Canon or Sigma?

ginger_55

You go Daniel!

:rambo :thwak


Another Canon owner!


CANON ROCKS!

g

Justiceiro

DoctorIt wrote:

Andy said we could use more of this type of stuff, so in the interest of boosting ratings:

Oh Daniel, you're showing your age. What with your abundant smileys and colored fonts. Hang around you enough and I may end up like Rutt, abhorring all smileys. I may start browsing text-only.

PS. Nikon rulz, Canon droolz.

PPS. I have a 70-200/2.8 and you don't.

PPPS. So there.

Doctor it, you scurrilious traitorous dog. Come back, my son, to the true faith.

There is no salvation outside the church!

Nikon and the Canons

DanielB

DoctorIt wrote:

Andy said we could use more of this type of stuff, so in the interest of boosting ratings:

Oh Daniel, you're showing your age. What with your abundant smileys and colored fonts. Hang around you enough and I may end up like Rutt, abhorring all smileys. I may start browsing text-only.

PS. Nikon rulz, Canon droolz.

PPS. I have a 70-200/2.8 and you don't.

PPPS. So there.

lmao:lol4

DoctorIt

Justiceiro wrote:

Doctor it, you scurrilious traitorous dog. Come back, my son, to the true faith.

There is no salvation outside the church!

Nikon and the Canons

scrurrilious and traitorous!?! Now we're talking, bring it on!!!

Poindexter

You guys are too funny

Justiceiro

Come on! No props for "Nikon and the Canons?!" I spent at least 15 minutes thinking that one up.

DoctorIt

Justiceiro wrote:

Common! No props for "Nikon and the Canons?!" I spent at least 15 minutes thinking that one up.

Can't say I've done too much biblical reading, so I just got it now. Clever, sir, dare I say, cunning?

Red Bull

OMG Liek canon 4 lyfe!! !!!!1!!1

[/12 year-old chat speak]

Justiceiro

Red Bull wrote:

OMG Liek canon 4 lyfe!! !!!!1!!1

[/12 year-old chat speak]

Canon is r0x0rz.

Nikon is sux0rz.

Red Bull

No no no... it's

Canon is teh r0x0rz

Nikon is teh sux0rz

Gotta add the "teh":D (misspelling of "the") Or you can just add in a "1337" in there. (leet)

ziggy53

I just got off the phone with Steve at Sigma4Less and they are making the exchange process sooo easy. It's nice to work with a decent firm. So far, every transaction with Sigma4Less.com has been pleasant.

The lens goes back today to exchange for another copy of the Sigma 70-200, f2.8. (I am hopefull for a "good" lens.)

ziggy53

DanielB

ziggy53 wrote:

I just got off the phone with Steve at Sigma4Less and they are making the exchange process sooo easy. It's nice to work with a decent firm. So far, every transaction with Sigma4Less.com has been pleasant.

The lens goes back today to exchange for another copy of the Sigma 70-200, f2.8. (I am hopefull for a "good" lens.)

ziggy53

sweet only thing that would keep me from Sigma4Less is that all their stuff is grey market. with the 1 year international warranty, not the 5 year US waranty

DoctorIt

DanielB wrote:

only thing that would keep me from Sigma4Less is that all their stuff is grey market. with the 1 year international warranty, not the 5 year US waranty

For a pretty substantial saving (more than the usual $20 difference on Canon glass), I'd say its not a huge deal. I've dealt with Sigma4less twice, both times good results.

ziggy53

ziggy53 wrote:

The new Sigma 70-200mm lens turned out to be a dud. It couldn't resolve anything close to infinity.

...

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll post examples to show how bad it was (especially compared to a 10 year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.)

ziggy53

Here is a shot with the new Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8, EX, DG. (Resampled down to 640x426, no other alterations)

ziggy53

... And now the same shot with an old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.

ziggy53

100% crop of the new Sigma:

ziggy53

... And a 100% crop with the old Sigma:

ziggy53

P.S. Indoor, close-range, the new lens was OK. Since around 30-40% of what I shoot is close to infinity, the new lens was unacceptable.

I repeated the test without filter and at high ISO and got the same results. :cry

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the next copy. :

ziggy53

DanielB

:ooglethat was one screwed up lense...

Matthew Saville

Yep, I love Sigma4Less. They toss out the USA warranty and you pay much less! They sell Mack warranties for cheap too if you need that, but I've had such good epxeriences with Sigma4Less that I'm going to be shopping there again for sure...

-Matt-

DoctorIt

wow! Ziggy, sure hope you get a good copy next. those are some really really poor results! very un-characteristic of my Sigma EX experience.

ziggy53

For those who didn't follow the saga:

I returned the first copy of a Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8, EX-DG, when it couldn't focus at infinity, or at around 1.5 blocks away.

Sigma4Less just delivered the second copy tonight. First test of a street light about the same distance away look pretty good. Weather permitting, I'll be out tomorrow, testing the same sign-at-the-park setup as last round.

ziggy53

ziggy53

Rats, another dud lens.

I did some testing yesterday, but the sky was pretty overcast, and I didn't want to believe the results. I repeated the test today since the sky was less overcast, cloudy bright I would call it (shadows, but not distinct.)

The shot, first the new lens:

ziggy53

Now the old lens:

ziggy53

You can see an obvious contrast difference, the old lens is better.

Now a crop, notice the lack of sharpness. Look at the street sign, see the slight echo of the "D" on the left:

ziggy53

A crop of the stop sign really show the problem:

ziggy53

... and now the old lens, turn sign:

ziggy53

... and the old lens, stop sign.

ziggy53

I repeated the test 4 times to make sure it wasn't camera shake or something. The problem is repeatable and seems related to the lens. I am so disappointed, because I had such high hopes. I'm afraid this second lens must go back, and I'm running out of time for a project.

I think I'm going to have to ask for my money back, and go with the Canon 70-200mm, F2.8L. It's quite a bit more money, but I'll bet quality is not as much a problem.

Thanks,

ziggy53

Mike Lane

Looks like the new lens has motion blur to me. Were you using a tripod? Remote release? Hand held and if so what was the shutter speed?

I'd try again on a tripod and with a remote release to make sure you aren't causing this issue.