David Baldwin wrote:
Bearing in mind the price tag of recent Canon lens releases Sigma's action is timely good news. Personally I have never been more open to considering third party lenses.
Agree.... and I loved my old Tamron 28-75f2.8 until it basically fell apart. It's great news one company is taking it more seriously and can only help all of us as maybe Canon (and Tammy) will hopefully improve as well from the fear of lost sales.

Haven't any of you asked yourselves the question, why did Sigma need to impliment QA in the first place?

Indeed you are in the minority.

Peacekpr wrote:
Haven't any of you asked yourselves the question, why did Sigma need to impliment QA in the first place?

Indeed you are in the minority.

Must be lonely at the top. Seems like your on your own preaching "it's L glass or nothing at all".

Still have not seen those fabulous images that can only be taken with L glass.

There's one area where L lenses fail regularly: price/performance ratio.

Peacekpr wrote:
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.




Of course the canon lens you quote is better than the others the new 70-200 is one of canons top new lenses
So you are saying nothing else but Canon L is worth using ?
There are lots of excellent lenses made by other makers
I own the tamron 17-50 and the tokina 11-16 both really excellent surely these are not crap too?
You can pick excellent glass from both Canon and third party
most people pick the best from both
PS you mentioned pros before they actually just need image quality that's good enough for the client
What matters to them is reliable kit they can depend on
Amateurs are more likely to be concerned about ultimate IQ
I do see where you are coming from with L lenses I own 3 myself but think you are being blinkered

Peacekpr wrote:
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.

I am using a Sigma lens alongside L and non-L EF lenses, and it's never a question of settling for something. Even if had been building a kit from scratch with unlimited resources, there would've been a few non-OEM lenses in it (like a Sigma 120-300 OS, or the 85/1.4).


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

Nope, not an excuse. Wherever I've been working over the years (paper, agency, website), the workflow went like: "First off, if the picture isn't sharp, it goes to Recycled Bin." I can't imagine Reuters being much different unless working with very extreme events - but in this case even the big agencies settle for TV screen grabs and cellphones (Mavi Marmara or Syrian civil war anyone...), so it's not a good point in itself.

Peacekpr wrote:
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!
They have 1.4s of comparable IQ. 1/2 stop slower at 1/3 the price seems like a deal to me, especially since the Ls have their own known issues. No experience with any of those (L or Sigma), anyways, but I'd love to use the 85/1.4.

The new Sigma 35mm f1.4 should available today for Canon mount. Looking forward to samples.

First, Sigma announcing that they are pushing QC to the top of their list is a "Very Good Thing." They are acknowledging that copy to copy variation has been one of their biggest problems. ANY competitor that puts pressure on Canon - particularly price/performance - is a "good thing" for all Canon shooters of any kind.

To those who claim "god only shoots with the red stripe," well I haven't talked with her lately, but I'm real skeptical of the claim As for the dim-witted that maintain that "professionals are defined by their gear." Was it the Smothers Brothers? "I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy." Speaking as a professional photographer, defined as "Have camera, will travel" or "people pay me to take pictures", I use the best (which inevitably involves price/performance considerations) tool for the job, and my clients really don't give a d*** what my gear looks like. In fact most times they can't tell the difference between a 350D and a 1Dx except maybe, "Wow, that's a big camera!"

Yes, Canon's L lenses are - as a group - quite good, and yes I have a number of them. But, I have (with 2 exceptions) always bought used because I do believe there is an "L tax" Canon imposes. This certainly seems to be true with their more recent introductions. Amidst my L collection is an 85mm f/1.8 used for indoor low light sports. The 85L would never work in this situation. There is also a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro which - to me - is significantly better than the Canon 180 f/3.5L macro I had previously.

I hope Sigma (and the others) do step up their quality, performance, and price pressure. Something has to check Canon's insistence that it become the "new Leica."

Robert

Peacekpr wrote:
Haven't any of you asked yourselves the question, why did Sigma need to impliment QA in the first place?

Implement? I think they meant they are improving their QA. You think Sigma never had a QA? Everyone needs to have a continual improvement system, even
Canon.

Peacekeepr's rants are the gift that keep on giving.

Might as well try and convince a Republican that global warming isn't a left wing conspiracy to send us back to the dark ages and so scientists can snap up waterfront real estate on the cheap.

LCPete, you need to humor us on the other side of the pond... What does this idiom mean?

"I own 3 myself but think you ate being blinkered"

dwweiche wrote:
LCPete, you need to humor us on the other side of the pond... What does this idiom mean?

"I own 3 myself but think you ate being blinkered"
Sorry a misspelling I posted using my mobile phone
I meant to say ' you are being blinkered', as he can't see that other companies apart from Canon can make great lenses

Peacekpr wrote:
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.


Find me a L lens equivalent:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1353104793&sr=1-2&keywords=sigma+200-500mm+f2.8