Reading mode: Light Dark

why buy Nikkor, Sigma is as good?

Go to last post
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock. I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11 at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp. Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the 85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and 45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the 45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and 45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.

Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
I have done some research on this lens and from what I have read it
seems to be perfect for my material and shooting style. I ordered
one and can't wait till it arrives. I have been using the Nikon
24-120 3.5-4.5 on my F5 up till now. When I sold my F5 that lens
went with it. Would you say that I will have a very noticable
difference in my photos when I use the 28-70? or will the
improvement be a subtle one? Remember, I am mostly using studio
flash lighting..

Thanks again Ron
Ron Reznick said:
As long as the focal length is right for you, for close work it is
a great choice. Do remember that it requires stopping down to f/5.6
or so for best results though -- if you are meaning to shoot in
fairly low light or need to shoot wide open for other reasons,
you'd be better off with the 85mm f/1.4D.

Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
Stephen,

I wanted to get your opinion on the Nikon 28-70 2.8AF-S.. It is
worth the money? I do mostly close portrait/fashion style
photography. I need the zoom feature. I mostly use studio flash but
I like the depth of field options this 2.8 will give...

thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com
 
baruth said:
Joe
You mean 70-300mm ED? that is what I have for about 2 years. 2
possibilities: either some thing is wrong with my 70-300 or I
compare it unfairly with the new 80-200/2.8 AFS I got 5 months
back.
again you meant 70-300 ED or 70-300 D ED. I think I do have the
newest incarnation.
Bob
--
nugeny
Click to expand...
Yes - I do mean the Nikkor 70-300 AF D ED. It's incomparable with an AFS lens, but worlds better than a Tamron.

With your 80-200 AFS - why are you looking at Tamrons and the cheaper 300mm lenses? --Regards,Joe H.
 
Trent,

I would not be ashamed to have this lens. As a matter of fact I have it
and also have 2x TC with it. It is not for Pro use but I think this combo
creates images worth of PRO use.

Eugene
Trent Mulkern said:
I use a Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO etc. For me it works fine and
provides some decent reach even with a teleconverter that I would
otherwise not be able to afford in the Nikon Nikor line. Would a
500mm Nikon be better. Sure, but not on my budget unless I made my
living using this lens (keeping my day job). Most folks on this
forum wouldn't be caught dead with this bazzoka like lens in their
bag. For me it does the job and it is a fun lens to boot.

Regards,
Trent
nugeny said:
I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to
slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208
AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00
Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic
quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of
modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just
for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert
--
nugeny
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joe Hoddinott said:
Joe Hoddinott said:
Joe
You mean 70-300mm ED? that is what I have for about 2 years. 2
possibilities: either some thing is wrong with my 70-300 or I
compare it unfairly with the new 80-200/2.8 AFS I got 5 months
back.
again you meant 70-300 ED or 70-300 D ED. I think I do have the
newest incarnation.
Bob
--
nugeny
Click to expand...
Yes - I do mean the Nikkor 70-300 AF D ED. It's incomparable with
an AFS lens, but worlds better than a Tamron.

With your 80-200 AFS - why are you looking at Tamrons and the
cheaper 300mm lenses?
--
Regards,
Joe H.
Click to expand...
I use 80-200 AFS for action, fast moving target. It is mightly heavy. I find that the 70-300/4-5.6 is practical weightwise, but it is slow focusing and has no macro. I bought thiis lense right after its introduction to replace the 75-300. On the lense it is written Nikon ED, AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6D. I think we talk about the same lense.
Bob--nugeny
 
Stuphen,
Ever wonder why people here slamming you?
I tell you why. What you posting here is ABSOLUTE BULL!!!!
How the hell do you know that Sigma cut corners inside of their lenses?
Were you in Japan at their factory to see this?

It seems like every time there is a discussion about third party lenses you have to put your $.02 in it slamming Sigma, Tamron, Tokina.
As long as it is not Nikon you think it's bad.
Are you getting paid by Nikon? It sure seems that way.
Well, I can tell you one thing only. YOU ARE WRONG.
Sigma makes fine lenses in their EX series and people "in the know"
using them. Maybe you should get out of you studio of 35 years

there it is so lonely that you have nothing better to do but to write absolute trash you have been writing and see for yourself what people use in real life.
But if you can't, maybe you should search for Sigma on the NET and read
some reports by real people who use these lenses every day as PROs.

