PDA

View Full Version : lens option for Sigma



bighead2267
08-26-2008, 09:34 PM
I"m a completely newbie for camera. I'm currently have the kit lens from XSI which is18-55MM IS but i'm looking to replace my kit lens to Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX as it get way more light(i use mainly in door only)but lower cost than Canon. is that a good option or is there any other bang for the buck lens alternative? i have been looking for Tokina as well but they don't have one that suit my need.
Also, what will be the best option for zoom lens. i'm looking something 75-300MM. i prefer to be USM as it focus faster. Is that a right thinking?

Also, i will be getting the lens from either US or Asia if that matters.

Your opinion will be much appreciated.

joyridder
08-26-2008, 10:25 PM
The best bang for buck low light lens is definately the 50mm f1.8.

A very good value zoom lens is the canon 70-200mm f4L.

Both lenses are sharp, however, the 70-200mm needs lots of light.

bighead2267
08-26-2008, 11:24 PM
is the USM make a huge different?

bighead2267
08-26-2008, 11:27 PM
sorry to post in the wrong forum previously

"m a completely newbie for camera. I'm currently have the kit lens from XSI which is18-55MM IS but i'm looking to replace my kit lens to Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX as it get way more light(i use mainly in door only)but lower cost than Canon. is that a good option or is there any other bang for the buck lens alternative? i have been looking for Tokina as well but they don't have one that suit my need.
Also, what will be the best option for zoom lens. i'm looking something 75-300MM. i prefer to be USM as it focus faster. Is that a right thinking?

Also, i will be getting the lens from either US or Asia if that matters.

Your opinion will be much appreciated.

mboldt
08-26-2008, 11:29 PM
What exactly is your price range?

I would recommend purchasing your equipment in Canada, you will more than likely have warranty issues going outside of country.

KKY
08-26-2008, 11:42 PM
Tamron has a 17-50mm F/2.8 which is quite popular.

Have you ever thought about getting an external flash for use in low light situations?

sneek
08-27-2008, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by joyridder
The best bang for buck low light lens is definately the 50mm f1.8.

A very good value zoom lens is the canon 70-200mm f4L.

Both lenses are sharp, however, the 70-200mm needs lots of light.

haha that lens still costs about the same as his camera though! I guess it all depends on how much you are willing to shell out.

bighead2267
08-27-2008, 08:30 AM
i got a 580EX flash already. what's the price range on that Tamron 17-50MM. are they consider as USM??

Mitsu3000gt
08-27-2008, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by bighead2267
i got a 580EX flash already. what's the price range on that Tamron 17-50MM. are they consider as USM??

You can get both the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 with buit in focus motors, but both of them are cheap micro motors and nothing like Canon USM or Nikon SWM. Noiser, slower, and you can't use the manual focus ring without switching to manual focus first. Both are excellent lenses though. The Tamron is about $475 and the Sigma is about $530. A ton of people complan about the Tamron lens improperly exposing shots with a flash, and also quality control of the lens. I wouldn't buy one unless it was local and I could exchange the lens if I wasn't happy with that particular copy. Sigma doesn't have the greatest quality control reputation either, but I hear far less stories about Sigma lenses than I do Tamron, and the 2 sigma lenses I own are both perfect. I would still buy locally so I could exchange it if necessary.

Ferio_vti
08-27-2008, 08:53 AM
I've got a Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5
Not as fast as a 2.8 through out the zoom range. But the extra 20mm tele of zoom makes it a decent all around lens. Unfortunately, only the Nikon mount has HSM.

Ben
08-27-2008, 09:52 AM
Just an FYI, that 75-300 As Seen Here (http://www.thecamerastore.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=23183) is an absolute piece of fuck. Do not spend your money on that no matter how bad you want zoom.

The_Rural_Juror
08-27-2008, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Ben
Just an FYI, that 75-300 As Seen Here (http://www.thecamerastore.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=23183) is an absolute piece of fuck. Do not spend your money on that no matter how bad you want zoom.


:werd:

djayz
08-27-2008, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Ben
Just an FYI, that 75-300 As Seen Here (http://www.thecamerastore.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=23183) is an absolute piece of fuck. Do not spend your money on that no matter how bad you want zoom.

