Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The blog of Scott Roeben, Internet Comedy Icon. Actual results may vary.
About Me
Check Out My Flickr Photostream
Sites of Interest
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(251)
-
▼
July
(21)
- I Get Distracted
- Today's Vermont Photo
- How, Now?
- Too Much?
- Today's Cool Site
- Today's Movie Review
- This Went Swimmingly
- Pretty, Ugly
- Today's WTF Chatchke
- Easy Ones
- More Macro!
- Graph This
- It's Caesars, Not Caesar's
- Photography Talk Time
- More Way Close Things
- Oh, Now You've Done It
- My First Impossible Macro Photo
- Whee
- I Heart Vegas
- WTF is That?
- The Little Robot That Did
-
▼
July
(21)
5 comments:
As you know, I have that Sigma 18-135 lens. I am now thinking that its time to upgrade. You got those new canon lenses and I have noticed the difference in detail. My sigma has no image stabilzation and it's not as fast as the better lenses. I was wondering what you think of your photos with the new lenses vs your old lenses and do you think it is worth the money. They not exactly cheap. But we are going to Paris in November and I would hate to come home with OK photos when i could come home with amazing photos.
Chris, all things being equal most quality DSLRs take comparable pics. There are variations of course, but they are not large. The place you notice the really big difference in image quality is lenses. The best camera body in the world won't take a good picture through a crap lens. I have never liked Sigmas for that reason. It isn't the lack of stabilization or speed, it is simply that they are optically inferior to both the Canon (and in my case, Nikon) lenses. If your Sigma is like most, you will notice this most along the outer edges of your images. I would highly recommend ditching it, as you will notice a difference.
I did some checking after I posted the comment above. The big issue with canon is the price. I am not a pro. I do not make a living taking photographs. I have been pretty happy with my shots using my sigma even though it has no image stabilizaion.
I learned on a very old, fully manual Nikon F2 with it's ancient light meter, no autofocus and a very old vivitar zoom lens. Using my Rebel XT with the Sigma lens is almost like cheating compared to what I had before. Especially since I use photoshop for a living. Honestly, my only complaint is having blurry photos when i shoot telephoto in low light. Even a tripod can not stop a light wind from screwing up a zoom shot at dusk. That is why I am interested in optical stablization.
For $400 I could get the newer sigma 18-200 with their "OS" optical stabilization. Judging from the reviews and sample photos, I will get a big jump in quality from what I am used to. If I went for the canon, my budget would only allow for the 17-85mm with I.S. There goes my zoom! It would be silly for me to buy one of the budget canon lenses because they are not really better than my Sigma. The quality canon lenses are just too expensive for a hobby photographer.
I am pretty set on the Sigma 18-200OS lens. With all the reviews I read and the sample photos, I don't think there is a better catch-all lens for the traveling amature photographer at that price. And if I get mugged...so what?
But thanks for the input.
Samples of Canon vs Sigma.
http://www.pbase.com/cjyphoto/canon_vs_sigma
Chris:
My point with Sigmas really is more of a consistency thing. Many people use them and get great results with them, others get crappy results. Even with the same lens model. What that indicates to me is that there is a lot of quality variance with Sigmas. You might get a good one, you might get a bad one.
One other option is that you could compromise and go with a Canon 55-250mm IS (I see a couple new ones for just over $200 on eBay). You'd sacrifice some of your lower end, but you'd still have the Sigma for that. It would add significant zoom, IS to go with it, plus you would have the assurance of Canon build quality.
As far as zooming at dusk goes, longer lenses require more light, and if there is simply not enough light you will get noisy images even with IS.
BTW, I learned on a Nikon FM! Very similar to the F2, and all manual, baby!
Post a Comment