--- F�lix_L�pez_de_Maturana <[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.
>
> If budget matters I believe that Sigma, is, nowadays
> a good choice specially
> the EX line. I cannot understand your point as I'm a
> owner of a wide Leica
> equipment -rangefinder and reflex -and that does not
> impede me using Canon,
> cameras and L lenses. Should I say "I refuse to use
> Canon as construction,
> glass and coating are not at the Leica level"? I
> think not.
No, you shouldn't say that because it's not true. <g>
Some of Canon's lenses are superior to Leica lenses in
the same focal length. In particular, I remember a
test of 50mm f1.4 lenses which showed the Canon EF
lens to be better. I think the Nikon 50mm tested out
better than the Leitz lens, too.
Just as the Sigma 15-30 has tested out better than
Canon's 17-40. But just as some Leica users insist
that Leica is always better, no matter what the
reality, some EOS shooters will insist that Canon is
always better than Sigma. No matter that Canon makes
some pretty mediocre lenses, and Sigma some pretty
darn good ones.
=====
Bob Meyer
I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