:werd: x2

I bought that lense hoping for a cheap alternative to some other zoom lenses...boyyy was I dissapointed. Took maybe 150 shots and only one of them turned out sharp and bright, all the rest dull looking. To get good results with that lense you'll need a tripod wherever you take it :rofl:

C4S
08-27-2008, 11:07 AM
If you want some save some bucks .. and consider third party lens, I would suggest Tokina or Tamron over sigma .. Tokina always make very good lens, solid and reliable as well, and pretty close to Canon colour, their 12-24, 10-17, 11-16 are all highly rated .. Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is rated better then the sigma one as well, but it feels a bit too "plastic". (Sigma makes some good prime lens too)

For cheap zoom tele, you can consider Canon 55-250IS.

:)

Mitsu3000gt
08-27-2008, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by C4S
For cheap zoom tele, you can consider Canon 55-250IS.

:)

I would agree that that's your best bet. If you want to get a decent 70-300mm lens from Canon, you will need to step it up to the 70-300 USM IS which is for some reason considerably more expensive than every other 70-300 IS on the market.

Gibson
08-27-2008, 11:59 AM
That Canon 70-300 is a solid lens construction wise, but yeah, I've noticed that it's $200 more than the Nikon equivalent for no obvious reason.

AccentAE86
08-27-2008, 04:23 PM
I'd also suggest the tamron 17-50 2.8. It gets better reviews than the sigma 18-50. If you can afford it, the canon 17-55 is unbeatable.

I'm gonna go against the grain... I have the canon 75-300 III USM that I got used for $100 at my local camera shop (so you know you can get it cheaper elsewhere). I love this lens and have gotten many pictures that I'm very happy with. It's just not an indoor lens... but neither are any of the other telephoto zooms mentioned in this thread...

As long as you are realistic about it's capabilities it produces fine images. The problem with it is that it's price attracts mostly newbies... who are unaware that DOF at 200-300 is extremely small so anything that moves can fall out of the DOF very easily. They also don't realize that you'll probably want to shoot at 1/400 shutter and faster to maintain a sharp image at those focal lengths... 1/200 if you have practiced breathing and holding techniques.

clem24
08-27-2008, 09:43 PM
+1 for the Tamron. My Nikon version has been through a lot and it's still working great. Sharp starting at 3.2 and above. And best of all, not motors or IS/VR that can break haha. Another plus is that it's light and uses 67mm filters (i.e. cheap). But yeah, the Canon 17-55 IS is a killer lens for the price. Completely opposite of the Tamron - big and chunky. That one lens alone almost made me want to sell my Nikon gear.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by djayz


:werd: x2

I bought that lense hoping for a cheap alternative to some other zoom lenses...boyyy was I dissapointed. Took maybe 150 shots and only one of them turned out sharp and bright, all the rest dull looking. To get good results with that lense you'll need a tripod wherever you take it :rofl:

Really? I've taken some amazing shots with that lense, no tripod, hand held.

These were all taken with that cheap 75-300 lense.

http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_0896.jpg
http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_0904.jpg
http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_0927.jpg
http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_0942.jpg
http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_1104.jpg
http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_1107.jpg


Even night shots on TV mode. Hand held

http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/ParadiseCove/IMG_0589.jpg

ThE tV 8 mE
08-28-2008, 02:06 PM
and you'll notice that none of them are really sharp ;)

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by 89coupe


Really? I've taken some amazing shots with that lense, no tripod, hand held.



You have some nice pictures there, but even at the small size you posted you can tell they are very soft/not sharpI've found that good glass makes the most noticable difference in image quality, regardless of what camera body you use. I find its almost worth it just for the durastic increase in focus speed. As soon as I acquired my first "pro" quality lens, its only made me want to upgrade all of my other stuff to the same level after seeing the difference.

Anyone considering the Canon 70-300/IS should in my opinion have a look at the 70-200 F4 L. Although it lacks IS and the extra 100mm, it's cheaper and in a different league quality-wise. What is surprising though, is that canon wants $600 to add IS to a $700 lens - seems a bit ridiculous.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by ThE tV 8 mE
and you'll notice that none of them are really sharp ;)

Wow, I'd love to see your idea of "really" sharp then, without paying at least $1000 for a quality lense.

D'z Nutz
08-28-2008, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by ThE tV 8 mE
and you'll notice that none of them are really sharp ;)

And you'll notice we know absolutely nothing about how these photos were taken.

