Peacekpr wrote:
Nothing beats Canon L glass.

Really?

I have had worse experiences with Canon "L glass" than I have had with Sigma. All manufacturers try to cut corners to reduce cost and increase profit, and it shows, even in higher priced premium products.

I recently got a Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 - brand new "L glass" from B&H Photo. Auto focus was completely off. Maximum microadjustment wasn't even close to making it usable. A trip to the local Canon service center resolved the problem.

My Canon EF 17-40mm f/4, also "L glass", was decentered. Also fixed by the local Canon service center.

My Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was sharp out of the box six years ago and it still works flawlessly. My Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 was excellent but had ridiculously noisy autofocus. Though it did work flawlessly and delivered very nice images.

The only Canon "L glass" I haven't had any problems whatsoever with was my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII. It is just a superb beast of a lens.

Saying things like "Nothing beats Canon L glass" comes across like a bit ignorant, in my opinion.

snapsy wrote:
Their MTF rig sounds useful for detecting production issues but I wonder what they'll do with lenses detected as having lower-than-expected MTF. Tweak them? Toss them? Sell them?

They will introduce their own line of L lenses. L as lemons.

vsg28 wrote:
One issue here is that the Foveon sensor is a 1.5x crop sensor, so it will not directly translate to full frame corner/border sharpness unless they find a way to counter this.

We dunno if it's not a special sensor for that. And even with an APSC sensor, they could put it vertically and slide it to take entire aera in two shots. I guess it is no problem for such special QC gear.

Hawkan wrote:
Peacekpr wrote:
Nothing beats Canon L glass.

Really?

My Canon EF 17-40mm f/4, also "L glass", was decentered. Also fixed by the local Canon service center.

My Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was sharp out of the box six years ago and it still works flawlessly. My Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 was excellent but had ridiculously noisy autofocus. Though it did work flawlessly and delivered very nice images.

The only Canon "L glass" I haven't had any problems whatsoever with was my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII. It is just a superb beast of a lens.

Saying things like "Nothing beats Canon L glass" comes across like a bit ignorant, in my opinion.

I can understand the problems with the 17-40L. In my opinion it isn't an L lens. I had one for about a month before ditching it.

As an Engineer, I evaluate things on technical merit and consistency. Sigma is about as consistent as the Toronto Maple Leafes, which is saying something. I`ve read all the specs on every Pro lens to come out for Canon bodies and tried out the more promising ones. With the exception of ``L`` glass I`ve been disappointed every time.

Let`s also consider what the equipment says about the photographer. L lens clearly demonstrates an unwavering dedication to pursuing the best image quality, truly the mark of a professional. When someone shows up on a job with anything else it screams`` Uncle Bob`` or ``Aunt Betty``. Amateurs carry amateur equipment because they`re happy with amateur results. I am not.
NOTHING BEATS L GLASS. PERIOD.

That seriously comes off arrogant, though I am sure you didn't mean to be. I have had good and bad experiences with L lenses and only good with Sigma lenses, does this mean I can proclaim Sigma lenses are better than L lenses? You are pretty much going off personal experience to make a global statement.

Peacekpr wrote:
Hawkan wrote:
Peacekpr wrote:
Nothing beats Canon L glass.

Really?

My Canon EF 17-40mm f/4, also "L glass", was decentered. Also fixed by the local Canon service center.

My Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was sharp out of the box six years ago and it still works flawlessly. My Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 was excellent but had ridiculously noisy autofocus. Though it did work flawlessly and delivered very nice images.

The only Canon "L glass" I haven't had any problems whatsoever with was my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII. It is just a superb beast of a lens.

Saying things like "Nothing beats Canon L glass" comes across like a bit ignorant, in my opinion.

I can understand the problems with the 17-40L. In my opinion it isn't an L lens. I had one for about a month before ditching it.

As an Engineer, I evaluate things on technical merit and consistency. Sigma is about as consistent as the Toronto Maple Leafes, which is saying something. I`ve read all the specs on every Pro lens to come out for Canon bodies and tried out the more promising ones. With the exception of ``L`` glass I`ve been disappointed every time.

