miles stoddard

I think the last lens you mentioned is definitely the best of the wider straight f2.8 zooms from Sigma. The closest thing to wide-open sharpness of the Canon L's (and even those are not spectacular, as seen in all the reviews) in the wide to mild-tele range is the new Sigma. The 24-60mm Sigma lens is very nice, and sharp wide open. 60mm is too short for portraits for film users, but since this is a "digital-design" it is much more on a digital body (1.6 for Canon). This lens, when I bought mine, was maybe $65 less than the 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma, and only $65 or so more than the 24mm f1.8 Sigma prime. No regrets on my part.

Damn, I was going to buy patent-protected version from "the man" (I guess we cant say his name anymore or he will file a lawsuit, right?), then I read the fine print on the image he posted of the U.S. Patent cover. Check out this line from it: "...Granted to the persons having title to this patent the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention...". Yes, note the word "using". I have a hard and fast rule: if I cannot use a camera, I never buy it!!!!!

If you are sure (I cant confirm) any light will fog film, or at leats the edges, you might have to take a mental note next time you load with NON-infrared: How many cranks/turns to get the arrow aligned? I used Rollei TLR´s. From experience, best to turn a little too far, as opposed to not enough. There is usually extra film at the end of the 12 images, but precious little at the beginning of the roll.

The Kiron mentioned above is, for that era, about as good as it gets without buying Canon. There are some Samigon converters, which are very decent. Problem is, it is hard to tell the mediocre Samigons from the good ones (making a mail-order purchase a crap-shoot), due to the fact that they did not give them separate names. I have a Samigon S-TC14MC (1.4x multi-coated Tele-Converter, which is excellent, with a dark reddish optical coating). Also, dont forget there are some "Bell & Howell" things on the used market, which are "badged" Canon products, and have dirt-cheap prices. I had one when I bought a kit, including a 50mm, 135mm, and "Bell & Howell / Canon FD35" SLR.

Per cost: That matter (or debate) was covered in the earlier post (see link in above reply). The price difference is more than a few bucks. If online prices are accurate, this Sigma can be had for $899, even $849 (Tri-State, Sunset, etc.), but not from B&H nor Adorama.

 

You say in closing your review that think Sigma got it right on longer zooms, then list 100-300mm. Do you own or have access to this lens, assuming you speak of the straight f4.0? If not, have you used the 100-300mm f4.0? Just curious if you could comment on how you think that lens measures up to the 80-400mm you just picked up.

 

If, as the rolls go through the camera in the future, you discover anything you really like or dislike about the lens, please add to your first review.

The problem with scanning through ebay is that there is an abundance of consumer-grade, super zooms on the market (new and used). Manyof these lenses are $100-200, new. As you might expect, they dont bring in big money on the used market. Watch closely for higher end items, like say 70-200 f2.8's or a 14mm or 20mm lens or 180mm macro, etc. The more specialized, the better it holds ita value. Few photographic "things" hold their value better than a well cared for Canon L-Series lens, though. I have found that if you buy used, and you buy well-reviewed "pro" sort of optics, you can get most of your money back on Sigma, and all (in some cases, more) of your money back on Canon (of course, this assumes the Sigma you want to sell works on the current Canon bodies).

Per your comments in the original test results (via link you provided): (1) Is it true that the "Tamron costs about half as much as the Sigma"? Though shops differ greatly, especially mail order outfits, my shop has the Sigma at $679 and the Tamron at $459 - and this is a long way off of double. (2) Even if it were double the cost, would that have any bearing on this lens comparison, or on one's macro photo needs? For instance, the Canon 180mm macro costs 5-6x as much as the Sigma 50mm macro, but ... so what ..., for the lack of a better reply. Granted, sounds like you dont need any more macro lenses, but you should have tested 180's against 180's, and 100's against 100's -- and perhaps said more about how you set up the test, especially for the 180mm. Also, it might prove interesting to test them also at something other than 1:1 (a good percentage of field-work macro is not all the way at 1:1). Anyways ... I found the test interesting. I dont know enough about what one should expect from this to say more, and it is hard for me to imagine what the difference in the pics you posted would translate into on say a 11x14 print of more common macro nature shots. A while back a friend tested the 180mm's from Sigma and Canon (sadly, right before he knew Tamron had one due out). His comments on build quality matched yours. He didnt find the Sigma soft. He claimed any reason for buying the Sigma over than Canon (or the other way around) would almost surely have to come down to something other than optical quality (cost, build quality, warranty, company loyalty, compatibility issues, etc.) as their slides and b&w enlargments seemed indistinguishable. Unless a field test showed the 180mm "soft", you might consider keeping both lenses; there are times when you really need a 180mm macro.