Like AccentAE86 indicated, 1/ focal length is typically the slowest handheld speed most people can do with an SLR. The only thing we can tell from these photos is 89coupe had these zoomed into a long focal length, possibly 200-300mm. That means, with the 1.6 crop factor, the very slowest he should've been handholding would be 1/350s to 1/500s. Without knowing what his camera settings were, it's possible the "unsharpness" is due to exposure jitter and not necessarily the lens. These pictures are quite acceptable for a budget lens and I've seen a lot crappier photos with expensive "pro" lenses.

And there's more to good glass than just sharpness. It's probably the last thing I look at when I'm considering a lens.


Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
You have some nice pictures there, but even at the small size you posted you can tell they are very soft/not sharp.

Small size?? Maybe if you're a pixel peeper. I don't know about you guys, but when I look at a photo, I tend to look at the whole thing in its entirety, not little minute details at 100% under a magnifying glass.

Gibson
08-28-2008, 02:52 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Mitsu, there's your pictures and then there's sharp.

And anyway, all you would have to do is not eat lunch for 10 days and you could afford a $1000 lens.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 02:59 PM
LOL, those photos I took were on Auto, no fancy settings. Maximum zoom, and press the button.

The night shot was custom settings.

Lets see some photos from you guys that you would consider "sharp". Post the settings, type of lense, what zoom, and how much the lense and camera was.

I have seen some from Mitsu, but I'm pretty sure they were done with a quality lense and camera.

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by D'z Nutz

Small size?? Maybe if you're a pixel peeper. I don't know about you guys, but when I look at a photo, I tend to look at the whole thing in its entirety, not little minute details at 100% under a magnifying glass.

Maybe its just my shitty work monitor, in which case I apologize in advance, but pictures that are OOF such that they hurt my eyes because its impossible to focus on them properly is not "pixel peeping". I'm sitting 3ft away from my monitor looking at 800pixel or whatever pictures - that is not even remotely close to examining details, nor are we looking at 100% crops. The details aren't there to be scrutinized. The pictures are simply blurry. I also understand a blurry photo can still be a good photo, but it is usually more obvious if an "artsy" look was the intent. So long as the lens is decent, most pixel peepers would likely have a hard time determining "sharpness" between a pro quality lens and a good pro-sumer lens in most practical applications such as a reasonable size print, especially these days.

Of course I agree with you 100% that there are more things just as important (or more) than sharpness, such as bokeh, focus speed, build quality, etc. etc. but would you buy a lens that produced incredibly blurry photos but had amazing color rendition, bokeh, focus speed, contrast, etc? I don't think anyone would, which is why I don't think such a lens exists.

I would also like to stress that this isn't a put-down in any way to 89coupe, the discussion here is simply about of the lens itself or the settings the pictures were shot at which may have caused the photos to be more blurry than normal.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Maybe its just my shitty work monitor, in which case I apologize in advance, but pictures that are OOF such that they hurt my eyes because its impossible to focus on them properly is not "pixel peeping". I'm sitting 3ft away from my monitor looking at 800pixel or whatever pictures - that is not even remotely close to examining details, nor are we looking at 100% crops. The details aren't there to be scrutinized. The pictures are simply blurry. I also understand a blurry photo can still be a good photo, but it is usually more obvious if an "artsy" look was the intent. So long as the lens is decent, most pixel peepers would likely have a hard time determining "sharpness" between a pro quality lens and a good pro-sumer lens in most practical applications such as a reasonable size print, especially these days.

Of course I agree with you 100% that there are more things just as important (or more) than sharpness, such as bokeh, focus speed, build quality, etc. etc. but would you buy a lens that produced incredibly blurry photos but had amazing color rendition, bokeh, focus speed, contrast, etc? I don't think anyone would, which is why I don't think such a lens exists.

I would also like to stress that this isn't a put-down in any way to 89coupe, the discussion here is simply about of the lens itself or the settings the pictures were shot at.

Blurry? Wow, you are one picky mother fucker...LOL

I'm still waiting to see all these "sharp" photos from everyone.

Let see them!!!

Lense type/cost
Camera
Hand held or Tripod

962 kid
08-28-2008, 03:54 PM
Dude, calm down :rolleyes: for whatever reason, they're not the sharpest shots. You've owned your camera for how many weeks, and you're going around shutting everyone down because they don't like your lens?