Let`s also consider what the equipment says about the photographer. L lens clearly demonstrates an unwavering dedication to pursuing the best image quality, truly the mark of a professional. When someone shows up on a job with anything else it screams`` Uncle Bob`` or ``Aunt Betty``. Amateurs carry amateur equipment because they`re happy with amateur results. I am not.
NOTHING BEATS L GLASS. PERIOD.


Funny thing is I see many professional photographers out using all sorts of gear including rebels with 3rd party glass. You seem to be hung up with the image of yourself carrying a couple of 1d cameras with a mitt full of L glass rather than the image you are paid to deliver to the client.

chez wrote:
Funny thing is I see many professional photographers out using all sorts of gear including rebels with 3rd party glass. You seem to be hung up with the image of yourself carrying a couple of 1d cameras with a mitt full of L glass rather than the image you are paid to deliver to the client.


I would agree. I've seen plenty of professionals using third party gear and not caring one bit what people think about them because of the name on their lens. They are paid to deliver results. If you think this is some kind of vanity game you are in the wrong business. If you are an amateur and just want bragging rights then go for it.

Peacekpr wrote:
I don't care how much Sigma tries to convince us that they finally care about QA I'll never buy another third rate lens like Tamron or Sigma again.
Nothing beats Canon L glass.

What about Canon non-L lenses that contain UD elements like an L lens?

I was going to type another response, but I was overpowered by the all caps final statement.

I am not an optical expert, but over the last 30 years I have owned lenses by Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Zeiss, Cosina, Schneider, Makinon, Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang and yes, Sigma. Never owned glass by Minolta, Angenieux or Leica though, but I've owned alot of glass.

Now I have the greatest respect for the build quality of L glass, and many L lenses are wonderful optically. But it does not automatically follow that just because a lens has "L" on it it is the best of its type available optically speaking.

There are so many breathtaking assumptions here, don't know where to start:

"Let`s also consider what the equipment says about the photographer."

No, equipment says precisely nothing about the photographer. Its about the images they produce. And a good photographer can make great images using a $20 Holga with plastic lenses, in fact many do.

"L lens clearly demonstrates an unwavering dedication to pursuing the best image quality, truly the mark of a professional."

Pffft! Again, the mark of a professional is (hopefully) interesting photography (quite alot of amateur photographers produce more interesting work than many pros btw so the distinction is often arbitrary). There are many serious photographers using non L lenses, even within the Canon stable. For example unless shooting at or near wide open I don't believe 99.999% of people could tell the difference between the output of an 85 L f1.2 and the affordable non L Canon 85mm f1.8, even on the largest prints. This illustrates that often the L advantage isn't necessarily absolute optical quality, but interesting features not commonly available on consumer glass, like tilt shift, durability or weather sealing or very wide apertures etc etc.

L lenses are built extremely well, many of them have very good/excellent performance, but they don't hold a monopoly on serious photography. Judging photographers on whether they own L glass or not is nonsensical and rather naive.

It would be much more rational to look at all available lenses in your focal length from all relevant makers, and then to decide what balance of optical quality, build, features and system compatability and price is best for you. Now that may well be an L lens (I own 4, with great satisfaction) but it is possible the best choice for an individual photographer, pro or not, is a non L Canon, or independent lens maker.

KiboOst wrote:
vsg28 wrote:
One issue here is that the Foveon sensor is a 1.5x crop sensor, so it will not directly translate to full frame corner/border sharpness unless they find a way to counter this.

We dunno if it's not a special sensor for that. And even with an APSC sensor, they could put it vertically and slide it to take entire aera in two shots. I guess it is no problem for such special QC gear.


*pokes* psssst. Read the links on Sigma's site about their new QC program *pssst* . ;-)

Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. Taking multiple shots. 35mm compatible lenses will have the entire frame checked.

