Reading mode: Light Dark

SD9: are these artifacts or detail?

Go to last post
JDavis37 said:
But to say Sigma glass is crappy has the ring of AF-S and or L
glass snobbery.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right ?
jdavis37 said:
flame. Spare the adjectives like "crappy" and one's point can be
made in a more relaxed professional and less flaming manner. For
example:
Click to expand...
jdavis37 said:
Too bad Foveon wasted the technology on a camera that is
limited to only Sigma glass.
Click to expand...
Thats what I said, but you forgot the crappy. Look, this kind of
stuff just gets my blood boling. People buy 4000.00 digital
SLRs, and then buy a 28-200 zoom and whine "I can't get sharp
images out of my new (insert camera of your choice". I mean,
its ridiculous. The lens is the single most important component
of a camera, and many people buy into whole systems because
of quality glass. Sigam is at the bottom of the food chain in
that department, or darn near it in my opinion. I don't agree
that its snobbish, its just common sense. If you can't afford
a good lens, you really shouldn't blow a wad on digital.
 
Justin,

1. Sigma makes some so-so lenses. (e.g. 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 Macro)

2. Sigma makes some excellent lenses. (e.g. 70-200 EX f/2.8 HSM)

3. Don't set your expectations of the one based upon your experience with the other.
Justin Case said:
JDavis37 said:
But to say Sigma glass is crappy has the ring of AF-S and or L
glass snobbery.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right ?
Arthur Dent said:
flame. Spare the adjectives like "crappy" and one's point can be
made in a more relaxed professional and less flaming manner. For
example:
Click to expand...
Arthur Dent said:
Too bad Foveon wasted the technology on a camera that is
limited to only Sigma glass.
Click to expand...
Thats what I said, but you forgot the crappy. Look, this kind of
stuff just gets my blood boling. People buy 4000.00 digital
SLRs, and then buy a 28-200 zoom and whine "I can't get sharp
images out of my new (insert camera of your choice". I mean,
its ridiculous. The lens is the single most important component
of a camera, and many people buy into whole systems because
of quality glass. Sigam is at the bottom of the food chain in
that department, or darn near it in my opinion. I don't agree
that its snobbish, its just common sense. If you can't afford
a good lens, you really shouldn't blow a wad on digital.
Click to expand...
--
  • Woody -
Eqiupment: Lots.

Favorite Quote: 'Never let the quest for the Perfect become the enemy of the Excellent'
 
jwilliams said:
I can't believe how many posts it took until somebody realized that
those patterns REALLY WERE THERE. Simply a factor of how the box
was printed.
Click to expand...
Look at the original post in this thread. That was my initial assumption but I wanted to make sure since the dot patterns were in almost a perfect checkerboard and didn't appear on all parts of the box, even for the same colors.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Just remember, the SD9 is a concept camera and hopefully is just a hint of what we are going to see in the next year. Unless there are some strange licensing loopholes, I would expect all the major manufacturers to jump on the Foveon train as long as the chip in the SD9 performs as well as we think.

As for the SD9, I too wish it had a Nikon mount but I don't think all Sigma lenses are crappy. They have 2 or 3 decent ones. :-)

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
if you don't mind.

I'm very interested in your take on the Sigma lens subject. Do you have personal experience with the 2 or 3 decent ones? Thanks in advance for your reply.

Joe Kurkjian
Mike Chaney said:
As for the SD9, I too wish it had a Nikon mount but I don't think
all Sigma lenses are crappy. They have 2 or 3 decent ones. :-)
Click to expand...
 
u mean a Nikon D100 with a Nikkor 28-200 will be much better than a Sigma SD9 with a Sigma 28-200? Please be fair.

I don't think All Canon "L" lenses are excellent. But they do provide "better" quality by paying "more" $$.