Here's a sharper shot. Nikon D40, kit lens (18-55), handheld. Cost : $450 for both

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2724873025_4481efbbbe_o.jpg


who cares? :dunno: :dunno:

D'z Nutz
08-28-2008, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
but would you buy a lens that produced incredibly blurry photos but had amazing color rendition, bokeh, focus speed, contrast, etc?

Yes I would and I have.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2191/2133930311_cbb7745c70.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2073/2483927728_54fdccf5c0.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2025/2134709964_51f7345ba6.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2257/2188575049_51551ef8dc.jpg



Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I don't think anyone would, which is why I don't think such a lens exists.


Maybe not on DPReview...

My apologies if your head explodes from the blurriness.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by 962 kid
Dude, calm down :rolleyes: for whatever reason, they're not the sharpest shots. You've owned your camera for how many weeks, and you're going around shutting everyone down because they don't like your lens?

Here's a sharper shot. Nikon D40, kit lens (18-55), handheld. Cost : $450 for both

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2724873025_4481efbbbe_o.jpg


who cares? :dunno: :dunno:

I don't see how that shot is any more "sharp" then the photo below?:dunno:


Your photo appears to have a whole lot of contrast (most likely edited), but I don't see it as any more sharp. Guess you guys have better eyes then me.

In fact after looking at both photos for some time now, it appears that the photo with the grass almost looks pixilated from too much contrast?


http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_0927.jpg

BerserkerCatSplat
08-28-2008, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by 89coupe

pixilated from too much contrast


I do not think this means what you think it means.

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by D'z Nutz



Maybe not on DPReview...

My apologies if your head explodes from the blurriness.

I have no clue what the DPreview comment is about. Anyways, I can't see your pictures because I'm at work right now, but change your monitor or TV at home so that it is a bit blurry, or look at an old shitty CRT for a while that has lost all its sharpness - if you can honestly tell me you don't get a headache after 1min or so from your eyes continually trying to focus and re-focus, you are not normal lol. It doesn't take much, at least for myself or everyone I've ever talked to up to this point. Again I'll emphasize that an excellent photo doesn't have to be a super sharp one, but the discussion here was about sharpness and that is what I was talking about.

BerserkerCatSplat
08-28-2008, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


I have no clue what the DPreview comment is about.

Oh, I think you do.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I do not think this means what you think it means.

When you use auto sharpening in Photoshop or whatever editing tool of your choice it increases contrast does it not, along with other settings that alter it from the original shot?

With it comes "edges" on straight lines and what not.

So instead of this _______________

You see this -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

962 kid
08-28-2008, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I do not think this means what you think it means.

G2y8Sx4B2Sk

BerserkerCatSplat
08-28-2008, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by 89coupe


When you use auto sharpening in Photoshop or whatever editing tool of your choice it increases contrast does it not, along with other settings that alter it from the original shot?

With it comes "edges" on straight lines and what not.

So instead of this _______________

You see this -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

To an extent, yes, however the term is oversharpened. Overcontrasted is a different idea entirely and refers to overall contrast, not sharpness or microcontrast.

89coupe
08-28-2008, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


I have no clue what the DPreview comment is about. Anyways, I can't see your pictures because I'm at work right now, but change your monitor or TV at home so that it is a bit blurry, or look at an old shitty CRT for a while that has lost all its sharpness - if you can honestly tell me you don't get a headache after 1min or so from your eyes continually trying to focus and re-focus, you are not normal lol. It doesn't take much, at least for myself or everyone I've ever talked to up to this point. Again I'll emphasize that an excellent photo doesn't have to be a super sharp one, but the discussion here was about sharpness and that is what I was talking about.

I imagine you can't watch TV period, because there is no HD TV that I can think of that would be "sharp" enough not to give you a headache...LOL

Even at 120HZ and a top end Blu Ray palyer probably wouldn't cut it for you...LOL

89coupe
08-28-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


To an extent, yes, however the term is oversharpened. Overcontrasted is a different idea entirely and refers to overall contrast, not sharpness or microcontrast.

Whatever, you obviously knew what I was getting at.

LOL:rofl:

BerserkerCatSplat
08-28-2008, 04:18 PM
Yeah, but pass up a chance to use that classic line? Never!