NOTHING BEATS L GLASS. PERIOD

that's funny

keep drinking the coolaid

Peacekpr wrote:
Hawkan wrote:
Peacekpr wrote:
Nothing beats Canon L glass.

Really?

My Canon EF 17-40mm f/4, also "L glass", was decentered. Also fixed by the local Canon service center.

My Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was sharp out of the box six years ago and it still works flawlessly. My Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 was excellent but had ridiculously noisy autofocus. Though it did work flawlessly and delivered very nice images.

The only Canon "L glass" I haven't had any problems whatsoever with was my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII. It is just a superb beast of a lens.

Saying things like "Nothing beats Canon L glass" comes across like a bit ignorant, in my opinion.

I can understand the problems with the 17-40L. In my opinion it isn't an L lens. I had one for about a month before ditching it.

As an Engineer, I evaluate things on technical merit and consistency. Sigma is about as consistent as the Toronto Maple Leafes, which is saying something. I`ve read all the specs on every Pro lens to come out for Canon bodies and tried out the more promising ones. With the exception of ``L`` glass I`ve been disappointed every time.

Let`s also consider what the equipment says about the photographer. L lens clearly demonstrates an unwavering dedication to pursuing the best image quality, truly the mark of a professional. When someone shows up on a job with anything else it screams`` Uncle Bob`` or ``Aunt Betty``. Amateurs carry amateur equipment because they`re happy with amateur results. I am not.
NOTHING BEATS L GLASS. PERIOD.

I'll tell all you artists what, you prove to me using science, statistics, or any other irrefutable means that I'm wrong and I'll recant my statement.

As for some "professional" photographers using Rebels... that's what we call Uncle Bobs and Aunt Bettys. They aren't professionals. They are wanna bes.

For the record, I seriously doubt there is a tamron or sigma that can beat the 24-70L v2, the 70-200L IS v2, nor the 85L. If price is a factor then fine go buy those other lenses. If capturing the best image possible is your goal, then there's only one class of glass... L.

Remember, your picture is only as good as the glass you shoot it thru.

Man you are smoking something strong if you really think a picture is as good as the lens you use. How about you prove scientifically that you are right instead?

Don't feed the troll!

Peacekpr wrote:
I'll tell all you artists what, you prove to me using science, statistics, or any other irrefutable means that I'm wrong and I'll recant my statement.

As for some "professional" photographers using Rebels... that's what we call Uncle Bobs and Aunt Bettys. They aren't professionals. They are wanna bes.

For the record, I seriously doubt there is a tamron or sigma that can beat the 24-70L v2, the 70-200L IS v2, nor the 85L. If price is a factor then fine go buy those other lenses. If capturing the best image possible is your goal, then there's only one class of glass... L.

Remember, your picture is only as good as the glass you shoot it thru.


Better than showing any scientific evidence...why don't you post some of YOUR photos that you could not have obtained without the big red ring on your lens. Awaiting to be enlightened.

Guys, I'm not trolling. I just believe in facts. Like I said, prove me wrong and I'll recant.

I listed 3 Canon lenses. Post any optical charts you think meet or surpass those lenses with something in the same class. It's that easy a challenge.

I used to own a few sigmas and they were fine for basic applications.

Of coure this is only my personal opinion and I respect yours. I just don't share it.

Peacekpr wrote:
...Of coure this is only my personal opinion and I respect yours. I just don't share it.

You should get out more...

P.S. also, you should consider changing your FM name. Shtdstrbr comes to mind... YMMV.

Peacekpr wrote:
Guys, I'm not trolling. I just believe in facts. Like I said, prove me wrong and I'll recant.

I listed 3 Canon lenses. Post any optical charts you think meet or surpass those lenses with something in the same class. It's that easy a challenge.

I used to own a few sigmas and they were fine for basic applications.

Of coure this is only my personal opinion and I respect yours. I just don't share it.

Still waiting for those amazing photos you could only get with the L glass. Put up or...you know what I mean.