Reading mode: Light Dark

Finally!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave Kunze
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Dave,
Thank you very much!

Wide open looks good and now I know that mine is ok on this focal length too. If mosquitos are not especially evil today - could you make same shot with nice grass on 30mm/f8 focused on something farther than 10 m (30 feet) for example? I've noticed ugly blurry left-bottom corner on some of my pics with this FL and continiously trying to imagine causes for this weird behavior :)
Dave Kunze said:
Andrey:

Here is one taken this AM. The mosquitos drove me back into the
house before I could take any more. Pic was taken wide open (f3.5)
at 15mm.
Click to expand...
 
I have the EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 and find it very good. At 20mm is sharper than the 17-35L.

John
Willing said:
thanks!

Willing
Dave Kunze said:
I tried a 15-30 f3.5-4.5 first - no good - soft as heck. Then
tried the 17-35 f2.8-4 - this one was soft too. Tried another
17-35 - also soft, worse than the first. Then tried another 15-30
f3.5-4.5. The last one is good.
The comparison I did was with my Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5 (AF 139). I
took three shots at max aperture at similar focal lengths then at
f8 at (approx.)the same similar focal lengths (approx 19, 24 and
30mm). I then opened up the shots side by side to compare. That's
why I mentioned the Tokina being sharp. It was either very sharp
for a "cheapie" or the Sigmas were very bad. The 15-30 I received
today is noticably sharper than the Tokina, but not nearly as much
difference as between the Tokina and the "bad" Sigmas.
Hoo boy. Life is good!

kunza

In answer to the other part of your post, the thought that there
may be (up to) 75% of Sigma owners taking pictures with
"less-than-what-it-should-be" glass is kind of scary.
elmo said:
...since it's been several days... I remember that the Tokina made
best of the pics we've seen. Is the Sigma an f2.8 vs slower on the
Tokina?

4 tries is remarkable. It's hard to imagine either myself, or even
the best vendor going through that. And, you know the majority of
lens buyers don't check them out carefully. So, are 3 out of 4
Sigma owners running around sub-standard glass?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
My Sigma lenses from Delta, (all 4 of them) came with warranty cards. Does that mean if I send them in, the warranty won't be acknowledged or valid?

kunza
RichW said:
Gleb Esman said:
Just curious about the EOS 1D pricing...
delta has it for $4972 vs. others have it for $5500+....
At first $4972 sounded a bit "grayish" market for me?
Also i couldn't find any trace of 28-70, f/2.8L lense on delta's
site, but i guess that's probably a matter of phone call...

Gleb
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
this is Sigma official statement, for what it's worth:

Q" I have heard that there are many negative reports, on the Internet, about Sigma lenses and service; just how good is the quality of Sigma products?

A: Sigma is the largest manufacturer of lenses for 35mm SLR cameras, in the world. Certainly, no one could achieve such a position by making shoddy merchandise or by providing inferior service. We have seen some comments posted on some Websites claiming that Sigma lenses are not well made. While the Internet is very popular, and is an easy way to get information, unfortunately not all sources on the Internet are reliable. Some of the information is inaccurate, and the sources of information are often not verifiable. The point is that, at this time, there is virtually no regulation of the Internet, or the information which appears on it. Anyone, regardless of motive, can say virtually anything they want. There are some Websites which have rather negative names, evidently designed to solicit negative comments, so it is not surprising that they receive negative comments. Therefore, we would suggest that you read such reports with a degree of skepticism. Rather, you should consult known, reputable sources, such as photographic publications (many of whom have their own Websites), where you have some assurance of their competence and objectivity in evaluating photographic equipment. In fact, independent evaluations often judge Sigma products to be superior to more expensive products from other prestigious manufacturers. And, these reviews are performed by professionals, who know how equipment should perform, and how it should be handled and evaluated. Sigma enjoys an enviable reputation for quality of product and service. This is not to say that all Sigma products are perfect. Sigma can and does make products which may have manufacturing defects, from time to time, but the percentage is quite small (generally about 1-2% or less), which is typical for most reputable manufacturers. This is certainly not what one would expect, if you believe everything you read posted on the Sigma-bashing Websites.
 
mal28 said:
this is Sigma official statement, for what it's worth:

Q" I have heard that there are many negative reports, on the
Internet, about Sigma lenses and service; just how good is the
quality of Sigma products?

