gabeb

<p>I bought three items so far - found his rating as follows: Item 1 he rated "exc++" was actually "mint-", item 2 (Leica M8 at excellent price) rated just right, item 3 rated one "+" optimistic. Pretty well balanced. I also traded some equipment - Igor credited my trade as he quoted and what I expected. I'd do business with him any time - actually will be purchasing some more from him as my budget allows. He sounds gruff - it's just an Eastern European-ism. A good guy!</p>

That's basically what my conclusions led me to. I've sold the Sigma zooms but have remained happy with their fixed focal length lenses, and see the difference - without endless experimenting.

Cheers!

Hi Les;

Ross' reply is intelligent, well thought out, and right to the point - I'd love to be as coherent!

 

Allow me to add an unscientific personal lens test which probably has meaning to just a few others, but I was looking for qualities that are important to the way I shoot and the things I shoot (portraits, available light, concerts, and classic cars in a static - sometimes crammed - environment). I also have an S2 as well as a D100 and I was actually comparing the two cameras.

 

My test consisted of shooting my living room window with sixteen even panes, back and side lit, and a number of multi colored objects. I was able to control the light for consistency, and everything was tripod mounted. I shot straight on and at a slight angle. This is a variation of the old Pop Photo brick wall test - but the weather was lousy so I moved it indoors. Please note that one of my most important qualifications for a good lens is the ability to provide good images wide open - to me if a lens performs well wide open it should do even better at other apertures. I tested the following lenses at a number of apertures and almost all focal lengths - and shot each combo three times (this would be rather expensive with film): Nikon - 18-35 3.5/4.5, 20-35 2.8, 24-85 2.8/4.0, 24-120 "new" VR, and an older style 80-200 2.8 plus a few Nikkor primes. Sigma - 20-40 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, - primes 14 2.8 & 28 1.8. Tamron - The new 28-75 2.8 and the older (huge) 28-105 2.8, plus the "classic" Tokina 28-70 2.6/2.8 (the Angeniux "tribute"). Some of the lenses are friends', some personal, some were contributed by a dealer friend. All were either little used or had a fairly recent CLA. I've been shooting amateur and semi pro for 30 odd years and have amassed a bunch of off brand lenses - along with North America's largest collection of Tamron interchangeable mounts :) I've always wanted to be able to spend a LOT less on a good independent zoom and be able to have a quiet laugh at the Canon-Nikon 2.8 zoom shooters.

 

Well, to make a long story much shorter - the Nikons had many of the "flaws" of every other lens in the test but TO A FAR SMALLER DEGREE. They gave me consistent color, flare control, even coverage, excellent sharpness, good lack of vignetting, etc. The wide Sigma zooms both flared badly under the same circumstances where the Nikons didn't, and had noticeably higher distortion. The Sigma 70-200 on the other hand stood up very nicely to the Nikon in all respects. Stranger though was the non-repeatability of some of the shots - in other words the three shots that should have been exactly the same were not quite. The Tamron 28-75 was the pleasant surprise of this test - it gave a great performance. Of course I dislike the all plastic construction but I am not crawling on my stomach through a jungle to get my pix - so it should stand up OK. The Tamron 28-105 was also a good performer - consistent quality - it's just that the lens is larger than the camera and the focusing is not too great. The Tokina performs great on a film body but fell down on the digital coverage - vignetting, flare etc. Of course this is an old design. The other pleasant surprise - the two or three Sigma primes, including the extreme 14mm - delivered excellent performance. Although I've heard many rumours and stories that the glory days of Nikon lenses were over, too much plastic, made in China, etc. etc. - in my mind consistency may be more important than perfection. If you know how your lenses will behave under given conditions (both assets and liabilities), and that switching lenses during a shoot will still give you the same overall detail and color rendition, and the focusing mechanism won't pack up under heavy non-abusive use - that may be worth the extra bucks. How do you get Nikon (Nikkor) lenses without breaking the bank? I've developed friendly relationships with a few salespeople at the larger camera stores in town, and have asked them to please be on the lookout for specific Nikon (or whatever I was using at the time) lenses in "open box" or refurbished, or trade -ins and have been very specific about the condition I'm interested in. I've paid about 55-70% of new price, and have had extremely few disappointments over the years (with many other brands too). Of course this takes time, but overall I've managed to buy a good number of Nikon lenses of which very few were purchased new, and I've been quite pleased. Sorry for the long diatribe, but I hope my experience is of some help.

 

Since I found this funny, I don't want to carry the back and forth too much - but (Ellis) - look again. Being one of the "top advertising photographers" - why even go to the level where the two look so similar? Why would you shoot the SAME basic setup - to the point where a lot of people would challenge you on it - for a film client and a digital client? Why not avoid the whole controversy and do a new setup - change the clothes - maybe even take two days to shoot it? Sorry - I find this a lapse of judgement - easily overlooked when I (small bucks, small jobs) do it (and I wouldn't) - but I'm not being paid the big bucks to be creative by two so radically different sponsors.

This is really a comment more than a question. In PDN (Photo District

News)magazine of August 2003 - on page 7 there's an ad for Fuji Astia

100F FILM by and with a comment by Douglas Dubler praising Astia (of

course). The model is wearing unique plastic glasses and a yellow

stretch body suit. On page 24 - same issue, there's an obviously

expensive four page ad for the Olympus E1 system that I've seen in

many other mags. First photo and "how I love the E1 digital" comment

by Douglas Dubler, same unique glasses, same unique suit, perhaps

same model? Almost definitely same shooting session. Good heavens -

isn't SOMEONE at Fuji or Olympus watching? It seems that Mr. Dubler

has split allegiances - and is so in demand he can actually shoot for

the opposite spectrum at the same time. Someone screwed up, but the

photog is hopefully laughing all the way to the bank. Just something

I found extremely funny.