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.

Canon advertizing folks must love this kind of rubbish. "L" mystique bought, hook line and sinker, then passed on as fact.

Bottom line, it's good news that Sigma is seriously looking to improve QC. They are re-releasing the 120-300 2.8 zoom again and I am so hoping it comes through. The range and speed on that zoom is so compelling I can't help but root for them. Even if they up the price to $4000 it's still good value for the type of versatility that lens provides.

galenapass wrote:
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.

Canon advertizing folks must love this kind of rubbish. "L" mystique bought, hook line and sinker, then passed on as fact.



It's no different to the "3D look" reputation that Zeiss enjoys I guess.

Sorry I fed the troll.

Enough.

dsr1 wrote:
dolina wrote:
Will this translate to less affordable glass?

Hopefully, it will increase the IQ of all their lenses in the future. With Canons outrageous pricing on their new and vII lenses a lot of us are going to be forced away from Canon lenses to third party glass, like it or not. I don't know about anyone else but I have to justify my expenditures for my hobby.

My sweet wife just might beat the Hell out of me if I spent $2400.00 for a Canon 24-70- 2.8 lens (without) IS instead of $1249.00 for an aalllll' most as sharp Tamron 24.70 f2.8 VC (and there's no telling how much the Canon with IS is going to be). I know that's not a Sigma example but it's an example where third party lens makers are stepping up to the plate and making it easier to justify nice new glass.

Other than QC, design targets will dictate IQ. Price increases from 1st party makers like Canon/Nikon/Sony may actually embolden 3rd party makers to increase prices to compensate for a more stringent QC thus resulting in a higher reject rate if current manufacturing methods are not improved upon.

I am guessing this move has to do with improving the image of Sigma as a brand and/or decreasing service returns. It must cost Sigma a bundle to keep servicing gear that do not perform at advertised.

Owners of L glass should hope that 3rd party makers get their act together as they are the only viable competitors to 1st party makers and help keep their pricing and quality of service in check.

Without competition all consumers will suffer.

For those of you who still can't face the facts here are some clips from reviews. The optical perfomance charts support these quotes as well. Let's examine the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses to start:

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di LD-
"Because of the inconsistent AF accuracy, I'm withholding recommendation of this lens for time-critical work. If you can shoot, check the results and reshoot if necessary (as many times as necessary), this lens can deliver very nice results for a relatively small cost. I would be very uncomfortable if I had to use this lens for a wedding - or adding the slow AF speed factor, for action sports - or for any other important shot that I couldn't reshoot.
If your tolerance level for OOF (Out of Focus) shots is higher than your budget, this might be the right lens for you. ", Bryan Carnathan

Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS v2 -
"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens delivers impressive image quality, focuses accurately very fast and has top-of-the-line build quality, 4-stop Image Stabilization, weather sealing and a very useful focal length range. " and "I consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens to be the second most important lens in my kit with the first being a more general purpose lens in focal length range. It is not an inexpensive lens, but it is very worth the price in my opinion - and very worthy of its red ring. While this is a completely pro-grade lens, you definitely do not have to be a pro to appreciate it. Get the "II"! " Bryan C as well.

Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX
-DPReview doesn't allow for reprinting of their results but to paraphrase them they say it's a good lens when used within it's design limitations which are significant.


Now I've posted a little comparison how about you guys try to refute... unless your lenses really aren't as good as you think...
For those of you who like the Sigma, most of the reviews out there recommend the Tamron over the Sigma for second party lenses.

I'm not trolling gents, just stating facts which can be verified. All I've seen from your side of the debate is emotional and insulting.
There is a saying in Law, "if you can't argue the facts, attack the witnesses". This is what you gentlemen have been doing which actually demonstrates how weak your arguments truly are.

Challenge still out there.

Anyone up for the 24-70 2.8 range?

This site rates the Sigma at 9.7, the Canon at a perfect 10, and the Tamron at only 9.0.

This list of Cons for the Sigma and Tamron include severe vignetting and poor focus performance.

As for the Canon version the only real complaint is price.

Lots of diehard pros in this city are using third party glass - Sigma, Zeiss etc. - and it's never a question of what lens they're using, it's what pictures they bring in from the shoot. Of course going to the very low end may bring some unpleasant results but you don't seem to be defending $100 kit lenses from any manufacturer, do you?
The local Reuters guy has been using Sigma 14mm for a long time and he's still in Reuters. He inspired me to pick up one of these at 1/3 the price of the L. It brought me lots of printed pictures and nobody knew they weren't made with an L lens. Actually, nobody ever gave a toss what we're shooting with. I would've never justified the purchase of the 14 L because it's ridiculously cost-ineffective but owning the Sigma has allowed me to make photos I wouldn't have made otherwise.

And there are some unique third party lenses as well: say, Sigma 120-300/2.8 and 12-24/4.5-5.6, Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the Tamron 60/2 macro prime. Something to consider as well.

Bottom line is, everybody chooses what fits him/her best. There's no universal truth. Zeiss fans would sneer at the idea of L lenses being THE best, so everything is relative. Then there's Leica.

blah blah blah

test charts and MFT's are great all day long. tell me what lens samuel aranda used to take the world press photo of the year last year. tell me what lens walker evans used to photograph the burroughs.

great lenses help great photographers make marginal improvements in their images. shitty photographers with 30k worth of gear still make images nobody will think about in fifty years.

gimmie a break.

i think we should put "NOTHING BEATS L GLASS. PERIOD." on the top of the main page

Snopchenko, I never claimed you couldn't get great shots with other lenses. What I said was that nothing beats L grade glass. If what you're using works for you and you're happy, that's great.

As for your Reuters friend, don't forget that they're looking for content not quality for media events.

How about you guys try to find a comparison for fast primes like the 85L f1.2 v2 or the 50L f1.2... oh that's right... they don't make anything that fast!

I think I would re-consider buying a Sigma lens again. (If they improved the lousy black finish paint they use which flakes off just by handling their lenses).

Jay, they have already done that for most of their lenses. I never had an issue with the older finish, but I know what you mean.

@Chez, I like your idea of posting some shots. How about we go a step further and both post the same shots with the comparible equipment.

I sent you a PM with some suggestions how we can do this. Are you game?

I must admit the thread has peeked my curiousity.

jaybird555 wrote:
I think I would re-consider buying a Sigma lens again. (If they improved the lousy black finish paint they use which flakes off just by handling their lenses).

Sigma has stopped using that finish. Even my Sigma 50 f/1.4 has had an update to newer finish and you can see the new Art and Sport range have a nice finish more like L glass.

Peacekpr wrote:
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``.


Saying "nothing beats L glass" as a technical comparison is one thing and you may be right for the vast majority of L lenses, but the above statement of yours is really terribly shortsighted. Just because you don't get good results with third party gear doesn't mean that someone else won't and it certainly doesn't mean they are any less professional. Paying clients only care about whether you got "the shot" or not. That's what your reputation is going to be based on not by the name on your camera/lens.

Peacekpr wrote:
@Chez, I like your idea of posting some shots. How about we go a step further and both post the same shots with the comparible equipment.

I sent you a PM with some suggestions how we can do this. Are you game?

I must admit the thread has peeked my curiousity.

Really can't see how we can post comparable shots when we are thousands of miles apart and things like lighting, cameras etc... are different.

I still like the idea of you posting some shots that you think cannot be obtained with any lens other than an L lens.