by 'functionally'.
Actually, if you look back on this post, you will notice that after one comment in particular pinched your funny bone, you proceeded to take issue and argue with almost every single post in this thread... posts that were directed to JMSetzler.
It all seems to stem from...
Originally posted by jmsetzeler:
I bought a set of kenko extension tubes that I can use on my 70-200 and get as 'macro' as I want to, and have the advantage of the L glass... |
The "advantages of L glass" could include:
L glass USUALLY has better optical characteristics
L glass almost always works better with the autofocus mechanism (with a few notable exceptions)
L glass usually has excellent color response and well handled chromatic aberrations - something that is exceptionally hard to report on even with lab condition testing.
L glass seldom has issues with badly collimated lenses (an issue that seems to be rearing its ugly head a bit with some third party glass, particularly photozone.de's two tests on the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Canon/Nikon and a few others I can't quite recall offhand)
L glass USUALLY has superior corner/border performance
L glass USUALLY has a bit better performance with respects wide aperture sharpness.
Indeed, the above could apply equally to Nikon or Canon.
I'm surely not trying to intimate that third party lenses are incapable of performing equal to or in some cases even better than Pro grade name brand glass - and at better prices - but it is true that if you pay more and get a name brand variant, you will probably get a better lens all around or at least in a few key areas.
As to the hostility factor, there is more than just choice of words to that issue. Actions indeed do tend to speak louder than words.
Reread the thread and you will see what I mean.
JMSetzler did not ask for this thread to be locked because his question was answered. He asked because the thread has deviated far from the intended course AND because it had already given a satisfactory answer. He was just being polite by not mentioning that you have been dogging almost every single post in the thread with an argument.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 02:22:57 PM · #47 |
It looks like there are some great facts presented here on both sides of this issue, but it looks like the points to be made have all been made, and the later posts in this thread largely repeat the earlier ones.
With that in mind, this thread has lived its useful life.
Thanks to everyone who presented their opinions.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 01/10/2026 05:22:02 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/10/2026 05:22:02 PM EST.
|