Also, Sigma SD9 cost $1800 MSRP. Not $4000.
Justin Case said:
JDavis37 said:
But to say Sigma glass is crappy has the ring of AF-S and or L
glass snobbery.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right ?
Arthur Dent said:
flame. Spare the adjectives like "crappy" and one's point can be
made in a more relaxed professional and less flaming manner. For
example:
Click to expand...
Arthur Dent said:
Too bad Foveon wasted the technology on a camera that is
limited to only Sigma glass.
Click to expand...
Thats what I said, but you forgot the crappy. Look, this kind of
stuff just gets my blood boling. People buy 4000.00 digital
SLRs, and then buy a 28-200 zoom and whine "I can't get sharp
images out of my new (insert camera of your choice". I mean,
its ridiculous. The lens is the single most important component
of a camera, and many people buy into whole systems because
of quality glass. Sigam is at the bottom of the food chain in
that department, or darn near it in my opinion. I don't agree
that its snobbish, its just common sense. If you can't afford
a good lens, you really shouldn't blow a wad on digital.
Click to expand...
--
C.Wolf
 
J A K said:
I'm very interested in your take on the Sigma lens subject. Do you
have personal experience with the 2 or 3 decent ones? Thanks in
advance for your reply.
Click to expand...
I'm just going by the surveys and reviews I have seen. These are the ones that consistently get decent reviews:

Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DF
Sigma 70-210 f/2.8 APO
Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 APO EX

Some of their primes rate pretty good too, but I was talking about general purpose lenses. I have no first hand experience with any of them as I use Nikkor glass almost exclusively right now. I've seen some digital images shot through some Sigma glass though that I wouldn't complain about. I'll see if I can dig up some of the links to Sigma digital shots. I had some around here somewhere...

One problem I can see with the SD9 is that it has a 1.7x magnification factor, and as of right now, they have no lenses that rate well that go below 28mm on the wide angle side. Their zooms with 24mm on the wide side all rate poorly. That could be a problem for people who want wide angle shots... or at least it may force them to switch lenses all the time to switch to a prime when doing true wide angle stuff.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
I appreciate the help.

Joe Kurkjian
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
I'm very interested in your take on the Sigma lens subject. Do you
have personal experience with the 2 or 3 decent ones? Thanks in
advance for your reply.
Click to expand...
I'm just going by the surveys and reviews I have seen. These are
the ones that consistently get decent reviews:

Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DF
Sigma 70-210 f/2.8 APO
Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 APO EX

Some of their primes rate pretty good too, but I was talking about
general purpose lenses. I have no first hand experience with any
of them as I use Nikkor glass almost exclusively right now. I've
seen some digital images shot through some Sigma glass though that
I wouldn't complain about. I'll see if I can dig up some of the
links to Sigma digital shots. I had some around here somewhere...

One problem I can see with the SD9 is that it has a 1.7x
magnification factor, and as of right now, they have no lenses that
rate well that go below 28mm on the wide angle side. Their zooms
with 24mm on the wide side all rate poorly. That could be a
problem for people who want wide angle shots... or at least it may
force them to switch lenses all the time to switch to a prime when
doing true wide angle stuff.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
 
I have first hand experience with Sigma lenses.
All of the EX line just as good optically, as Nikon and Canon.
All none EX I would not buy or recommend buying at all.

Of course there are variations in quality.
But even Nikon and Canon have variations in quality.
Search this forum alone for Nikon and Canon lenses and you will see
that there a lot of complaints about them. The most resent complaints are
17-35 from Nikon. Some people said that Sigma 17-35 is even better
than Nikon. I don't think so, I think they are about the same.
Of course, Nikon lenses have more features but that is about to change.
Look at new the new lenses coming out from Sigma. They make me really drool.

Also, there was discussion here recently about why Sigma will not have
SD9 in Nikon or Canon mount. Search for it.

Eugene
J A K said:
I'm very interested in your take on the Sigma lens subject. Do you
have personal experience with the 2 or 3 decent ones? Thanks in
advance for your reply.