Melinda
08-28-2008, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by 962 kid
Dude, calm down :rolleyes: for whatever reason, they're not the sharpest shots. You've owned your camera for how many weeks, and you're going around shutting everyone down because they don't like your lens?

Here's a sharper shot. Nikon D40, kit lens (18-55), handheld. Cost : $450 for both

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2724873025_4481efbbbe_o.jpg


who cares? :dunno: :dunno:
Haha of course it's sharper, you oversharpened it in photoshop. (98coupe had it bang on).

For the record, I don't think he's "shutting everyone down". He is just being defensive towards some people on here who are trying to tell him he needs a $1000+ lens just to take photographs. That's ridiculous. Some of the arguments in this thread seriously hurt my brain.

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Oh, I think you do.

DPreview is one of MANY forums/websites related to photography I visit, and while I do recall some time ago you guys broke my balls about having visited that forum, you guys have been there too (infact some of you post links and news releases from that forum), so unless you're implying something about EVERYONE here including yourselves, no, I don't understand that particular comment. Also, lenses cannot exist only on DPreview, so I didn't really understand the comment in general.

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by 89coupe


I imagine you can't watch TV period, because there is no HD TV that I can think of that would be "sharp" enough not to give you a headache...LOL

Even at 120HZ and a top end Blu Ray palyer probably wouldn't cut it for you...LOL

LOL no, thats not my point. I think I'm just doing a poor job of getting my point across. Although it doesn't apply to every situation (as I have acknowledged several times), there are many times where it is generally ideal to have a nice, sharp photo and you don't need a $1000 lens to do it. These situations include most wildlife photography, macro, forensic, medical, product, landscape, etc. etc. Times when it is less crucial are more "artsy" photos, some portraits, etc. etc. A picture of something like the seal you posted that has a great deal of fine detail (i.e. whiskers, skin imperfections) is difficult to look at if it is quite blurry because your eyes naturally keep trying to find detail that should be there to focus on, but you can't. It is not that I am overly picky. To help illustrate my point, I suggested the monitor or TV thing, where if you did something to make it blurry, its hard on the eyes to watch. A TON of people at my work have had CRT monitors replaced with LCDs - their reason? Headaches because it was slightly blurry, and their eyes can't focus on anything properly because it isn't in focus in the first place. It has nothing to do with their vision. I realize a picture is not the same as looking at a monitor or TV or whatever, but thats the closest thing I can think of that compares.

AccentAE86
08-28-2008, 05:15 PM
Well, I agree with Mel. You don't need a $1000+ lens to enjoy photography. When I am on vacation and not getting paid, I'm MORE than happy to take my cheap-ass 75-300 lens instead of my 70-200 F/2.8 IS with me. And ultimate sharpness? I'd say catching a good moment is better than ultimate sharpness.

Don't feel bad about owning or buying a cheap lens. You can have tons of fun and get great pics with ANY lens. Maybe not up to the same standard as pro Getty stock photos, but does that even matter? Not for casual shooters. So go out and enjoy your cheap lenses.

Now... if you are on here asking for the sharpest lens for pro photo work... then yeah, you're gonna need to spend the cash to get the best. But I don't think this is the case in this thread.


Originally posted by 89coupe


I'm still waiting to see all these "sharp" photos from everyone.


Here's a shot with minimal sharpening (Lightroom sharpens all my pics to 11 out of 100 upon import... so really weak)
http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/potn/1116sample/bSmall.jpg

And here is the FULL SIZED jpeg taken with Canon 1Ds mark III with Tokina 11-16 F/2.8. The detail it collects at 100% is phenomenal.
http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/potn/1116sample/b.jpg

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by D'z Nutz


Yes I would and I have.



I can see them now that I'm not at work and those are very nice pictures, and none of them are, in my view, of a subject where an extraordinary amount of detail would necessarily be desirable, so it works. I fully acknowledged and agreed with the fact that an amazing photo can be blurry in my very first post - I have seen many.

To my point about no lens existing that is amazing in every way except image quality....what lens did you use? Is it built like an L series? Does it have amazing bokeh, color rendition, contrast, and exceptional focus speed with a top-end USM in it? I doubt it, although I'm sure there are lenses I'm not aware of. You can't honestly tell me you would spend a significant sum of money on a lens that did everything else well but was EXTREMELY unsharp. It would be like buying a Ferrari with a go-kart motor in it, nobody would buy it even though it did lots of other things very well.

