elan_remford

Phil, if you're at a stage where you're not even familiar with the specs of the glass you own, I'd suggest you take a step or five back and regroup a bit.

First, despite the 20D's excellence, the 5D is a substantial step forward. Only you can judge the extent to which you enjoy any addition value from owning a 5D instead; but yes, it is a far better camera, and it provides much closer output to the 1DS2 than the 20D.

While the 1DS2 offers greater resolution and AF accuracy, in pure sensor terms, the 5D and 1D2N's sensors actually offer even better sensor performance than the $7K flagship. It's the combination of resolution, AF performance, and body performance that differentiate it from the 5D and place it atop the heap. (The relative difference in IQ is moot if you're demanding so much from your camera that you shoot through its duty cycle in 6 months, or its works will foul due to adverse field conditions.

My point is that anyone making the "5D is a waste over the 20D" is merely basing their hyperbole on the 20D's excellence, not on the 5D's performance and image quality. Most of all, their statements have nothing to do with whatever combination of factors matters most to YOU; and those are the ONLY ones that matter. I've even left out features like incremental apertuere and ISO adjustment, MUCH improved AF performance, and a slate of other features which tremendously improve the 5D in total as a camera.

To the same extent that I would never give up my 5D (and I chose it OVER the 1DS2), I wouldn't give up my 20D (read 1.6x crop sensor-based body) either. Not only does the crop give each lens in my assortment two different sets of characteristics, but for times when I WANT to draw-down more tightly on a subject, the 1.6x FOVCF is a tremendous benefit to me. It is like a teleconverter without any of the optical penalties or aperture loss.

Furthermore, it has a faster frame rate; and it's the same kind of benefit to the 5D that the 1D2N is to the 1DS2. For the same reason a large number of pro shooters own both 1 Series bodies for their individual characteristics, it is equally sensible to own both forms of the 1 Series models.

My 30D arrives tomorrow, which will replace my 20D; and any one-line responders who claim this is a "waste" can collectively go pound sand in their myopic backsides. For me, I can't wait. Shooting with the 5D, I will very-much enjoy a common set of controls and their relative placements, not to mention cross camera support of features like picture styles, and both will share incremental aperture and ISO settings as well as the much-improved 2.5" LCD. It makes GREAT sense for me to be able to shoot with either camera and never have to think about the difference in menus, settings, or controls.

Furthermore, with the release of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the 30D will offer something that the FF bodies currently do not, which is a wide-aperture stabilized standard zoom. Not even my 24-70 L and 24-105 L IS together can provide the same kind of performance for available light event work that the 30D and the new lens will offer. I'm confident Canon will be offering a wide f/2.8 IS zoom for the EF mount; but until it does, I'm sure glad I'll have it alongside the prime or longer zoom on my 5D when shooting weddings or other kinds of work with similar demands. I also enjoy the notion of a beefier shutter mechanism and other nominal improvements which make the 30D a natural partner in my bag to its big brother (ok, 2 big brothers).

My point isn't to steer you into any particular direction. I hope you will choose to look at your glass AND your bodies, decide a go-forward plan, and obtain the best equipment to support your strategy, whatever that may be. If I did have any specific goal in mind, it would be to ignore those "instant expert", "one line nay-sayers", who believe the world is entitled to share in their limited vision.

Best of luck.

E.

After having just purchased both the 80-400 and 100-400 L for the express purpose of comparison shooting before selecting the keeper, my results were very surprising in that the quality of their images was essentially equivalent throughout their FL and focus range. It would be impossible for me (after shooting more than 1,000 images with each) to distinguish them in terms of clarity or state that either outperformed the other.

In the midst of the test, I went to Europe, where I found a pre-release listing for the 80-400 DG version, which I first thought to be a mistake, probably by someone who added it to their item list with the other new DG versions of the Bigma, etc. I actually contacted Sigma Japan; and the DG version is in production and scheduled for mid-July worldwide release to distributors.

My question it this... despite their apparent optical equality, and since the DG treatment means new flare and aberrtion-reductive coatings, how much is this likely to improve the 80-400? True, it shares the rest of Sigma's warmer cast, but why hasn't Canon jumped into the fray, "digitizing" their legacy lenses to compete?

True, Canon's Flourite and other L features may inherently mitigate digital-specific problems and a change may not be warranted, but is there no more that can be done? Despite only owning Canon lenses to this point, I want to like the Sigma best, as the 80-400 fits perfectly above my 17-85 IS, I don't like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400, and I prefer black to white housing. While each had its particular idiosyncrasies and other unique characeristics, they are both superb lenses, and neither is a bad choice. Plus, I would LOVE to have the extra $300 to invest elsewhere.

Ultimately, one nagging question remains. Even assuming the DG treatment provides some sort of tangible "WOW!" benefit, is it still bound to be the better overall choice? I only ask because no matter how good third-party lenses may be, the question is ALWAYS, "How does it compare to the Canon L?" No one EVER seems to ask, "How does the Canon L compare to the Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina?" And it seems that there always needs to be a compelling argument or special purpose to choose the Sigma (or anyone) over the Canon, meaning that not just the Canon company but EACH of its high-end lenses individually remains the king of the hill and inherently the best "all else being equal" choice for best performance.

Am I alone in my thinking and observations?

I too have been eagerly awaiting a DG version of the 80-400, but was disappointed when Sigma released a slew of other DG-enhanced long zooms, including the Bigma, yet no mention of the 80-400 DG seemed to exist anywhere, not even with Sigma.

However, Warehouse Express in the UK is advertising them as in stock. Sigma doesn't acknowledge them, and the dollar trading on-par with Charmin makes buying it in the UK a bad deal all the way around, but they insist it exists. Perhaps these were manufactured in Roswell?

I absolutely love the 80-400. Directly tested it against the 100-400 for 3 weeks and ultimately sent the "L" back. Sure, I wish it had HSM, but then again, I wish the Bigma had OS. Optically, telling them apart was virutally impossible on the basis of optics alone, with technique accounting for more variance than design. Even more, I loved pocketing the difference and for an extra $150, picked up a dandy EF 200mm prime to go along with it.