> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis, > Peter (Peter) > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 12:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS Last post on Speculation is not education > > > > > Chip Louie wrote: > > > 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? > > You're speculating again! I never said I was trying to save > a buck. > As tests go, I believe the Sigma was tested by Pop Photo and > several other publications. I did not quote the magazine > when I said that the Sigma blew away the Canon. That was > my comment. > I will tell you that I have been disappointed in the EF17-35 and > from what I see of the 17-40 they can keep it. The 20-35mm > is sharper than both. If I were shooting digital I would go > toward the 16-35 if price were no object. > As to lenses, I often borrow them when I want to test a lens. > I had the EF70-200mm and compared it to the Sigma before > I bought the Sigma. I own the 28-135, 135 F2, and several others. > Currently I own but 2 Sigma lenses, the 70-200 and 105 macro. > > We all have opinions Chip. My gripe was your reference > to the 15-30: > "I think this new Sigma when used on a small > sensor digital body like the EOS D30/D60/10D > series cameras can produce adequate, not great > image quality." > This would indicate that without having tried the lens you > believe it inferior. > > Peter K >
Hi Peter, So where does experience with other people's opinions end speculation begin? Here you are recently writing "Quite to the contrary it gives the big boys a run for their money. Very very very sharp. Blows the EF 17-40F4 away." So many other people on PhotoZone have rated this lens so poorly that you are almost certainly describing images taken with a different lens altogether or simply speculating quite a bit on yourself. You have still not stated that you have used this lens at all or even played with it. I've stated that I have not shot any images with this lens but have handled it. You have not stated anything but your opinion with no supporting information or references to images on-line to support your opinion on this lens. This IMO sounds like speculation on your part, not an opinion based on even the simplest research on the web. The fact that you "believe" that Pop Photo and/or maybe "other publications" have tested this lens means nothing with respect research or to the numerous people on PhotoZone who have purchased and used it in the field and said it was a poor performing lens. The fact that I said that "I think this new Sigma when used on a small sensor digital body like the EOS D30/D60/10D series cameras can produce adequate, not great image quality" is a problem for you because I have not tried it yet? Read what I said again; "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)." The key words here are "so I don't waste my time trying out a piece of junk." Believe me, I've been looking for something close to the best of Canon's top lenses so I can have more lenses that can offer me more solutions and options in differing shooting situations. So far there is no other complete line of lenses and accessories that are even close to Canon's top lenses in terms of optical, mechanical, operational, reliability and compatibility performance. If there were I'd own them. I AM shooting digital and price was an object for me and I STILL bought the EF 16-35 2.8L. It solves a lot of shooting problems in a very cost effective package and in the long run should work well on full frame sensor cameras. The problem with all of the Sigma "digital" lenses is that they are offering lenses that will produce even worse images on full frame sensor bodies than on small sensor bodies. When full frame bodies come out at the price point where many more people start to buy them all of the slight savings made by buying a Sigma "digital" lens will be long forgotten by the horror of true cost of saving a few buck up front. The cost of having to buy new lenses to replace these slightly less expensive Sigma "digital" lenses will not be realized by most until it's too late. Then like me and many others these former Sigma fans will be buying Canon lenses that they could have had all along. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