Also on another note I don't know what is magical about the $1000 number. There are tons of lenses available for much less that rival the image quality of much more expensive lenses. I FULLY agree you do not need expensive lenses to enjoy photography, as Accent AE86 mentioned. You don't always want to lug around (or pay for) big expensive lenses, and many times you don't need to. When I'm on vacation or doing something where the focus isn't photography, I'd rather have my light 70-300VR with me than the 70-200.

BerserkerCatSplat
08-28-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


what lens did you use? Is it built like an L series? Does it have amazing bokeh, color rendition, contrast, and exceptional focus speed with a top-end USM in it? I doubt it, although I'm sure there are lenses I'm not aware of. You can't honestly tell me you would spend a significant sum of money on a lens that did everything else well but was EXTREMELY unsharp. It would be like buying a Ferrari with a go-kart motor in it, nobody would buy it even though it did lots of other things very well.

LOL, just keep moving them goalposts! :rofl:

Full disclosure: I know exactly what lens took those pictures and I can tell you that it meets 4/5 or your criteria and the fifth criteria doesn't matter to begin with.

D'z Nutz
08-28-2008, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
To my point about no lens existing that is amazing in every way except image quality....what lens did you use? Is it built like an L series? Does it have amazing bokeh, color rendition, contrast, and exceptional focus speed with a top-end USM in it? I doubt it, although I'm sure there are lenses I'm not aware of. You can't honestly tell me you would spend a significant sum of money on a lens that did everything else well but was EXTREMELY unsharp. It would be like buying a Ferrari with a go-kart motor in it, nobody would buy it even though it did lots of other things very well.

You're flip flopping all over the place. The original statement was nobody would ever buy a lens that good in every respect except for that fact it was blurry, which I proved otherwise. The monetary value of the lens was not part of the question (and shouldn't be). The whole point is you don't need expensive lenses to take good photos, and now you're throwing that into the equation, or maybe I'm not getting what your idea of significant sum of money is?

But to answer your newly revised question, did I spend a "significant sum of money" on the lens? It wasn't my most expensive lens, but it wasn't my cheapest either, but it did take me almost 6 months to find it and it is a very desirable lens in certain circles. And people will buy, for an absurd amount of money no less, lenses that are blurry. Take for example the Canon 50mm f/0.95 or the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 (and possibly the rumoured replacement, the f/0.9). Yes, when stopped down they can be sharp, however people don't buy a f/0.95 or f/1.0 lens to shoot at f/8 or smaller. They buy it specifically for the purpose of shooting wide open or near wide open and, at that shallow depth of field, you're going to get nothing but blur. Price of these lenses? The Canon goes for about $5000-6000 while the Leica goes for about $8000-9000+, both used prices, and that's IF you can find one. They demand for these lenses are so high that they've tripled over the past few years and they're still climbing. And they don't even have AF!

ThE tV 8 mE
08-28-2008, 07:34 PM
in an attempt to find an image even remotely close to yours, here's one I shot this afternoon with my sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 ($350 lens on an XTi body, can be had for about $400 nowadays)

NO POST PROCESSING done at all! opened the raw file, resized to 900px wide and saved at 9/12 quality.

Exif info is still intact, for those too lazy to check:
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/125 second = 0.008 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 14/1 = F14
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400
# Original Date/Time = 2008:08:28 12:35:08
# Digitization Date/Time = 2008:08:28 12:35:08
# Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
# Focal Length = 53/1 mm = 53 mm


Can you see how this appears less soft, or sharper than your images?

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/224/img7788yy1.jpg

compared to

http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_1104.jpg

Mitsu3000gt
08-28-2008, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


LOL, just keep moving them goalposts! :rofl:

Full disclosure: I know exactly what lens took those pictures and I can tell you that it meets 4/5 or your criteria and the fifth criteria doesn't matter to begin with.

My intention was simply to make a point, I did not mean to have a specific list of set criteria, hence why I said "etc, etc" in my original post, and hence why the "criteria" list was different in my 2 posts. I figured that much would be obvious. I was not "moving goal posts", I was just throwing out a bunch of stuff off the top of my head to help make my point. I did not expect it to be followed religiously lol. This is a ridiculous argument in the first place haha, but interesting nonetheless.


