[BigMike]

So, i've been looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for awhile now, and I was just looking at it again, and came across This Lens. 28-300 f/3.5-6.1 And its only $420??!

First of all, how the heck is it so small? second of all, why is it so cheap? compared to the 70-200 is it just based on the fact that the 70-200 is 2.8 throughout the range, and the 28-300 is 2.8-6.1?

I still don't understand how its so freakin small?!

 

[binary visions]

The catch is easy: poor optical quality. You're going to get massive amounts of distortion at both ends, poor contrast, lots of flare, etc.

Big lenses aren't just big because of their apertures or their focal lengths. They're big because the optical design to get maximum image quality requires a lot of glass. It's easy to make something that just magnifies a lot. It requires a lot more glass to make it magnify without distortion and still keep good contrast etc.

 

[binary visions]

I had one of those little jobs, by the way. Mine was a Quantaray but it was the same basic premise - a really tiny, cheap 75-300mm lens. It looked just fine for snapshot photography at 4x6.

Get any straight lines (e.g. buildings) in the picture, or lots of colors, and you started to notice how poor it was. Great lens for Uncle Joe to take pictures of the birds on his feeder or pictures of the kids playing in the backyard. Kinda crappy for any kind of serious or professional use, though.

 

[Transcend]

Yup, exactly. 6.1 at the long end is the other catch.

There is a reason that the 300 2.8 costs upwards of $3800.

 

[binary visions]

A perfect example is this:

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3273&navigator=3

100-300 f/4. Significantly less range than the 28-300. Doesn't even go down to f/2.8 anywhere in the range. But it's a big, heavy, expensive lens - and the reason is that it's super sharp, has good contrast, little to no distortion, and you can shoot with it wide open at f/4 and still obtain good results.

Take a look at the MTF chart vs. the MTF chart on the one you posted.

 

[BigMike]

Wow BV, you are like..... some kind of photo equipment god

And I didn't even think to look at the MTF chart....... Good call

 

[BigMike]

Whats Wrong BV, did you decide you weren't a photo god, or did you get embarrased by your big head?

Dear BigMike,

binary visions has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Hey Photo Monkeys... whats the catch here? - in the The Lounge forum of Ridemonkey.com.

This thread is located at:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149171&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Yes, yes, I am.
***************


There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Ridemonkey.com

 

[BigMike]

And while we are on the topic, is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 an EF mount, or EF-S? I have a 10D now, but plan on upgrading to a 5D somtime soon, which wont take an EF-S lens

 

[Transcend]

And while we are on the topic, is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 an EF mount, or EF-S? I have a 10D now, but plan on upgrading to a 5D somtime soon, which wont take an EF-S lens

Only canon is making EF-S stuff for now.

 

[narlus]

Only canon is making EF-S stuff for now.

what about:

Tokina AT-X 124 AF Pro DX 12-24mm f/4
Sigma’s 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX ASP HSM
Nikon’s 12-24mm f/4G DX

these seem to be APS-sensor camera lenses only, but i could be wrong.

edit - i guess the tokina is NOT an EF-S mount:
"Note that this is a Canon EF mount and not an EF-S mount, so it can be used on all Canon 1.6x crop DSLRs, and also on all EOS cameras, digital or film"

i could be off on the others too.

 

[binary visions]

Only canon is making EF-S stuff for now.

Only Canon brands it "EF-S" but lots of companies are making "digital only" lenses, for cropped sensors.

Whats Wrong BV, did you decide you weren't a photo god, or did you get embarrased by your big head?

Actually, I changed what you wrote in the quote to "big geek" instead of "photo equipment god", decided it didn't add anything to the thread and wasn't even really funny, so I deleted it

 

[spincrazy]

IME, stick with Canon lenses anyway. They make good glass. the sigma and tokina, no matter how highly I've heard them touted at times, are crap.