"...Canon started making the EOS cameras some years ago and made their lens to go on them, Sigma also made lens to go on them and and they both worked fine, Now Canon makes an EOS Rebel that all of their old EOS lens will work on but Sigma's lens will not. Why? ..."

 

You ask the right question, but presuppose the wrong answer: What did Canon have to change on the new bodies? What new chip-based feature is in the inexpensive Rebel you have, which is not in my EOS 5? Better yet, ask yourself why Canon went out of their way to change their bodies so that they would work with Canon-Tamron lenses (Tamron pays Canon via agreement, which is why Tamron does not have compatibility problems) but not Sigma lenses? Reverse engineering isnt something that only Sigma does. Canon did it to try to get rid of Sigma lens-market dominance (the number of people buying Canon bodies, not non-Canon lenses, especially Sigma lenses, is huge); there is a lot of money involved, especially when you consider most shooters have only one body, but a couple or several lenses. Nothing wrong with what Canon did; were it my company, I probably would have done the same. Sigma's fault for not planning for this, though now they have grasped the problem.

"Much better re-sale value. Third party lenses go for about 40-50% when in mint condition"

 

This is more than an exaggeration; it is simply, flat-out, NOT true. Definitly not true regarding FAST or specialty lenses. Try finding these lenses on ebay for 40% of the cost from the NY sellers: Sigma 14mm, Sigma 28-70mm f2.8, Sigma 70-200 f2.8, Sigma 100-300 f4, Sigma 300-800mm, Sigma 500mm f4.5, Sigma 105mm macro, Sigma 180mm macro, Tamron 90mm macro, Tamron 180mm macro, Tamron 300mm f2.8, etc., etc., etc. You wont. There is no reason to compare the lens asked about (a very pricey straight f2.8 zoom), to small, mostly-plastic consumer zooms, which, TRUE, bring very little money on the used market. For zooms and portraits we use Canon EOS, but wide, tele, and macro we have always used Sigma and never had a problem, and never took much of a loss when I sold items used, nor do I know anyone who has.

Gary, are you including ebay, when you say you see so little in the middle-road of prices? Ebay is often littered with near-mint P67 bodies (you are of course correct, 1-owner, no pro use bodies). Prices seem pretty pathetic, especially as of late. If you search for a body-only, that can be harder perhaps. But, as other buyers have pionted out, you can now get near-mint MLU bodies with a cheaper lens (older 55mm or 75mm or 135mm) and WLF for about the cost of a good used body 2-3 years ago. The true deals, perhaps as always in photography, are on a "package". Friends, just in the last few days, got these: (1) Like new P67 MLU, Grip, 75mm f4.5, WLF, and a set of 82mm filters for $353; And, (2) -Mint P67 and viewing prism and 90mm lens for $288. Though things depreciate, there are still several suprising things -least things which surprise me- about P67 at auction: Currently people are really bidding up a grip adapted for P67 from a Linhof camera; people paid a LOT of money for a Zeiss 350mm(?) lens adapted to P67 from a Agiflite Camera; a current auction for a P67-converted 300mm Zeiss Sonnar is drawing quite a few bids, too. I am surprised in that people appear to be willing to pay more for a non-P67 grip than the real thing, and maybe much more for the Zeiss conversions, than the Pentax lens (when neither Zeiss lens was designed to cover 6x7, and the latter might not even be calibrated to focus at infinity). Then again, the auction world is always a little "goofy".

I have seen the Sigma 80-400mm listed online for as little as $899 & $949, though I am unsure if it was stocked, and if that was the TRUE price (check Broadway or Sunset, though I cannot personally recommend either outfit as I am an Adorama shopper). I have never seen a discount on the Canon lens; it seems to be a fairly set price from the NY outfits, around $1400-1500. Even if the Sigma was $1000, that is a huge price difference (for the difference you could get the Sigma 105 macro lens, or a great flash, or two). It might be hard to get a good used price on either of these, as they are so new, and probably in high demand.