[i]You're flip flopping all over the place. The original statement was nobody would ever buy a lens that good in every respect except for that fact it was blurry, which I proved otherwise.[/B]

Actually you are putting words in my mouth - I did not say "nobody would" I said "I don't think anyone would" and that "I doubt it, but I'm sure there are lenses I am unaware of". So, clearly, I am totally open to the possibility, just very doubtful. Also, since those lenses are capable of being sharp, they do not meet my "criteria" lol. You can make any otherwise good lens produce a less-than-ideal image, simply focus improperly, shoot at a ridiculously small aperture, stack a bunch of shitty filters on it, shoot wide open (like with the rare lenses you listed), etc. etc.

Admittedly, my mistake was not specifying aperture because I wasn't clear enough in my original statements (they weren't really meant to be serious comments anyways) - the bottom line here is that I was trying to make the point that I am unaware of any lenses available that are absolute shit optically (everywhere, at all apertures), but posses the very best of EVERY other generally desirable attribute in a lens. And, if sharpness wasn't important, we would have those lenses available to us in the masses. I thought that was obvious but clearly sometimes I don't do the best job explaining what I mean. If such a lens existed and was not extremely cheap, I was skeptical that you would actually buy it as you stated originally. How many people would own the 70-200 2.8 IS if it produced extremely blurry, crappy images, but still had all its other redeeming characteristics?


[i]The monetary value of the lens was not part of the question (and shouldn't be). The whole point is you don't need expensive lenses to take good photos, and now you're throwing that into the equation, or maybe I'm not getting what your idea of significant sum of money is?[/B]

I've stated more than once in this thread how I completely agree you don't need expensive lenses. No disagreement there whatsoever. Do you need to buy expensive lenses to enjoy photography or take good pictures? Absolutely not, as I've previously stated. Can you get a much better lens than the worst ones available by just spending a tiny bit more money? Yes, you can. My thinking was that to get a lens with top-notch build, high-end focus motors, great bokeh, color rendition, contrast, and on, and on, and on, all in one package, it likely isn't going to be cheap. I have never said you NEED expensive lenses or any of the above criteria to take good photos. I recall reading about a photo taken with a P&S camera that made a ton of money.


[i]Yes, when stopped down they can be sharp[/B]

So you have yet to find a lens that meets my "criteria" then, if it is capable of producing sharp images. I know this is a pointless argument dealing with the extremes lol, but it doesn't meet my "criteria".


[i]however people don't buy a f/0.95 or f/1.0 lens to shoot at f/8 or smaller. They buy it specifically for the purpose of shooting wide open or near wide open and, at that shallow depth of field, you're going to get nothing but blur. Price of these lenses? The Canon goes for about $5000-6000 while the Leica goes for about $8000-9000+, both used prices, and that's IF you can find one. They demand for these lenses are so high that they've tripled over the past few years and they're still climbing. And they don't even have AF![/B]

Yes, I am well aware of those types of lenses, however they are capable of producing very sharp images. Would you pay $9,000+ for one if you didn't have money burning a hole in your pocket?

This is such a pointless argument, and I really don't think there is a single thing we disagree on lol, this whole thing is over a misunderstanding regarding my lengthly "criteria" list I was half-jokingly using to make a point in the first place :rofl:

ThE tV 8 mE
08-28-2008, 07:58 PM
here is your image with and without MILD sharpening.

How I applied it. Image>Sharped>Unsharped Mask
with the following settings:

Amount 100%
Radius 1.2 px
Threshold 0


http://gad.ca/drop/Untitled-1.html

89coupe
08-28-2008, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by ThE tV 8 mE
in an attempt to find an image even remotely close to yours, here's one I shot this afternoon with my sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 ($350 lens on an XTi body, can be had for about $400 nowadays)

NO POST PROCESSING done at all! opened the raw file, resized to 900px wide and saved at 9/12 quality.

Exif info is still intact, for those too lazy to check:
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/125 second = 0.008 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 14/1 = F14
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400
# Original Date/Time = 2008:08:28 12:35:08
# Digitization Date/Time = 2008:08:28 12:35:08
# Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
# Focal Length = 53/1 mm = 53 mm


Can you see how this appears less soft, or sharper than your images?