 

[Transcend]

what about:

Tokina AT-X 124 AF Pro DX 12-24mm f/4
Sigma’s 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX ASP HSM
Nikon’s 12-24mm f/4G DX

these seem to be APS-sensor camera lenses only, but i could be wrong.

edit - i guess the tokina is NOT an EF-S mount:
"Note that this is a Canon EF mount and not an EF-S mount, so it can be used on all Canon 1.6x crop DSLRs, and also on all EOS cameras, digital or film"

i could be off on the others too.

The Nikon clearly isn't EF-S, as it's Nikon mount. It is their DX APS-C size, which is 1.5x not 1.6x.

The issue with the EF-S lenses, is that the rear element projects too far into the camera. It will hit the mirror on EF style camera bodies. The other lenses may be 1.6 crop lenses (not projecting an image over an entire sensor larger then 1.6x), but they do not have the EF-S bits hanging inside the camera.

 

[Transcend]

IME, stick with Canon lenses anyway. They make good glass. the sigma and tokina, no matter how highly I've heard them touted at times, are crap.

That is complete crap, btw. The sigma 70-200 2.8 is pretty much indistinguishable from a canon 70-200 2.8. The Sigma 15mm Fisheye is actually superior to the canon fisheye.

Edit: and I have owned or do own the Canon L versions of these lenses, just to be clear. I have also tried the non canon versions, all on 1dmk2s.

 

[binary visions]

IME, stick with Canon lenses anyway. They make good glass. the sigma and tokina, no matter how highly I've heard them touted at times, are crap.

As Transcend said, this is utterly wrong. There are many off-brand lenses made by Sigma, Tokina and Tamron that are as good or superior to their name-brand equivalents.

 

[BigMike]

So, the consensus is spend the extra cash for the 70-200, which will work on my 5D whenever I get it?

 

[Transcend]

Pretty much any tele will work on that body, I wouldn't worry too much. That said, I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 and absolutely LOVE it on my 1dmk2. I highly recommend it (or even the F4 if you are on a budget or want light weight).

The sigma is a good lens as well, and you get 2.8 for the price of F4.

 

[spincrazy]

bs. I still disagree. Perhaps glass wise, maybe, but the autofocus, ease of use, etc. of a Canon lens is far superior. IMO and E

 

[Transcend]

bs. I still disagree. Perhaps glass wise, maybe, but the autofocus, ease of use, etc. of a Canon lens is far superior. IMO and E

Go ahead and disagree, but you are in your own little world. I am telling you, I own lots of L lenses and get paid pretty damn well to use them. Many Sigma lenses are just as good. Glass, AF, the whole package.

Much of the "L" phenomena is simply paying for the white paint and red stripe.

Hell, compare a 16-35 to a 17-40. The 17-40 wins hands down, and costs $1000 less. (both are L, 16 is 2.8, 17 is 4). You are paying a premium for having their fastest, wide. Quality has nothing to do with it.

 

[BigMike]

Pretty much any tele will work on that body

Only EF mounts, not EF-S on the 5D, right?

 

[narlus]

is there an EF-S telephoto/zoom lens?

 

[Transcend]

is there an EF-S telephoto/zoom lens?

I am fairly certain EF-S is pretty much limited to wide stuff at this point (up to the 18-55 i think?).

EF-S is only for certain 1.6x sensors with a special, shorter mirror.

So you are correct, it will NOT work on your 5d (or even the 10d for that matter).

 

[merrrrjig]

I have a 20D IMO dont go for the EF-S stuff, cuz its exspensive, and you could get something like it from another brand for a lot less, I have a 70-200 2.8L and love it. If your near a big city, try finding a place that rents lenses, and try a few out

 

[BigMike]

I am fairly certain EF-S is pretty much limited to wide stuff at this point (up to the 18-55 i think?).

EF-S is only for certain 1.6x sensors with a special, shorter mirror.

So you are correct, it will NOT work on your 5d (or even the 10d for that matter).

Thats not entirely true. The 10D and 20D work with EF-S stuff, the Mark I and II's and now the 5D are the ones that do not. They have a full sized sensor where the 10 and 20 D's do not.