And another thing from you about being cheap. The reason that Sigma is cheaper than Nikon is because they sell more lenses than Nikon so they don't have to be so greedy like Nikon.
Do I have Nikon lenses? Of course I do. 60 macro F2.8 and 85 F1.8
But IMHO they are not out of this world even though they are very good.

Unfortunately Sigma does not make 85 F1.8 and 60 macro was left over from my film days. But I have a lot more Sigma lenses:

15-30 EX , 24-70 EX , 70-200 EX HSM , 50-500 EX HSM and 2x TC and would NOT trade them for Nikon even though I have money to burn.

No, this is not a joke and I will not apologize later because I sincerely mean
what I write.

Eugene
Stephen Livick said:
Hello Everybody,

Joe is right you get what you pay for, personally speaking I would
never photograph with a Sigma lens. If you speak to those in the
know in the photographic trade and they speak honestly to you not
trying to sell you something.

They will tell you to go with Nikkors and avoid the third party
lenses. Those lenses are cheaper because the manufacturer's cut
corners inside where you can't see.

Inside Nikkor's the quality is the same as on the outside. Going to
Sigma or Tamron lenses etc, is really false economy. It's like
going to "No Name" products in grocery shopping, if you have ever
tried it you will know they are never as good as the brand name
products.

The reason is the manufacturer must cut corners somewhere to keep
the price lower. So that's what you get with Sigma lenses, lower
prices and lower standards in contrast, accurate colour
transmission, and cheap plastic mounts holding the optics in place.

Do you really want to put that quality of lens on your incrediable
digital D1x body. The lens is THE most important part on any
camera, why abuse that knowledge. ; )

Stephen

--
http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
 
I think you might have made a mistake with that switch -- the optics of the 75-300 are superior from all reports I have seen. The new lens is a little faster, but the older lens was actually sharper across the frame wide open than the newer lens is stopped down. I can only go by reports though, since I have never shot either lens.

Ron
nugeny said:
I find that the 70-300/4-5.6 is practical weightwise, but it
is slow focusing and has no macro. I bought thiis lense right after

its introduction to replace the 75-300. --Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
 
Eugene, that 70-200 is a nice lens, but as far as the others are concerned, forget the cost... do you honestly think that the 15-30 and 24-70 equal the 17-35 and 28-70 AFS lenses? The 50-500 has tremendous range, but it is a rather slow lens requiring bright daylight for most work (where it does a pretty nice job from what I've seen). In difficult conditions, I'd rather have the 100-300 f/4 Sigma and a 1.4x converter if we're talking about Sigmas.

Just my $0.02 on that subject.

Sigma makes some nice lenses, and some so-so ones. Personally, I would not at all mind winning a 500/4.5 HSM in a raffle or something, and their macro lenses are quite nice. Your medium-tele zoom is also a good one. The others? Hmmm...

Ron
Eugene Powers said:
No, this is not a joke and I will not apologize later because I
sincerely mean
what I write.

Eugene
Stephen Livick said:
Hello Everybody,

Joe is right you get what you pay for, personally speaking I would
never photograph with a Sigma lens. If you speak to those in the
know in the photographic trade and they speak honestly to you not
trying to sell you something.

They will tell you to go with Nikkors and avoid the third party
lenses. Those lenses are cheaper because the manufacturer's cut
corners inside where you can't see.

Inside Nikkor's the quality is the same as on the outside. Going to
Sigma or Tamron lenses etc, is really false economy. It's like
going to "No Name" products in grocery shopping, if you have ever
tried it you will know they are never as good as the brand name
products.

The reason is the manufacturer must cut corners somewhere to keep
the price lower. So that's what you get with Sigma lenses, lower
prices and lower standards in contrast, accurate colour
transmission, and cheap plastic mounts holding the optics in place.

Do you really want to put that quality of lens on your incrediable
digital D1x body. The lens is THE most important part on any
camera, why abuse that knowledge. ; )

Stephen

--
http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com
 
Ron, Thanks for the detailed post. I have read your review on your webpage as well.

