> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis, > Peter (Peter) > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: EOS Sigma 15-30mm - Speculation is not education > > > > > Chip Louie wrote (edited to keep it short): > > I don't generally put a lot of stock in any one test or one > > example of a lens. > > > OBTW, here are some images someone else did that compares > > several Canon lenses including the EF 28-135IS, these seem > > representative of the EF 28-135IS lens' performance compared > > to the Canon "L" class zooms. The images show an obvious > > and a less obvious problem with the EF 28-135IS > > images, the corners are obviously very blurry even stopped > > down and less obvious is that the contrast is lower than with > > the "L" zooms. Look at the other images and you can see that > > the centers are also less sharp than the "L" zooms compared. > > > > http://www.pbase.com/image/16730485 > > > > http://www.pbase.com/image/16730487 > > > > Not much speculation needed here to see that your very high > > opinion and past claim that the EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS ] > > performs as well as an "L" zoom may be somewhat overzealous. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Chip, > > You are contradicting yourself. Forst you say you do not put a lot > of stock in one test, then you attempt to change subjects and > attack my comments on the 28-135IS Lens. Are you taking lawyer > lessons on weekends or what? > All I can say is I have the actual slides to back up my claim. > My results are enough for me. If I like a lens I use it. > Maybe if people concentrated more in the image instead of this > BS on resoltion and sharpness we would actually have a list > that was useful instead of "is my xxx lens sharp enough?" > Geeez. Sometimes it can get to you. > > Peter K > >
Hi Peter, You have never answered the question regarding your sources of information where you stated the Sigma "blows away the EF 17-40 4L." You also have not answered if you actually have a Sigma 15-30 or used one to compare it with the comparable Canon lenses. You know what I've done and a few of the places I've looked for information on lenses that I have not personally shot with. And to answer your question, no I'm not taking "lawyer lesions on weekends." I did help prepare my wife for the California bar 18 years ago (she passed the first time), does that count? I've said it before and have no problem saying it again, personally I don't believe that lens tests of a single sample are a good way to test lenses. There seems to be some variability from all lens makers. The links I posted are from some guy who has obviously tried them and shot them. I didn't do these test shots so you can't accuse me of messing with the results. But these visual results backed up with the survey results on the Photozone site should pretty much close the matter for anyone. The survey was taken by 106 EF 28-70 2.8L users and 160 EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS users. The optical verdict for the 28-70 "L" zoom was "excellent" AF speed was "fast" and build quality was "very good." These same columns for the EF 28-135IS zoom was "average" optical performance, just "ok" AF speed and "good" build quality. I think it's safe to say that there were more than one sample being used in these field tests. Hmmm, you say you have the slides to back up your claim. Are you now saying that have an EF 28-70 2.8L and EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS and EF 17-40 4L and Sigma 15-30 3.5-4.5EX DG DF lenses? If so for a guy that is always looking to save a buck or two you sure have a lot of lenses that overlap, what other lenses do you have? Well if your results are good enough for you I'm happy that you are so pleased with your work. If you are so pleased with your lenses why are you spending so much time on this list looking for something better? If the list is so full of BS and not useful to you why are you still here participating in the discussion? It never gets to me. My quest for the best information regarding Canon EOS equipment and techniques is relentless. This is the reason I'm here and often challenge what people say and ask for and look back up evidence to support many of the various claims when the BS meter is hitting the redline. I find many of the list members (yes, even you), invaluable in helping me develop my opinions about a piece of equipment so I don't waste my time trying out a piece of junk (the Sigma 15-30 zoom is sadly one of them). I also read this list for information regarding operational and practical photographic techniques. Sometimes it pans out because the manuals don't tell you about the quirks a products has or how to get around them. Where do you stand? Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
