tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post5662763331123717593..comments2023-09-04T07:50:48.115-07:00Comments on Sips From the Dribble Glass of Life: Photography Talk TimeScott Roebenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07008112686112039161noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post-75216406466585406412008-07-14T22:19:00.000-07:002008-07-14T22:19:00.000-07:00I can't tell you how happy I am that this is being...I can't tell you how happy I am that this is being discussed here. Thanks, guys. And Chris, I have no doubt that you'll be happy with your new lens! I hope you'll post more pics and we'll share the link to them here.Scott Roebenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07008112686112039161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post-68402297277606108082008-07-14T15:58:00.000-07:002008-07-14T15:58:00.000-07:00What I should have said is "double the benefits." ...What I should have said is "double the benefits." By benefits I mean benefiting me. I would say that most of the perks of owning a good Canon (double quality) would be lost on me. Just because something is technically superior doesn't always mean it is appropriate for the person or situation. Especially when you factor in cost and expectation.<BR/><BR/>This topic interest me because I am fascinated with price/performance. As and example, I make a living in 3D/2D computer graphics/animation. I always need the most powerful computer available. But I have been asked many times over the years to help a friend or family member buy a new computer. They always want a fast, top of the line name brand. Usually, they just want to check email, write letters and play solitaire. They ignore my advice and end up buying some supercomputer and they barely operate it at 2% of its total computing power. Overkill.<BR/><BR/>Now that I have researched these lenses and seen the examples, I think hobby/amature photographers really don't need to spend much money. If they are getting bad results, they probably need to work on technique and composition.Chris Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10199106565423271101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post-76327139248035579582008-07-14T13:07:00.000-07:002008-07-14T13:07:00.000-07:00"The issue occurs mostly when I zoom in, but let m..."The issue occurs mostly when I zoom in, but let my aperature stay wide open."<BR/><BR/>That would do it! :)<BR/><BR/>Good luck with the Sigma, Chris. And have fun in Frants!Jondersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18337483352663839240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post-31861575937629926432008-07-14T13:01:00.000-07:002008-07-14T13:01:00.000-07:00Scott:As a point of clarification, when I said "al...Scott:<BR/>As a point of clarification, when I said "all things being equal most quality DSLRs take comparable pics" it should be inferred that by "all things being equal" I meant comparable camera bodies. Comparing an EOS to a Rebel would not qualify as such. And while it is true that each camera will be slightly different, my point was that the difference between images taken with comparable cameras will be far, far less than the difference between images taken with the Canon and Sigma versions of a comparable lens.<BR/><BR/>Your point about f-stops is also right on. f1.4=WANT!<BR/><BR/>Chris, I don't have enough experience with different Canon lenses to answer your question. I only used a Canon for a short time, and could not tell you now for sure what two lenses I had with it. If you were to ask the same thing with regard to Nikon lenses though, I'd answer "Yes!" in a heartbeat. <BR/><BR/>One more thing, you said "...if I am going to pay double the price, I expect double the quality". <BR/><BR/>Double the quality of what? Certainly not double the quality of the image, I hope. That would be no more reasonable than to expect the same from doubling the price of a TV. More things than image quality go into pricing. Feature content and quality, design quality, workmanship and materials quality, these things also should increase with the price. Newness to the market will also increase price. So doubling the price should really reflect an overall doubling of value taking all these things into consideration.<BR/><BR/>Where is Kevin in all of this? He should be giving his 2 cents as well. (Probably out taking pictures.)Jondersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18337483352663839240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post-3488928007176549232008-07-14T12:57:00.000-07:002008-07-14T12:57:00.000-07:00I did learn something else this weekend. My only c...I did learn something else this weekend. My only complaint about my photos has been the occational fuzzy shot. I have many many great photos that make me proud. Occationally I snap a shot that is fuzzy. I don't catch it until I see them on my computer. If it were my lens, this would occur every time. I think I have an answer to my problem.<BR/><BR/>I'M BEING LAZY!<BR/><BR/>The problem with going from a Nikon f2 to a DLSR is that it is very easy to put the sucker on P or A and just shoot. This, I think, is the source of my fuzzy shots. I am not thinking about light and I am igoring my apeture and shutter. The issue occurs mostly when I zoom in, but let my aperature stay wide open. Duh! One small point of focus and everything else is blurry. Like I said, I'm being lazy and ignoring depth of field.<BR/><BR/>I am going with the Sigma. I have been combing Flickr and looking at photos taken with the XT using the Sigma 18-200 OS. They look great. Just what I need and a great price. If I ever start making steady money shooting photos, I'll consider buying Canon.Chris Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10199106565423271101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1195212508235181131.post-86101649229575593222008-07-14T11:37:00.000-07:002008-07-14T11:37:00.000-07:00So would you say that ANY canon lens, even the one...So would you say that ANY canon lens, even the ones they sell at Fry's would be as good if not better than a Sigma? I have noticed that the Canon's that are under $500 seem flimsy and poorly built compared to my Sigma.<BR/><BR/>I agree on the glass issue. Canon and Nikon are going to have better lenses simply because of glas qualtiy. However, if I am going to pay double the price, I expect double the quality.Chris Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10199106565423271101noreply@blogger.com