 

[BigMike]

I have a 20D IMO dont go for the EF-S stuff, cuz its exspensive, and you could get something like it from another brand for a lot less, I have a 70-200 2.8L and love it. If your near a big city, try finding a place that rents lenses, and try a few out

Ya knowl thats a REALLY good idea that I didn't think about. I'm close to a bunch of camera stores, but I don't know if any of them rent stuff......

Are there any big chains that do? I've got a couple Ritz's and the such near me. I'll call up to a few stores tomorrow, I have a pretty big thing I want to shoot coming up REAL soon, and if I could get better glass than crappy Tameron, that'd be great

 

[Transcend]

Thats not entirely true. The 10D and 20D work with EF-S stuff, the Mark I and II's and now the 5D are the ones that do not. They have a full sized sensor where the 10 and 20 D's do not.

It will NOT work on a 10d, I guarantee it.

I happen to own one, as well as a mark2, and about 5 L lenses. Trust me on this one, it won't work on a 10d. Sensor size is NOT the only difference. The actual mirror is a different size, and the lens has a protrusion on the back that will interfere with pre degital rebel era cameras. 10d, d60, d30 etc will NOT work due to this, even though they are 1.6x crop cameras.

Just so you are clear; From the Canon website.

...select Canon Digital SLR cameras.*
*EOS 30D, 20D, 20Da, Digital Rebel XT and Digital Rebel only.

Also, the 1D and 1DMkII do NOT have full frame sensors, they have 1.3x crop sensors. The 5d and 1ds 1dsMkII are the only Digital Cameras in the canon lineup with will full frame, 35mm film sized sensors. Nikon has none, FYI. They have a 1.5x crop sensor for their entire lineup.

 

[BigMike]

It will NOT work on a 10d, I guarantee it.

I happen to own one, as well as a mark2, and about 5 L lenses. Trust me on this one, it won't work on a 10d. Sensor size is NOT the only difference. The actual mirror is a different size, and the lens has a protrusion on the back that will interfere with pre degital rebel era cameras. 10d, d60, d30 etc will NOT work due to this, even though they are 1.6 crop cameras.

Just so you are clear; From the Canon website.

...select Canon Digital SLR cameras.*
*EOS 30D, 20D, 20Da, Digital Rebel XT and Digital Rebel only.

OK! OK! I believe you! I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken. I thought I read somewhere that the EF-S stuff worked on the 10D and 20D.

So from your quote from the Canon site, the 20D is EF-S compatible?

 

[Transcend]

Yes, the 20D is, but the 5d isn't. If you plan on upgrading (and the 5d is one hell of a nice camera) you won't be able to use it. This is one reason why many people are staying away from them. It really limits your upgrade choices.

 

[BigMike]

OK, then that is why I thought the 10D was EF-S compatible. oops.

I am planning on upgrading to the 5D........eventually. Thats why I want to stay away from EF-S, but apparently it doesnt matter, because my current 10D won't take one anyaway

So...... now to find the cheapest place to get that Sigma lens....

And I did a quick internet search, and the only place I came up with for rentals in my area doesnt rent Canon stuff But they do rent Tilt and Shift stuff, which I thought was pretty cool

 

[Transcend]

Order from BH. They are the cheapest of the reliable online retailers. I have spent almost 8 grand there in the last 12 months.

 

[maxyedor]

I will weigh in for what it is worth. I will say thet with almost 100% accuracy I can spot a picture taken with off-brand glass vs. Canon or Nikon Glass. Not to say that the other companies don't make great lenses they are just noticable. If you go to a 5D the differences will be even more profound, especialy near the edges, as they are typicaly making lenses aimed toward a sensor with a crop factor and the edges don't matter, but on a full frame sensor they really do matter. Some people may dissagree with my opinion but I know several top pros that will back me up on this, several of them are pulitzer prize winners, so they kind of know what their talking about. I would also doubt that you will find a place that rents the off brand glass, as most places will rent you the Canon gear to try to get you to buy that gear. Support your LCS, local camera shop, having local guys to get you what you need can make all the difference.

