jorge_ituarte3

Never been a big fan of third party optics but the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 EX is really outstanding optically. It is sharper than my Canon 24-70mm 2.8 on my 20D. No question about it. I would not have believed it myself untill I gave this lens a shot. Don't take my word for it check out the user reviews at the Fred Miranda site. I don't know why we don't hear more about this lens it has been a very pleasant suprise.

 

My basic kit now is very compact. Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, Canon 70-300mm DO IS.

 

My 24-70mm 2.8 L is for sale.

Give this a shot. I bought one it works very well on my 20D.

 

http://www.thecamerahunter.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TCH&Product_Code=EY02&Category_Code=EY

Man I could not agree more. And... they can make them a little more scratch resistant while they are at it. For heaven sake these plastic cups are 40 bucks!

If you do a google search you will find that the only person on the entire internet that raves about the Sigma 24-70 is fstopjojo. And he raves about it over and over and over........... Something kinda fishy with this guy. 99.9% of the time what you will see on the internet is people returning the lens because it is a dog. On the other hand if you do a search on google for the Tamron 99.9% of the time people that own the lens rave about its optical quality. Not to mention the enormous amount of sample photos offered for the Tamron at 100% size and not one decent image from the Sigma on the entire internet. There is also not one review from a reputable photographer about the new Sigma 24-70 macro. The few sample photos I have seen from this lens (the newer "macro" version) look identical to the older non-macro version of this lens ie.. awfull.

 

I own the Canon 24-70 L very good lens. weight, size and especially the hood make it awkward at times.

Just an after thought. There are two printer that came out this year offering a solution for printing on "gloss" papers with archival inks that I had high hopes for. One is the Epson Epson Stylus Photo R1800 with gloss optimizer. The output I have seen from this printer has problems. Areas of fine detail look smudged or blocked up. Maybe this could be solved with an RIP (Imageprint does not yet support this printer). The other printer is the HP Photosmart 8750 with interchangeable color and gray ink cartridges. The output I have seen from this printer looks pretty good. However, with the HP driver the output shows poor shadow and highlight detail (this maybe solved with an RIP or custom profiles), the ink cartridges are tiny and over the top expensive, it only works on HP papers, and you have no control of the print tone.

 

Sorry for seeming to be off topic but a cameras image quality becomes irrelevant if your prints are not of equally high quality. What's the point?

I'm sure I'll get shot down on this one by the fine art paper snobs. But here goes. My personal opinion is the weakest link in digital has been printing. For me the output on matte and fine art papers from an inkjet is an absolute joke both from me the and from so called "internet photographic masters". The only options in my book for B&W have been to outsource to lightjet on a photographic matte paper or equally high quality is the output from a 2200 with a good RIP like Imageprint 6 on Pictorico High-Gloss film with an over spray of McDonald SureGard Matte special (not 100% matte). It's taken me several years to finally slap myself in the face and get on "with it". I have a cabinet full of fine are papers Hahnemühle Photo-Rag, Entrada ect....

 

So my point is...yes you can do excellent B&W with an inkjet. I just think you need to ignore some of what you hear on the net a little bit.

 

P.S. If you take a look at some of the "traditional masters" like Clyde Butcher for example whose work is selling for 10 grand and up that have begun to work digitally with an inkjet they are printing on high gloss paper. By the way Pictorico's archival properties are better than Photo-Rag and Silver.

I wonder if you can view a live histogram as well. I guess all you would have to do is switch to info display. I think that would be very useful. I wonder if its just a firmware difference that allows this live view and the only physical difference between the two cameras is the filter.

Sheldon took a look at the image you linked to. Your right that did blow me away! Big time. Pretty incredible.

I've done several searches on the net and have found very little as

far as 100% images or crops from these lens. What I have noticed is

that both are very highly regarded in general. The price difference

at B&H is minor so can go with either one. One thing that does

attract me to the Sigma is that it has a 7 blade aperture and the

Canon has 5. Would really appreciate the opinion and maybe some image

samples from those that have had experience with both these lens. If

you are aware of sites on the internet that offers a comprehensive

comparison that I may have missed it would be highly appreciated. I

currently own a 16-35L. But am interested in one of these for a

slightly different application.

 

P.S. Already been to the regular sites like FM

It didn't work for me. Wouldn't budge. Carefully tried putting it on for quite a while. Returned it. Every one with a 17-40 seems to have no problem. This doesn't make sense. 16-35 and 17-40 use the same hood. Love to hear from others as well.

