Suggestions - Page 2 - Saxperience

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 18:04

Unless i can be persuaded other wise it will be canon.

Any other recommendations on a good but not overly priced kit lens replacement?

Ryan^p · 20th March 2009, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Unless i can be persuaded other wise it will be canon.

why???

Plenty of 3rd party people make great glass for less £££..

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 18:09

Would you say the 70-200 sigma is as good as the f/4 Canon?

What i dont want to do is buy another 3rd party lens (like my siggy 70-300mm) and it be crappy or i get a dodgy one that isnt as good.

Ryan^p · 20th March 2009, 18:13

do you think a cheap canon lens will be better than any other cheap lens.

Do you think a 5k sigma lens will be less IQ than a £300 canon?

Think about it, dont do brand snobbery over it. Sigma/tamron etc.. both produce some VERY good pieces of glass!

The sigma is a faster piece of glass so alot better in low light imo, but the IQ you should see for youself by testing it in a shop.

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 18:22

The canon albeit cheap is still an L rated glass.

I was merely asking would it be the same quality? As sharp etc? I understand that they both may still be fairly cheap in comparison to some of the lenses they build, but its still a fair ole amount of money and i want to make sure i get the best quality and sharp lens for me money.

Is the Sigma coated in that horrible coating?

Ryan^p · 20th March 2009, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

The canon albeit cheap is still an L rated glass.

I was merely asking would it be the same quality? As sharp etc? I understand that they both may still be fairly cheap in comparison to some of the lenses they build, but its still a fair ole amount of money and i want to make sure i get the best quality and sharp lens for me money.

Is the Sigma coated in that horrible coating?

Im not referring to just the 70-200. It was to your comment that you are only looking at canon lenses.

L rated doesnt mean good glass in all cases sadly a few bad ones have slipped out, irc its the 17-40L or somewhere higher in the range where the IQ is reputed to be utter shit for L glass.

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 18:30

I didnt mean i would only look at Canon Ryan, i was only saying that for the 70-200 i would be looking at a Canon unless persuaded otherwise.

Didnt mean i would only ever by a Canon Lens.

Yes i also understand that there have been a few L glass which have been badly built. But the others SHOUD in theory all still be the top of the range and very good glass which is why they are rated L.

don55 · 21st March 2009, 10:14

L glass isnt just IQ, its build, weather proofing, durability etc.

still saying that, id be going for the sigma 2.8 for sure. 2.8 @ 200mm for £600??? bargain.

they also do a macro version, not sure how it compares, but here is a link to a second hand one cheap. TP

mattchewone · 21st March 2009, 10:48

Where could i see example shots of the two Lenses side by side?

Anybody know what the Sigma is like AF wise? Is it slow and loud like the 70-300sigma?

Barry123 · 21st March 2009, 11:35

Brad the macro one is better and newer, had a slight optics update and general spice of the circuitry. Ads

Barry123 · 21st March 2009, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Where could i see example shots of the two Lenses side by side?

Anybody know what the Sigma is like AF wise? Is it slow and loud like the 70-300sigma?

It's much faster and quieter than the 70-300. The difference is untrue! It's a smudge slower than the 70-200L but don't let that worry you. Go to Jessops and play with one - see fo yoself

Ryan^p · 21st March 2009, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Anybody know what the Sigma is like AF wise? Is it slow and loud like the 70-300sigma?

Its a mile faster, it doesnt have the shitty external focus system.

Not all sigmas use that slow crap system.

don55 · 21st March 2009, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Where could i see example shots of the two Lenses side by side?

Anybody know what the Sigma is like AF wise? Is it slow and loud like the 70-300sigma?

ahh right ads. nice one.

well matty boy, check this iso test, i know what one id be buying.

click here, them look at image, move pointer over image to see the sigma, look at the top, you can choose what lenses to compare, great site.

Barry123 · 21st March 2009, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

ahh right ads. nice one.

well matty boy, check this iso test, i know what one id be buying.

click here, them look at image, move pointer over image to see the sigma, look at the top, you can choose what lenses to compare, great site.

fugger me there is actually quite a difference between the IS and non IS versions then !

oh well... I haz IS

don55 · 22nd March 2009, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

fugger me there is actually quite a difference between the IS and non IS versions then !

oh well... I haz IS

at the wide end yes, defo.

great site tho, i check it alot.

gotamintvtr · 22nd March 2009, 07:42

im going for the sigma. for comparison shots try flickr?

mattchewone · 22nd March 2009, 10:25

Cheers for that Brad.

The Sigma looks like it is sharper and the blacks seem much better also. Although it may be my crappy laptop screen.

I have a question, why is it on the sigma the bottom of the numbers are cut out as if its zoomed in slightly more? Is that just the way it was shot?

don55 · 22nd March 2009, 10:57

its jsut how its shot, each one is manually shot at the ISO card so it wont always line up perfect.