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/224/img7788yy1.jpg

compared to

http://www.designsanew.com/Hawaii/SeaLifePark/IMG_0904.jpg

More of your photo is in focus, but you must understand I'm at full zoom 300mm, the focal point is tighter with more background being blurred.

To be fair, use the other image where the focal point is more centered.

Were you just using the Auto setting on the camera as well?

89coupe
08-28-2008, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by ThE tV 8 mE
here is your image with and without MILD sharpening.

How I applied it. Image>Sharped>Unsharped Mask
with the following settings:

Amount 100%
Radius 1.2 px
Threshold 0


http://gad.ca/drop/Untitled-1.html

Cool, what software did you use?

89coupe
08-28-2008, 08:12 PM
When u guys post your examples, be sure to post images with NO editing.

Just a raw image.

ThE tV 8 mE
08-28-2008, 08:24 PM
done in photoshop. Yes, I understand that at 300mm the focal point is very close. Either way, some more expensive lenses can be sharper. My sigma 70-300 which I picked up used for $250 appears to be sharper than the images you posted. I'm not picking on you or trying to shut you down by any means, but maybe look at spending an extra $100 and picking up a different lens, you'll be very amazed at the difference!

89coupe
08-28-2008, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by ThE tV 8 mE
done in photoshop. Yes, I understand that at 300mm the focal point is very close. Either way, some more expensive lenses can be sharper. My sigma 70-300 which I picked up used for $250 appears to be sharper than the images you posted. I'm not picking on you or trying to shut you down by any means, but maybe look at spending an extra $100 and picking up a different lens, you'll be very amazed at the difference!

LOL, oh I totally agree.

I was just showing the guy who started this thread that even a cheap zoom lense can take nice pictures. Maybe not perfect, but nice.

ThE tV 8 mE
08-28-2008, 09:00 PM
oh for sure!!

bighead2267
09-03-2008, 11:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by C4S
[B]If you want some save some bucks .. and consider third party lens, I would suggest Tokina or Tamron over sigma .. Tokina always make very good lens, solid and reliable as well, and pretty close to Canon colour, their 12-24, 10-17, 11-16 are all highly rated .. Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is rated better then the sigma one as well, but it feels a bit too "plastic". (Sigma makes some good prime lens too)

For cheap zoom tele, you can consider Canon 55-250IS.

i have tried to get some more info in Calgary for Tamron and Tokina but they don't have much info online for some reason. i'm planning to take a look in HK next month and hopefully i can find better price there. i'm not going to get the zoom lens this year as my kid still too young to crawling around now.

bighead2267
09-03-2008, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by AccentAE86
I'd also suggest the tamron 17-50 2.8. It gets better reviews than the sigma 18-50. If you can afford it, the canon 17-55 is unbeatable.

I'm gonna go against the grain... I have the canon 75-300 III USM that I got used for $100 at my local camera shop (so you know you can get it cheaper elsewhere). I love this lens and have gotten many pictures that I'm very happy with. It's just not an indoor lens... but neither are any of the other telephoto zooms mentioned in this thread...

As long as you are realistic about it's capabilities it produces fine images. The problem with it is that it's price attracts mostly newbies... who are unaware that DOF at 200-300 is extremely small so anything that moves can fall out of the DOF very easily. They also don't realize that you'll probably want to shoot at 1/400 shutter and faster to maintain a sharp image at those focal lengths... 1/200 if you have practiced breathing and holding techniques.

does TCS carry the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. did i miss it or it didn't list online?

bighead2267
09-04-2008, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by AccentAE86
I'd also suggest the tamron 17-50 2.8. It gets better reviews than the sigma 18-50. If you can afford it, the canon 17-55 is unbeatable.

I'm gonna go against the grain... I have the canon 75-300 III USM that I got used for $100 at my local camera shop (so you know you can get it cheaper elsewhere). I love this lens and have gotten many pictures that I'm very happy with. It's just not an indoor lens... but neither are any of the other telephoto zooms mentioned in this thread...

As long as you are realistic about it's capabilities it produces fine images. The problem with it is that it's price attracts mostly newbies... who are unaware that DOF at 200-300 is extremely small so anything that moves can fall out of the DOF very easily. They also don't realize that you'll probably want to shoot at 1/400 shutter and faster to maintain a sharp image at those focal lengths... 1/200 if you have practiced breathing and holding techniques.

does TCS carry the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. did i miss it or it didn't list online?