I own or have owned all the lenses you are looking at. The Canon is a fine lens (though I prefer the 100mm f2.0) for portraits, or any type of photography. If portrait photography is your concern, or primary concern in this lens purchase, I would weigh the 85mm f1.8 Canon against the 100mm f2.0 Canon (and you can read a lot about both here on photo.net). For either one of these, you could perhaps use them for your portraits, and diopters or tube or whatever for the occasional macro shot. As for the zoom I would caution against the 24-70 f2.8 Sigma, even though I am a Sigma fan/user. This because this lens is simply NOT as sharp as the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8, which is something you could look for on the used market, if you wanted a straight f2.8 zoom. You can easily get buy without the wide end of 24mm, since you indicated you have the Sigma 24mm prime lens. The Canon macro lens is the best thing on the market, but expensive. The Sigma macro is a great lens, contrary to what other have said here. I compared the Sigma-Tamron-Canon (old version) and found all three to be first-rate lenses, making indistingishable b&w prints at 11x14". If you have any concerns about the Sigma macro, read published reviews on it, and check the lens-test results. If you have the option to rent a lens from a shop, you might consider that, especially if you opt for the 24-70mm zoom. If you buy a prime or macro lens, I think you will be quite impressed with image quality over that of your fungied zoom, and if you buy any of these lenses used, you will save enough to pick up something like the 50mm f1.8 (cheap, useful lens), and a heck of a lot of film.

Unless you shoot only landscapes, if the viewing lens is not delivering an accurate image of "reality" at the assigned distances, infinity will not be the only distance which is off, unless I am missing something in your description. Have you checked shorter distances with measuring tape (object to film plane)? If you set focus to 10 feet, set an object 10 feet from the film plane, is the object perfectly in focus in the viewfinder? True, TLR's are "what you see is what you get", but ONLY if the taking lens is calibrated with exact components in place. Since your camera sounds like it is in mint condition, I doubt this applies to you: not all "hoods" (not just the glass, per se, but the whole hood) on Rollei TLR's are interchangable. I swapped two, slightly different ages/eras, one time, due to a spill, and then every image was blury, even though the image in the viewfinder was tack-sharp. This is likely not your problem but I mention it as these cameras can be "finicky". First, I would check several distances to see if and how much they are "off". Then, though the work is a pain, I would put the old glass back in for a quick test on infinity, and other distances. Truly a pain, yes, but at least you will know for sure if the camera was off before the new glass went in.

I dont disagree with anything said above, but would add that I think the 135mm belongs in Steve's first category, with the three lenses I use all the time, which are the three he lists. I think the old macro, the 135mm, and the old 75mm, the slow one, are the two best lenses next to the newest 55mm -- though I agree with the claim above that all three 55's are first-rate.

There is no widely available adaptor allowing you to use new lenses on old screw mount bodies (you can, however, easily get adaptor to use old screw mount lenses on new camera bodies); there just isnt any market for this. However, many older lenses in M42 were made by Sigma, and sold under other names (Lentar, Spiratone, Accura, Samigon, etc.), though other companies made such lenses, too. If you prefer a M42 camera body, your best bet might be a t-mount adaptor, allowing you to use old Sigma-Spiratone-Soligor lenses on your camera.

You might find this link, and links within it, useful:

 

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/004ea.shtml

You might get more replies if your question was posted in the forum for "Canon EOS", instead of this general forum. Anyway though, this lens is designed for just such a camera -- the one you own. If it doesnt work on/with your camera, then the lens is defective, or your camera is not working properly. Did you buy the lens used?

I, too, have seen several nice, newer P67's with metered prism sell for about what the TTL prism alone would have brought 3 years ago, so so. It is rather amazing. A friend recently bought the original 55mm lens (giant filter model) for a pathetic $89 -- which might be less than what the polarizer for it would cost! I have noticed that newer wide lenses (especially, 45mm & 55mm) hold their value much better than other lenses, and the asking price of long glass as perhaps plummeted faster and a higher percentage of cost than anything else, and I suspect this will only continue for the monster lenses.

I am not looking to start another debate about this camera, which is

well represented on this website and others. However, I am wondering

if anyone can provide magazine citations for reviews/tests (year,

issue, pp., etc.) back when this camera debuted, and later when it

was revamped? I have mostly blurbs from various magazines but not a

full-fledged test report - and I have no real comment on the little

accompanying flash. Any citations or related infor appreciated.

Also, if anyone knew of a citation for a repair journal or technical

breakdown. Thanks.

It would depend on the distance of the subject and the desired DOF for any shot, as well as your intended print size; with such a slow shutter speed (as the goal) one would assume the subject is not moving, and you could use mirror lock-up with good hand coordination. I dont use the normal lens that much, but with the old 75mm and the waist level finder, I routinely shoot 1/30 for 11x14 (in truth, I suspect the waist-level finder helps me, and if I was using one of the prisms I would almost surely have to bump up the speed 1-2). Practice is the key, I guess, and mine came from TLR use, not 35mm.