"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.

Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
I have done some research on this lens and from what I have read it
seems to be perfect for my material and shooting style. I ordered
one and can't wait till it arrives. I have been using the Nikon
24-120 3.5-4.5 on my F5 up till now. When I sold my F5 that lens
went with it. Would you say that I will have a very noticable
difference in my photos when I use the 28-70? or will the
improvement be a subtle one? Remember, I am mostly using studio
flash lighting..

Thanks again Ron
Ron Reznick said:
As long as the focal length is right for you, for close work it is
a great choice. Do remember that it requires stopping down to f/5.6
or so for best results though -- if you are meaning to shoot in
fairly low light or need to shoot wide open for other reasons,
you'd be better off with the 85mm f/1.4D.

Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
Stephen,

I wanted to get your opinion on the Nikon 28-70 2.8AF-S.. It is
worth the money? I do mostly close portrait/fashion style
photography. I need the zoom feature. I mostly use studio flash but
I like the depth of field options this 2.8 will give...

thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--Frank B
 
Any time, Frank. You'll get good results from that lens... and some fun as well unless I miss my guess.

Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com
 
Ron, Fun, How did you quess... Reminds me of a movie.. Do you know the one I mean?

" Hey,..... You.... You.... Your good"
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--Frank B
 
No shame at all as it works very well for me. Actually, I picked it up based on your recommendation a while back. I got both teleconverters and while the 2X is a tiny bit softer, neither are that bad. I even tried ganging them together one time for a shot which came out very sharp, but the camera AF did not like that combination so I don't do that anymore.

Regards,
Trent
Eugene Powers said:
I would not be ashamed to have this lens. As a matter of fact I
have it
and also have 2x TC with it. It is not for Pro use but I think this
combo
creates images worth of PRO use.

Eugene
Trent Mulkern said:
I use a Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO etc. For me it works fine and
provides some decent reach even with a teleconverter that I would
otherwise not be able to afford in the Nikon Nikor line. Would a
500mm Nikon be better. Sure, but not on my budget unless I made my
living using this lens (keeping my day job). Most folks on this
forum wouldn't be caught dead with this bazzoka like lens in their
bag. For me it does the job and it is a fun lens to boot.

Regards,
Trent
nugeny said:
I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to
slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208
AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00
Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic
quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of
modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just
for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert
--
nugeny
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Robert DeNiro's line to Billy Crystal at the end of the film :^)
Frank Benvenuto said:
" Hey,..... You.... You.... Your good"
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com
 
There ya go... "Analyze This"

8->
Ron Reznick said:
Frank Benvenuto said:
" Hey,..... You.... You.... Your good"
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--Frank B
 
Hello Ron

Thanks posting to Frank for me, you know your stuff in the lens department ; ) I have been busy selling some work to photographic collectors.

And Frank its a great lens just be sure to watch out for lens flare in certain back lit situations.

Stephen
Ron Reznick said:
Frank Benvenuto said:
" Hey,..... You.... You.... Your good"
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
-- http://www.livick.com
 
Thank you Stephen. Is lens flare also a concern with studio flash units? Does the lens Hood prevent this from happening?
Stephen Livick said:
Thanks posting to Frank for me, you know your stuff in the lens
department ; ) I have been busy selling some work to photographic
collectors.

And Frank its a great lens just be sure to watch out for lens flare
in certain back lit situations.

Stephen
Ron Reznick said:
Frank Benvenuto said:
" Hey,..... You.... You.... Your good"
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
--Frank B
 
Hello Eugene,

My close friend is a life long camera repair man who takes lenses and cameras apart in his sleep. I'll visit him and chat while he does it, he points out the cost cutting to me and serious design flaws in the equipment. We chat on the phone from time to time and I ask him many questions in the course of the talks and find out all sorts of very interesting information.

That's how I know about these things Eugene, and no I have no connection to anyone by the way.

But the negative tone of your post tells me in future I should keep all information to myself. It's hardly worth sharing things here just to get lambasted. I know a little more detail than I share with the forum and always try to phraes things somewhat generally so as not to offend anyone when it comes to equipment. But it seems these days no matter what I say someone jumps on it and berates me.