 

[binary visions]

Some people may dissagree with my opinion but I know several top pros that will back me up on this, several of them are pulitzer prize winners, so they kind of know what their talking about.

I hate to say this because I don't know your friends, but a hell of a lot of pros know f**k-all about their equipment. They buy Canon cameras and Canon lenses and know little about the details of their equipment, nor what else might be available. That's certainly not all of them, of course, but the fact is willing a pulitzer or having your work published doesn't mean you're fully knowledgable about the technical aspects of your equipment.

By the same token, not having a pulitzer doesn't invalidate mine or yours or Transcend's technical knowledge. I'm sure those engineers on the Canon lines know their stuff, and I'd wager that very few are great photographers

I will say thet with almost 100% accuracy I can spot a picture taken with off-brand glass vs. Canon or Nikon Glass.

Are you serious? Because I would be super, super impressed if you could spot the difference between some of the top lenses.

If I skim a dozen images from a few different (and comperable) lenses, will you take a stab at identifying them? I'm not going to intentionally try to mess you up, I'm just curious if you can really do it.

 

[spincrazy]

A tech geek pissing match... awesome.
Some so called pros know everything under the sun but can't make a decent photograph too. Same is true for retouchers. got PS by the balls and all the ins and outs, but their work stinks.

I shoot with a Contax 645AF primarily, an H1 with a Valeo or Aptus back. Fashion, studio, beauty and enviromental portraits mostly. No sports.

Zeiss and Leica lenses - I'm sure you have something to say about them....

 

[binary visions]

A tech geek pissing match... awesome.

Well, I'm not trying to make a pissing match out of it, I'm genuinely curious if he can pick photos out taken by non-Canon/Nikon lenses. I sure as hell can't. I can tell the original, unretouched photo often times because all lens brands have different color casts but that has no bearing on the final result.

Happy birthday, by the way

 

[BigMike]

I'd actually be interested to see if he could do it as well!

 

[binary visions]

I'd actually be interested to see if he could do it as well!

Uh oh, I think the gauntlet was just thrown down.

 

[narlus]

A tech geek pissing match... awesome.
Some so called pros know everything under the sun but can't make a decent photograph too. Same is true for retouchers. got PS by the balls and all the ins and outs, but their work stinks.

I shoot with a Contax 645AF primarily, an H1 with a Valeo or Aptus back. Fashion, studio, beauty and enviromental portraits mostly. No sports.

Zeiss and Leica lenses - I'm sure you have something to say about them....

spincrazy, sounds like a de-f'in-luxe setup you got...post some pics!

 

[BigMike]

Uh oh, I think the gauntlet was just thrown down.

So, where are you scans?

 

[Transcend]

A tech geek pissing match... awesome.
Some so called pros know everything under the sun but can't make a decent photograph too. Same is true for retouchers. got PS by the balls and all the ins and outs, but their work stinks.

I shoot with a Contax 645AF primarily, an H1 with a Valeo or Aptus back. Fashion, studio, beauty and enviromental portraits mostly. No sports.

Zeiss and Leica lenses - I'm sure you have something to say about them....

Fom what I have seen/tried, most Zeiss and Leica lenses make canon lenses go sit in the corner, curl up into the fetal position, and cry. This is especially true at the wide end and ultra wide end. The canon glass cannot hold a candle to them.

 

[stiksandstones]

So, i've been looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for awhile now, and I was just looking at it again, and came across This Lens. 28-300 f/3.5-6.1 And its only $420??!

First of all, how the heck is it so small? second of all, why is it so cheap? compared to the 70-200 is it just based on the fact that the 70-200 is 2.8 throughout the range, and the 28-300 is 2.8-6.1?

I still don't understand how its so freakin small?!

All I can say with my limited knowledge of photo 'stuff' is you get what you pay for...and if it is inexpensive and happens to capture a decent image-it will be built like crap.