vsevolod_krishchenko

I think no. My Tokina 28-80 is soft w/o - soft like my Canon 24-85 and maybe even softer at 50mm (still Tokina looks sharper when stopped to 4.5-5.6 and slower).<br>

I'd think about replacing 28-135 with Tokina 28-70. Maybe. As I understand, used 28-70 L is not a case.

<a href="http://photonotes.org/reviews/sigma-ef-500-super/">http://photonotes.org/reviews/sigma-ef-500-super/</a>

<i>Compare the sigma 105 2.8 Macro to the Canon 100 2.8 USM macro</i><br>

Not fair, Canon two times expensive. Lets compare Sigma 180/3.5 and Canon 100/2.8 - same prices =:) <br>

<i>Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM and the Canon 70-200 2.8L USM, both are excellent optically but the Sigma isn't built as well.</i><br>

Strange but I have different feelings - Sigma softer at long end wide open but has same build quality, better color and sligthly smoother focusing ring =:)

Sorry, type. Must read "Tamron of Sigma" of course.

Mike, flare is clearly visible on you photo. Don't think Tamron or Canon is better - but this picture shows flare that makes it almost unusable.<br>

My Canon 50/1.4 USM stops focusing mounth ago. F%^^^g russian canon service said than it was *me* who broke AF (what FT-M?) and refuse to repair lens! I gonna to court now. My lens that costs me $385 canot be used yet.<br>

All my four Sigmas still work just fine.<br>

So my personally experince says that Canon has worser better quality.<br>

Does it mean that Canon *really* has worser build quality than Sigma? *NO*.<br>It *probably* means than Canon 50/1.4 has worser better quality than my Sigmas (70-200, 180, 20, 50-500). Hey, I always knew that :)<br>

PS In any case, avoid cheap non-EX Sigma.

<i>As far as I know, the only TC that reports the effective (real) aperture when used on an EOS camera is Canon's own TC's.</i><br>

Sigma's TCs do the same. No clue about Kenko's. 4.5+1.4 TC will be 6.7 and it could works sometime. For exapmle Sigma 170-500/5-6.7 lies to camera and AF still works.

<i>Both are good lenses in terms of optical quality</i><br>

Wrong - check photozone.de . I own 24-85 - it is terrible at 85mm in terms of sharpness and at widest angle (distortion). Of course, 24-85 is very-very light, cheap and has USM/FT-M... But in terms of optical quality it is average lens at most.<br>

As far as I know 28-135 is not better.<br>

You're asking *this* in SLR forum? =:)<br>

D30 is not enough to good A4 print. But maximum print size depends on beholder - all my office look at my A4 print jaws dropped when I very shy their poor quality :)<br>

<i>It is very hard to find reviews that compare digital SLR's to normal digital cameras so I am curious if anyone has used both, especially these cameras.</i> <br>

www.luminous-landscape.com contains two articles, "just say NO to DSLR" and "just say NO to digicams".

Better buy some cheap macro (sigma or tamron or old non-USM canon) for macro and Canon 85/1.8 or even 135/2.8 SF for portraits. Almost the same budget. Using macro lens for portraits causes real pain except your models are twenty years old and you always using AF for portraits :)

For limited budget, Sigma 28/1.8 (EX DG, not old one) or 24/1.8 EX may be not too bad choice. There are as sharp from f4.0 as canon and has slight better build and f1.8. In other hand 77mm filters are expensive but 77mm is standart profecional filter size<br>

In any case Stay *away* from Sigma 24/2.8 - it is old lens and has compatiblity problem with Elan 7/7e (aka EOS 33/30).

I believe this always rule about effective focal length, so 1/480.

But half of stop makes not too much difference because this is "dumb" rule :)

I have used one some 500/8 reflex lens (russian, for M42) on my D30 because I what something light. Then I gift it and buy Sigma 50-500 instead.<br>

Not very light weight, but it's quite good lens. For $700 (almost as mush as Canon 500/8!), it is realy great buy for D30 if you need hand-helded 500mm. Just *way* better than any reflex and still I can hand-held it for hours!<br>

You can read on luminous landscape about 70-200 performane with 2xTC comparing to 100-400L.<br>

I believe that Sigma will have almost the same performance.<br>

100-400L is better solution.. But it cost twice as much as 100-300 EX...

I have read three message with the same problem, all on 70-200L IS.<br>

For me it looks like lens problem, not just dirty contacts or so.<br>

Please check archive (00 apperture or something like this).<br>

I hope it will help.

I use Sigma 20/1.8 on my D30. It's sharp from f4.0, and don't see much distortion. Flare is well controlled for such wide angle.

It has no FT-M but it is 1.8 and its focusing ring is realy good, better than that of canon 20/2.8 (this in my opinion).<br>

It's quite cheap.<br>

At least I have less distortion that non-L zooms and wider apperture - no compromise was made! %)<br>

BTW, You can also try Tamron 20-40.<br>

Don, photozone.de in general is more accurate source of information about lens quality. For example, Photodo.com measures lens at infinity and never check possible sample variety.

No only. Sigma comes with (removable) tripod mount while 4L does not. Original Canon Tripod Mount Ring for 70-200/4 costs about $120.<br>

(Almost forgot - Sigma is black =:)<br>

Don, thread "70-200 EX vs 70-200 4L" happens two times per mounth here. Check archive.

1) Your monitor was not calibrated (stupid answer :).<br>

2) All you scenes too complicated for AE system (i.e crow on the snow :) <br>

3) It's really shutter failure (how many photographs you have taken)?<br>

You can get another camera and use M mode to compare results.

Strange question.<br>

BP-511 for $34.95 is just "third-party" product (power-2000 or Digipower or Lenmar). I have bo experince with them still maybe I gonna buy one of them next time...

I own Sigma 180 macro hsm (got used one cheaper then new 100/2.8 USM). On my D30 (croped frame) this lens does not cut my 550EX.

It can be used with TC.

In my opinion build quality of Sigma 180 is better than quality of non-L glass, including 100/2.8 and my 85/1.8. I like EX finish more than the surface of white or black L but it is my point of view.

It reported that canon 180 has faster AF than Sigma HSM.

Sigma is nor waterproof. Don't know about Canon 180.

Budget of $500... Find second-hand 400/5.6L+1.4TC or 300/4L+both TCs or

maybe second-hand Sigma 50-500 (not too bad all-around lens at least when stopped to f8.0). And a good monopod!

BTW, focusing on my 50/1.4 USM has failed to work after less than year of quite seldom use. It just stop working (both AF/MF!). Needless to say, I was going to make good shot when (oops!) I found that even MF does not work! :)<br>

I believe that idea to make micro-USM with FT-M was not very good<br>

:( For now it is the only lens that failed me :( <br>

D60 need something about 30,000 cycles to break shutter.

<i>you'll find the Sigma to be of superior optical and build quality</i><br>

Neil, Tokina 28-80 has the very best build quality from all 24(28)-70 zooms for EOS. From Sigma EX zooms, only 70-200 (100-300/4 etc) can compares with 28-80 in terms of build quality. Canon 24(28)-70 changes its size when zoomming and has cheap plastic feeling.<br>

But optical quality of Tokina is not so good.