EW-83DII It won't work on the 16-35mm L I just returned one to Adorama today. I don't understand why according to all accounts it works on the 17-40mm L. Believe me I tried for quite a while. It wont budge.

Canon primes and L Zooms are better optically and mechanically than Sigma's. All of my current optics are Canon. Sigma makes some very good lenses optically an mechanically. Sigma's are not held together by tape, grow up!

Oliver, I appreciate your intelligent rapport. Thank you. However, as far as your example regarding DXO turning a bad lens into a good one is ridiculous. That is were they hype is. You cannot recreate information after the fact. Again, "garbage in garbage out". Most of the things that DXO does I already do at my discretion. This why I scoff at the "digital revolution" comment. I've been working with digital imaging for over 10 years and one thing I know for sure there is no work around for bad optics and a bad original file. Believe me I know every trick in the book. If it ain't there to start with it ain't there.

 

In regard to Harman, looks to me that you don't really understand what this discussion is all about. I suggest you get a little more experience under your belt before you jump into a discussion that is over your head at this time.

Dave that's exactly my point! The hardware advancements are what I am looking forward to. I am only responding to folks calling DXO "A digital revolution" Just trying to dismiss the hype and express to others that with what we have hardware wise today it just the same old enhancement game.

With all due respect. I am very clear on the concept. No software will improve a raw capture it will only doll it up. "Garbage in garbage out" Why should software decide something as subjective as a photograph. Give me hardware that will accurately record a scene. I'll take it from there.

Hey Yakim, quick question about 1D II. Maybe you would know. Can one retract the mirror and fire continuous frames with out mirror retraction each frame with exposure bracketing enabled with this camera? I combine exposures in landscapes a lot and this would be nice.

Trickery vs. Photography. I want the real deal. This kind of stuff

just delays the real issues with digital like completely new sensor

designs that deliver more exposure latitude and that deal with light

in a less linear fashion. Be prepared for "new and improved" hype

every year now while Canon delays having to re-tool for new hardware

for the next 3-4 years. I think the new 1D II as far as raw capture

and functionality is going to be as good as it gets for a long while

in "reality". Sure we will see full frame and more pixels but nothing

really substantial as far as real image quality impovements. Let's

face it consumers are eating it up. I want control of my own

trickery. What do you all think?

Trickery vs. Photography. I want the real deal. This kind of stuff just delays the real issues with digital like completely new sensor designs that deliver more exposure latitude and that deal with light in a less linear fashion. Be prepared for "new and improved" hype every year now while Canon delays having to re-tool for new hardware for the next 3-4 years. I think the new 1D II as far as raw capture and functionality is going to be as good as it gets for a long while in "reality". Sure we will see full frame and more pixels but nothing really substantial as far as real image quality impovements. Let's face it consumers are eating it up.

As a photographer the whole concept rubs me the wrong way. I don't know why it just does. Kind of a major turn of to photography in general if this is the direction things are going. I agree "garbage in garbage out" and thats that!!!

I'm very disappointed. I was hoping they would introduce some decent wide angles. I think this is Canons weakest area optically.

I have, after 2 years working with DSLRs. In a nutshell the images look "fake". Terrific tool for a journalist not for an artist. I'm sure I'll go back when things mature a bit.

100-300mm 5.6L

I think it's the most tedious and boring thing I can think of. I feel kinda nerdy after having been a photographer for so long becoming a digital artist. The only variables I need with film are,

 

- The particular films tonal curve

- Exposure at time of capture

- The papers tonal curve.

- Exposure of said paper.

 

 

I know exactly what my print is going to look like before I take the frame. And that my friends is call photography.

I've been shooting DSLRs now exclusively for over 2 years. I am moving back to film this year. I've wasted way to much time tweaking and am tired of the carnival marketing hype surrounding digital. I need to get back to being a photographer.

 

I live in the keys and there is an artist here that makes ink rubbings of fish on Japanese rice paper. They are exquisite. When you look at these prints there is no denying that the fish came into direct contact with the paper. It reminds me of my traditional B&W film work. I'm going back to film. MF this time around.

I agree and I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why. Most tight shots are fantastic. Wide and things get very plastic. Even tight shots with wide angles like the 14mm are fantastic. It's not dynamic range or lack of resolution. Landscapes get kind of an outlined kind of look. If you look at these shots at 100% on the monitor things look very detailed and normal. However, 11" x 17" prints another story. Very cartoon like. My 11" x 17" non-landscape shots better than anything I shot with film. I'm stumped.