> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis, > Peter (Peter) > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [inbox] RE: EOS 1D Mark II and Lens Test > > > If anyone is interested, just finished comparing the new Sigma 135-400 > F4.5-5.6 DG lens against the Canon EF70-200mm F2.8L IS lens. We used a > 1D Mk II and took shots only at F8 at focal lengths of 135, 200, then > added a 2x on the 70-200 and did one at 300 and a last at 400. All shots > were with camera on tripod. Viewed the raw files on PS. Expected to see > the Sigma fair poorly but it did VERY well. This was a surprise to all > of use. At $599, if you can live without IS, it's a bargain for digital > that I would feel good to recommend. Plus its smaller and is well built > (metal not plastic). AF is not fast like USM but at $599 street price > not something I would worry about unless you are shooting NASCAR. > > Peter K >
Hi Peter, You may not miss the superior focusing speed of Canon's Ring USM for what you shoot but I know I would as would many others who use longer (300mm+), lenses. The other thing I would miss is shooting wide open, why put an old EF 2X on the EF 70-200 2.8L IS and then stop down? I can't afford the light loss and I doubt that many other can either. More than likely I'd use an EF 400 2.8L IS or EF 300 2.8L IS/EF 1.4X combo if I had to go far on foot, say waling a race track for 3-4 days. As far as your results showing Sigma performing well optically this should be no surprise coming from Sigma's biggest fanboy on the EOS list. Guys, don't get me wrong, I've had the chance to use some of the newer Sigma lenses lately (12-18 months or so), and truth be told the best of the Sigma glass performs pretty well. But generally speaking Sigma lenses still represent a poor value even if they have a lower initial out of pocket cost (which I'm very sensitive to, just ask my wife about it), total up-time and quality of images produced and not missed I'd generally say that Canon lenses offer a higher value. I'll grant you that this may not hold true for all types of photographers and areas of use. As a working photographer you need the best equipment in the field unless you never leave the studio, even then why would you buy anything less? As a hint of where I'm coming from, I don't work out of a studio per se as 99% of my shooting is on location with very limited access time so I NEED my gear to work 100% of the time. Even when I'm only shooting architecture (much of my paid work), I want the best glass. As much as people complain about Canon's wideangle lenses shortcomings (ha, ha), I have yet to find or even get a hint of any other lenses as wide or wider, as sharp or sharper with less light fall off and anywhere as good corner sharpness and low aberration levels for a full frame sensor DSLR from any third party EOS mount AF lenses. I suppose I could maybe adapt a couple of shorter Leica lenses but then I would have to give up many of the reasons I bought into the EOS system in the first place. The issue of WA linear distortion IMO is moot as are most types of aberrations found in Canon EF mount wideangle glass given that I shoot digitally and these shortcomings are easily quantified and corrected in post capture processing that I'm doing anyway. Anyway that's my take on it. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
