--- Fred Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I refuse to use Sigma, for a number of reasons, one
> of which is their
> construction is no where as good as Canon, and
> neither is the glass and
> coatings on the glass.
It's really not that simple. The construction quality
of Sigma's EX line is really very good. Perhaps not
up to L lens standards, but far better than all but a
few non-L Canon lenses. Optically, the EX lenses are
probably not as good as L lenses either, but some come
surprisingly close, and for a lot less money.
Ignoring the EX lenses, Sigma has historically had
very poor build quality. Optical quality, at least in
some cases, was not much different than Canon's least
expensive consumer lenses. I don't have any emprical
evidence to support it, but I think Sigma's build
quality has improved. I no longer see or hear the
kind of horror stories I used to see about Sigma
lenses literally falling apart in a user's hands.
Finally, Sigma has really turned into an innovator.
Where is Canon's (or anyone else's, for that matter)
12-24mm full frame zoom? I've seen some tests that
show the 15-30 as better than Canon's 17-40L, for less
money. The DC 18-50 beat Canon to market with a wide
to mid tele for APS-C size sensors. And the 18-125
beats Canon in focal length by quite a bit. (All are
too new to know anything real about image quality).
Sigma's the only 3rd party maker with the equivilent
of USM.
In general, I'll choose Canon over Sigma, too. But
Sigma has improved a lot, and I won't dismiss them out
of hand any more.
=====
Bob Meyer
I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