There may be more than one "type" of the type g. That said, I used to have one of these cameras. I never tried to shoot 120, as reloading in the air is a pain, so we just shot 220. One thing -one important thing- to remember is that the camera does not callibrate for film advance. What this means is that the spacing between frames, if the camera is working properly, increases as you work your way through the roll, since the shot film is building up on the take-up spool. The space between the last two frames is triple or even quadruple that between the first two frames; because of this, you do not get 24 frames. If I remember right, you only get 22, or maybe even 20. If frames overlap there is either a slip in the spring-advance, or 120 doesnt work, or there is some other problem. It is a well-designed camera, with a great lens, but it doesnt really provide any advantage over other modern cameras. I eventually moved to a Pentax 67, and found it a better unit to use, with a LOT more control due to the lens line, etc.

Havent read this whole site; your answer might be here though:

 

http://www.geocities.com/mjtolan/Rollei35Stuff.htm

Your camera (and its weight) would probably be the deciding factor. I have things like this, though they are better in that they open wider, have fold-down little legs, and a ball head; the legs allow you to sit it in a table or car hood or ground or whatever, and the ball head allows you to level it. Great for a pocket or little digi camera, though not really designed for a standard slr. Of course, you can buy the Bogen clamp, but if you have a small or tiny camera it is more or less pointless. The selling point of something like this is that it fits in your shirt pocket; try that with the Bogen clamp! It depends where you intend to use any clamp, but there isn't a shortage of places to use ut where I often go (the yard, the park, athletic field, etc.). I think the link you provided might be to one of the least versatile of these little things I have seen on the web. The Hakuba clamp mentioned above is a nice unit. Mine is labeled "Hakuba Light Clip II", and the ball head which came on it simply reads "HCS Mini".

Per my previous answer: If you are concerned with vibration and a different tripod and the weight of the surplus filters -when placed on the end of your lenses- what you might be looking at on these filters is more than the filter and ring, for instance, the entire mount assembly. If these are B&L filters in brass holders, you don't need the square, metal assembly part, and it and the backing plate can be removed with a spanner wrench or two screwdrivers from the backside. Loosing this could cut the weight by more 50-75%. This drops weight, but doesn't get it on your camera.

 

My previous comment on having it ground to size was unclear. This is a feasable option if the filter thickness is not too deep (some of these aerial ones are 1-2 cm thick!). If it is extremely thick, it wont fit any ring you could swap out, and having it done would be far more time-consuming and expensive.

 

Most adaptations I have seen were for the original 55mm P6x7 lens, which used huge hard-to-find filters; in the case of that lens it was far more cost-effective to play around with this stuff. If you filters are thick and over 150mm in diameter, it is probably not worth the effort, though if one is truly an infrared filter, it probably is.

 

If they are reasonably close to 82mm, and you don't forsee using them on a lens with a larger diameter, you could either: (a) Use an industrial adhesive and mount an 82mm filter ring with glass removed, right to the glass (ugly, but will work), or (b) Simply "make" a Cokin-like adaptor, and affix an old 82mm sky to the backside. This latter option, like the comment on holding the filter (as long as it is in the mount with that flange still on it), will work in most daylight situations with the B&W stuff or traditional B&W film. If you intend to be shooting infrared, you could not use this second setup; you would have to have some thing light-tight.

 

Most aerial filters are yellow, not red, and very few are truly infrared; if you have infrared filters they are probably some other kind of military surplus other than aerial (and most surplus infrared are rather small, closer to 37-48mm). Unless they are labeled in some way, you will have to experiment to find the NM rating of it/them.

 

If I can find a picture of the aerial-adaptor I have seen made for the original 55mm lens, I will send it to you; it can hold up to two filters, and it mounts to the outside rim of the filter-thread area, not the inner filter rings. I believe it was designed for B&L 5" filters.

None of the above statements are entirely true; Simga is NOT the only maker of lenses for Ritz/Quantaray (never has been). Also, Quantaray lenses are NOT necessarily older Sigma designs (depends on the lens in question). That said, not every Sigma-designed lens is released in the same exact form as a Quantaray lens; in fact, many are NOT. An overall opinion of a lensmaker is of little use; after all, Canon and Nikon have made some pure crap in recent years (as zooms go...just test one!).