So do enjoy the holidays Eugene, by the way my friend is coming for a day visit, sleep over and dinner this weekend. Our talk always centers around cameras and lenses as that's all he is interested in, so I cultivate that in him, and I urge him on, always listening eagerly to everything he has to says. ; )

Same thing with my camera shop owner who is also a close friend and shares photo trade information with me as a friend. But after several posts in the past just like yours Eugene I have stopped sharing much of what he tells me with this forum. Including what's new and up and coming in the near future in Nikon's digital camera and lens department. Yes we already know some of the nice little details!

SL

PS: Do not e-mail me privatly anyone, I won't be answering any requests for information I'll simply deleat everything coming from this forum.. Tell me now, just why the in God's name should I share things with any of you after the string of nasty postings and insulting emails sent to me by members of this forum?

Do enjoy the holidays everyone ; )
Member said:
Eugene Powers said:
Stuphen,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Member said:
Member said:
Ever wonder why people here slamming you?
I tell you why. What you posting here is ABSOLUTE BULL!!!!
How the hell do you know that Sigma cut corners inside of their
lenses?
Were you in Japan at their factory to see this?
It seems like every time there is a discussion about third party
lenses you have to put your $.02 in it slamming Sigma, Tamron,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
-- http://www.livick.com
 
Forget him Stephen, he has no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with him and proves his statements are incorrect. Keep up the information flow...we don't always have to agree with it..but it enhances the discussions...dm
Stephen Livick said:
My close friend is a life long camera repair man who takes lenses
and cameras apart in his sleep. I'll visit him and chat while he
does it, he points out the cost cutting to me and serious design
flaws in the equipment. We chat on the phone from time to time and
I ask him many questions in the course of the talks and find out
all sorts of very interesting information.

That's how I know about these things Eugene, and no I have no
connection to anyone by the way.

But the negative tone of your post tells me in future I should
keep all information to myself. It's hardly worth sharing things
here just to get lambasted. I know a little more detail than I
share with the forum and always try to phraes things somewhat
generally so as not to offend anyone when it comes to equipment.
But it seems these days no matter what I say someone jumps on it
and berates me.

So do enjoy the holidays Eugene, by the way my friend is coming for
a day visit, sleep over and dinner this weekend. Our talk always
centers around cameras and lenses as that's all he is interested
in, so I cultivate that in him, and I urge him on, always listening
eagerly to everything he has to says. ; )

Same thing with my camera shop owner who is also a close friend and
shares photo trade information with me as a friend. But after
several posts in the past just like yours Eugene I have stopped
sharing much of what he tells me with this forum. Including what's
new and up and coming in the near future in Nikon's digital camera
and lens department. Yes we already know some of the nice little
details!

SL

PS: Do not e-mail me privatly anyone, I won't be answering any
requests for information I'll simply deleat everything coming from
this forum.. Tell me now, just why the in God's name should I
share things with any of you after the string of nasty postings and
insulting emails sent to me by members of this forum?

Do enjoy the holidays everyone ; )
Stephen Livick said:
Eugene Powers said:
Stuphen,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Stephen Livick said:
Stephen Livick said:
Ever wonder why people here slamming you?
I tell you why. What you posting here is ABSOLUTE BULL!!!!
How the hell do you know that Sigma cut corners inside of their
lenses?
Were you in Japan at their factory to see this?
It seems like every time there is a discussion about third party
lenses you have to put your $.02 in it slamming Sigma, Tamron,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
--****
 
Lots of elements... keep the hood on and try to keep light sources at least 15 degrees or more out of frame. Shoot without a filter if the light is inside 30 degrees of the frame.

Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
Stephen Livick said:
Thanks posting to Frank for me, you know your stuff in the lens
department ; ) I have been busy selling some work to photographic
collectors.

And Frank its a great lens just be sure to watch out for lens flare
in certain back lit situations.