Joe Kurkjian
Mike Chaney said:
As for the SD9, I too wish it had a Nikon mount but I don't think
all Sigma lenses are crappy. They have 2 or 3 decent ones. :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'llput my Sigma 20 up against any Canon or Nikon glass you wish. I've also had good results with two dif 28-70's and a 70-200 2.8. Every manufacturer has their dogs...the smart photographer learns which lenses are good and picks according to that , not according to manufacturer. I also have a canon 100-300L which is the sharpest zoom I have ever owned, but the 16-35L is a dog...so go figure.
Woody W. said:
1. Sigma makes some so-so lenses. (e.g. 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 Macro)

2. Sigma makes some excellent lenses. (e.g. 70-200 EX f/2.8 HSM)

3. Don't set your expectations of the one based upon your
experience with the other.
Justin Case said:
JDavis37 said:
But to say Sigma glass is crappy has the ring of AF-S and or L
glass snobbery.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right ?
Woody W. said:
flame. Spare the adjectives like "crappy" and one's point can be
made in a more relaxed professional and less flaming manner. For
example:
Click to expand...
Woody W. said:
Too bad Foveon wasted the technology on a camera that is
limited to only Sigma glass.
Click to expand...
Thats what I said, but you forgot the crappy. Look, this kind of
stuff just gets my blood boling. People buy 4000.00 digital
SLRs, and then buy a 28-200 zoom and whine "I can't get sharp
images out of my new (insert camera of your choice". I mean,
its ridiculous. The lens is the single most important component
of a camera, and many people buy into whole systems because
of quality glass. Sigam is at the bottom of the food chain in
that department, or darn near it in my opinion. I don't agree
that its snobbish, its just common sense. If you can't afford
a good lens, you really shouldn't blow a wad on digital.
Click to expand...
--
  • Woody -
Eqiupment: Lots.
Favorite Quote: 'Never let the quest for the Perfect become the
enemy of the Excellent'
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
Eugene Powers said:
All of the EX line just as good optically, as Nikon and Canon.
Click to expand...
Hi Eugene:

Thanks for you response!

Let me make sure I understand exactly what you are saying regarding the Sigma EX line and Canon. I'm not hung up on Canon L-series lenses (I own a couple of them - when it made sense to me for the specific application I purchased them for); they are better than the average bear. I don't own any zoom lenses, but I own just about every prime lens between 20 mm and 300 mm (they are not the new EF variety; I own a couple of F1s). Although I am not hung up on the L-series, I know from personal testing they are worth the extra money (when you need some specific performance feature related to speed and/or resolution). Because of my background with Canon products, let us limit our discussion to the Canon line.

I don't have any background regarding Sigma lenses. I haven't ever really thought about or considered purchasing a Sigma lens (until today). I'm sure after a little research, I would clearly understand what you mean by the EX series (but for now, paint me dummy). Now here are a couple of "dummy" questions.

When you say the EX line is just as good optically, is your statement about Sigma EX zooms versus Canon L-series zooms?

Or, when you say the EX line is just as good optically, is your statement about Sigma EX prime lenses versus Canon L-series prime lenses?

Hope these two additional (and very different) questions are not a big bother to you - thanks for any help/insight you can provide.

Sincerely,

Joe Kurkjian
 
Uuhhmm... just a thought here but weren't all the posted samples shot using "crappy" Sigma glass? This thread starts with a question over the possibilty of artifacts, goes on to be cleared up by Phil, gets all of us umming & ahhing over the fantastic ability of this sensor only to have the very lens that took the photo trashed. Just seems a bit odd, that's all.
--
Avid amature. Home site http://www3.sympatico.ca/the_printed_pixel/index.htm
 
Justin...my sigma 500f4.5 is an excellent lens! and I use it on my d1x
 
I put this on other threads but I'm so impressed with what I saw that I want to tell everybody. }%^]

Don't let your models know what this camera can do or you won't get any of them to work for you any more.

As the pic of the model loaded in large format I examined every pore of this womans perfect skin .... and somebody needs to tell her she needs to see her dentist for a cleaning. She's got some plack forming just at the gum line on the second and third bi-cuspid. }%^]

NICE hair too. EVERY STRAND.
 
After following up on the "Sigma Lens" hints, I found that on average, Sigma does a pretty good to excellent job on their zoom lens line-up. On average, they don't do as well in the prime lens category. Of course, I could not find any data regarding "focus speed" (other than your post).

Thanks for your input - I appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Joe Kurkjian
SC said:
I have the Sigma 105 macro and the quality of photos from it are as
good or better than my L lens. The ease of use and speed of focus
is nowhere near as good but then it cost a quarter of the price of
the L lens.

--
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/sasc
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