----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugo Lopes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: EOS Re: New lens from Sigma
> > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:50:42 -0700 > > From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: EOS Re: New lens from Sigma > > > > > As far as zooms go there is NOTHING available for the EF mount that > > > performs > > > > optically, mechanically or long term reliably like Canon's fast > > > "L" zooms, > > > > not from ANY manufacture of EF mount lenses. How are they behind? > > Chip > > You missed the point. When I mentioned Canon was behind, I did not mean it > in absolute optical or mechanical quality. Yes, L series lenses are great, > but not everybody can afford them. You seem to have forgotten this point. > There are people who want decent quality but can't afford a L lenses. To > give you an example: a friend of mine has a 28-80/4.5-5.6 zoom and often > complains about the slow aperture. On several occasions he has asked me this > question: "is there a zoom with a slightly wider aperture in the Canon range > without going L?", he is not prepared to spend more than 500-600 Euro. My > answer is: "no". The options I give him is sigma: 28-70/2.8-4; 28-105/2.8-4 > and now 28-135/2.8-4, just to mention sigma. What lenses does Canon have to > compete with sigma in this range? None. Many moons ago, Canon used to > manufacture a great little trans-standard: 28-70/3.5-4.5. It had an > excellent image quality at an affordable price. Unfortunately it was > discontinued, never to be replaced. There is a segment of the zoom market > where Canon just isn't represented. The reasons why they choose to do so are > irrelevant to me. The fact remains that you have to look elsewhere in the > zoom market to find a mid-priced, relatively fast zoom. In this sense, they > are behind the competition because they have nothing to offer. > > > > > I think you all know where I > > > > stand on this issue. > > You stand among the privileged ones that can afford L glass. By no means do > I say this in a pejorative manner since I also belong to this class of Canon > costumers (I have 3 L lenses). Nevertheless I always try not to forget that > there are other people who just can't afford L glass and have to settle for > compromise solutions. Mind you, they represent a larger share of the market > than L lenses owners. > > Regards, > > Hugo > By the way, that Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 is the single worst lens I've ever seen. I bought one for my wife for Christmas a couple of years ago, and at least the sample we had was terrible. Unsharp at any focal length and f stop. Nasty little thing, the only reason she kept it for the 5 months that she did is that she didn't want to hurt my feelings by selling it on e-bay. Once I found out it was that bad, we put up on sale and bought a Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for her. Much better lens. Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