A: Sigma is the largest manufacturer of lenses for 35mm SLR
cameras, in the world. Certainly, no one could achieve such a
position by making shoddy merchandise or by providing inferior
service. We have seen some comments posted on some Websites
claiming that Sigma lenses are not well made. While the Internet is
very popular, and is an easy way to get information, unfortunately
not all sources on the Internet are reliable. Some of the
information is inaccurate, and the sources of information are often
not verifiable. The point is that, at this time, there is virtually
no regulation of the Internet, or the information which appears on
it. Anyone, regardless of motive, can say virtually anything they
want. There are some Websites which have rather negative names,
evidently designed to solicit negative comments, so it is not
surprising that they receive negative comments. Therefore, we would
suggest that you read such reports with a degree of skepticism.
Rather, you should consult known, reputable sources, such as
photographic publications (many of whom have their own Websites),
where you have some assurance of their competence and objectivity
in evaluating photographic equipment. In fact, independent
evaluations often judge Sigma products to be superior to more
expensive products from other prestigious manufacturers. And, these
reviews are performed by professionals, who know how equipment
should perform, and how it should be handled and evaluated. Sigma
enjoys an enviable reputation for quality of product and service.
This is not to say that all Sigma products are perfect. Sigma can
and does make products which may have manufacturing defects, from
time to time, but the percentage is quite small (generally about
1-2% or less), which is typical for most reputable manufacturers.
This is certainly not what one would expect, if you believe
everything you read posted on the Sigma-bashing Websites.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know how to thank you again :) Looks like blurred corners on 30mm is feature of this lens, I'll check them later more closely.

Hey, nice submarine you hiding in that bushes :)

With best regards,
Andrey
Dave Kunze said:
Andrey:

( http://www ).fototime.com/inv/87ED15DAC8604A6

Here is basically the same photo at 30mm, f8 with the center focus
point on the wooden ppost with the hanging baskets. Hope this is
what you were looking for.
Click to expand...
 
Gleb Esman said:
Just curious about the EOS 1D pricing...
delta has it for $4972 vs. others have it for $5500+....
At first $4972 sounded a bit "grayish" market for me?
Click to expand...
That is grey market, but you can get a USA goods 1D from Canoga for the same price.

-John
 
"Sigma is the largest manufacturer of lenses for 35mm SLR cameras, in the world"

Wonder where they get the info from.
mal28 said:
this is Sigma official statement, for what it's worth:

Q" I have heard that there are many negative reports, on the
Internet, about Sigma lenses and service; just how good is the
quality of Sigma products?

A: Sigma is the largest manufacturer of lenses for 35mm SLR
cameras, in the world. Certainly, no one could achieve such a
position by making shoddy merchandise or by providing inferior
service. We have seen some comments posted on some Websites
claiming that Sigma lenses are not well made. While the Internet is
very popular, and is an easy way to get information, unfortunately
not all sources on the Internet are reliable. Some of the
information is inaccurate, and the sources of information are often
not verifiable. The point is that, at this time, there is virtually
no regulation of the Internet, or the information which appears on
it. Anyone, regardless of motive, can say virtually anything they
want. There are some Websites which have rather negative names,
evidently designed to solicit negative comments, so it is not
surprising that they receive negative comments. Therefore, we would
suggest that you read such reports with a degree of skepticism.
Rather, you should consult known, reputable sources, such as
photographic publications (many of whom have their own Websites),
where you have some assurance of their competence and objectivity
in evaluating photographic equipment. In fact, independent
evaluations often judge Sigma products to be superior to more
expensive products from other prestigious manufacturers. And, these
reviews are performed by professionals, who know how equipment
should perform, and how it should be handled and evaluated. Sigma
enjoys an enviable reputation for quality of product and service.
This is not to say that all Sigma products are perfect. Sigma can
and does make products which may have manufacturing defects, from
time to time, but the percentage is quite small (generally about
1-2% or less), which is typical for most reputable manufacturers.
This is certainly not what one would expect, if you believe
everything you read posted on the Sigma-bashing Websites.
Click to expand...
 