Stephen
Ron Reznick said:
Frank Benvenuto said:
" Hey,..... You.... You.... Your good"
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
Frank Benvenuto said:
"Shock" interesting.. I can't recall another time when I was so
excited to get "shocked" ;-) Thanks my friend..
Ron Reznick said:
Frank, in comparison to the 24-120... you are going to be in shock.
I owned a 24-120, and the only way to get decent results from that
lens is to shoot it from f/8 at the shorter-to-middle end, or f/11
at the longer end. It also has some distortion problems, and even
at the apertures mentioned it never really gets clean and sharp.
Forget subject isolation and quality in the same image... and the
character of the image always looks 'flat'.

I do not own a 28-70 AFS, but I spent a fair amount of time
shooting them. I shot two lenses over a short period while trying
to determine whether to buy one, and shot another for a friend to
test it (taking in excess of 300 shots in various street-shooting
and scenic situations). I wouldn't buy one for myself because for
what it does well, I would rather use different lenses that I
already own due to personal preferences re: focal length (e.g. the
85/1.4D or 17-35 AFS, and I'm about to get a 28mm f/2.8 AIs and
45mm f/2.8P for use in other situations where short lenses are
needed -- the 28mm will be a field WA and low-light lens, and the
45mm will be a street-shooting, scenic and low-light lens -- I sold
my 50/1.4D and will cover the work I used it for with the 28mm and
45mm manual lenses). I must say, however, that the performance of
the 28-70 under 12 feet or so is simply stunning.

Subtle, it isn't. As I said... you are going to be in shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
Click to expand...
--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com
 
Stephen Livick said:
My close friend is a life long camera repair man who takes lenses
and cameras apart in his sleep. I'll visit him and chat while he
does it, he points out the cost cutting to me and serious design
flaws in the equipment. We chat on the phone from time to time and
I ask him many questions in the course of the talks and find out
all sorts of very interesting information.

That's how I know about these things Eugene, and no I have no
connection to anyone by the way.

But the negative tone of your post tells me in future I should
keep all information to myself. It's hardly worth sharing things
here just to get lambasted. I know a little more detail than I
share with the forum and always try to phraes things somewhat
generally so as not to offend anyone when it comes to equipment.
But it seems these days no matter what I say someone jumps on it
and berates me.

So do enjoy the holidays Eugene, by the way my friend is coming for
a day visit, sleep over and dinner this weekend. Our talk always
centers around cameras and lenses as that's all he is interested
in, so I cultivate that in him, and I urge him on, always listening
eagerly to everything he has to says. ; )

Same thing with my camera shop owner who is also a close friend and
shares photo trade information with me as a friend. But after
several posts in the past just like yours Eugene I have stopped
sharing much of what he tells me with this forum. Including what's
new and up and coming in the near future in Nikon's digital camera
and lens department. Yes we already know some of the nice little
details!

SL

PS: Do not e-mail me privatly anyone, I won't be answering any
requests for information I'll simply deleat everything coming from
this forum.. Tell me now, just why the in God's name should I
share things with any of you after the string of nasty postings and
insulting emails sent to me by members of this forum?

Do enjoy the holidays everyone ; )
Stephen Livick said:
Eugene Powers said:
Stuphen,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Stephen Livick said:
Stephen Livick said:
Ever wonder why people here slamming you?
I tell you why. What you posting here is ABSOLUTE BULL!!!!
How the hell do you know that Sigma cut corners inside of their
lenses?
Were you in Japan at their factory to see this?
It seems like every time there is a discussion about third party
lenses you have to put your $.02 in it slamming Sigma, Tamron,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.livick.com
Click to expand...
Stephen, I really do enjoy your informative opinion. Your writing, unlike many others, has real substance. Keep doing the good work by sharing for the right people. Our behavior shouldn't be limited by the "wrong", negative people. Xmas is here. This is the season of sharing. The best of all the gifts is the information and knowledge. Merry Xmas.
Bob --nugeny
 
Hello Stephen,

your comments and your informations are always very helpful for, I think, the most of us, please go on with those flow of informations of your friends and let these other guys stand alone, they have their opinion and that's all.

In the other way you are alright, because why should you do all this for us, when you get answers like this, I think you need also time for other things.

So cool down and take it easy,

merry christmas an a lot of new ideas for the next year

--Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top