Chip Louie wrote: > x> > > > Ah, interesting. Well, I guess compared to my old Sigma 28-70 > > f/2.8 non USM lens > > it's as fast as lightning :-) This has to be the slowest AF lens > > for Canon EOS > > ever, at least the slowest I have ever seen. :-( > > > > Thomas Bantel > > Hey Thomas, > > Here are some more reasons I like Canon glass. >
While I like Canon glass also, the glass of that Sigma was quite good. But using it was absolutely annoying for anything but tripod based work with time enough to focus. And I tend to use prime lenses in this case anyway. It was one of my first lenses, the first good standard zoom I bought. It replaced the horrible 35-80 f/4.5-5.6 that came with my first camera. This wasn't an USM lens, but still light years faster AF than the Sigma. The image quality was much better with the Sigma, though. And there was no way for me to afford the original 28-80 f/2.4-4L at that time - the 28-70 f/2.8L, it's successor, wasn't even introduced yet. Now that I ran across a nice, used and affordable 28-70L some years ago, the Sigma gathers dust, haven't used it since. The only Sigma lens I still use is their old 90mm macro. I don't do enough macro shots to justify another macro lens, and it's not a bad lens either, although it goes to 1:2 only. Anyway, the optical quality of my Sigma lenses is nothing to complain about. The problems are mechanical and electronical ones. And these made me stop buying Sigma lenses many years ago. It's ever been original Canon lenses since. Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