and hey, it's not easy to hide a propane tank that large!!
:-)

kunza
Andrey Tverdokhleb said:
I don't know how to thank you again :) Looks like blurred corners
on 30mm is feature of this lens, I'll check them later more closely.

Hey, nice submarine you hiding in that bushes :)

With best regards,
Andrey
Click to expand...
 
I've tried the canon 20-35 EF lens and somehow pics looks a bit darker than
other canon zoom lenses.
How about you guys??

willing
John Davis said:
John
Willing said:
thanks!

Willing
Dave Kunze said:
I tried a 15-30 f3.5-4.5 first - no good - soft as heck. Then
tried the 17-35 f2.8-4 - this one was soft too. Tried another
17-35 - also soft, worse than the first. Then tried another 15-30
f3.5-4.5. The last one is good.
The comparison I did was with my Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5 (AF 139). I
took three shots at max aperture at similar focal lengths then at
f8 at (approx.)the same similar focal lengths (approx 19, 24 and
30mm). I then opened up the shots side by side to compare. That's
why I mentioned the Tokina being sharp. It was either very sharp
for a "cheapie" or the Sigmas were very bad. The 15-30 I received
today is noticably sharper than the Tokina, but not nearly as much
difference as between the Tokina and the "bad" Sigmas.
Hoo boy. Life is good!

kunza

In answer to the other part of your post, the thought that there
may be (up to) 75% of Sigma owners taking pictures with
"less-than-what-it-should-be" glass is kind of scary.
elmo said:
...since it's been several days... I remember that the Tokina made
best of the pics we've seen. Is the Sigma an f2.8 vs slower on the
Tokina?

4 tries is remarkable. It's hard to imagine either myself, or even
the best vendor going through that. And, you know the majority of
lens buyers don't check them out carefully. So, are 3 out of 4
Sigma owners running around sub-standard glass?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Do you mean, underexposed? Compared to what lenses?

Bear in mind that average metering with a wideangle lens always has a tendency to underexpose as compared to a narrower filed lens - that's the nature of average metering, it will tend to make everything gray.

My 20-35 exposes the same as a 50 or a 200. It is a great lens, and I suspect it is underappreciated.

John
Willing said:
willing
John Davis said:
John
Willing said:
thanks!

Willing
Dave Kunze said:
I tried a 15-30 f3.5-4.5 first - no good - soft as heck. Then
tried the 17-35 f2.8-4 - this one was soft too. Tried another
17-35 - also soft, worse than the first. Then tried another 15-30
f3.5-4.5. The last one is good.
The comparison I did was with my Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5 (AF 139). I
took three shots at max aperture at similar focal lengths then at
f8 at (approx.)the same similar focal lengths (approx 19, 24 and
30mm). I then opened up the shots side by side to compare. That's
why I mentioned the Tokina being sharp. It was either very sharp
for a "cheapie" or the Sigmas were very bad. The 15-30 I received
today is noticably sharper than the Tokina, but not nearly as much
difference as between the Tokina and the "bad" Sigmas.
Hoo boy. Life is good!

kunza

In answer to the other part of your post, the thought that there
may be (up to) 75% of Sigma owners taking pictures with
"less-than-what-it-should-be" glass is kind of scary.
elmo said:
...since it's been several days... I remember that the Tokina made
best of the pics we've seen. Is the Sigma an f2.8 vs slower on the
Tokina?

4 tries is remarkable. It's hard to imagine either myself, or even
the best vendor going through that. And, you know the majority of
lens buyers don't check them out carefully. So, are 3 out of 4
Sigma owners running around sub-standard glass?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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