patrick_micheletti

I have post a personal review there wher you could find some informations about that :

rgds

Patrick

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55

some elements of respeonse i have collected before making my own coice, if it can help... (i choose the Canon, happy with it)

here the link :

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/wide_angles_for_apsc_english_version

I wrote a review very positive some weeks ago, but i have to add a remark, ad you guess what about... About dust inside !

I don't want to rewrite my review, and I agrre in all with the review of "perspective", so just add my experience about this dust vacuum cleaner...

I never experienced that on a Canon lens, even the worses... Dust came inside after about two weeks of use in non-dusty (at all) conditions.

I prefer not imagine what it will happen in dusty conditions.

It is clear now with all the reviews on this problem that it is not because of a bad copy. It is a problem of conception and sealing.

Some people said imprudently there is no difference with the L lenses, sorry, but for sure, here, there is.

Don't send it back to the seller for an exchange, you will get exacly the same problem with the new copy.

There is no only dust, but it seems little withe artifacts too on the internal lens.

I showed the lens at the Canon agreed repair store in Paris (Vilma) and for them, "it is not a problem"... because we can't see the dust on the pictures...

Not covered by the guarantee, and 80 USD for clean that with 2 weeks of immobilisation...

Incredible... an unacceptable for a lens at this price.

It is a real and very serious problem, and my conclusions are for sure as "perspective" says, Canon has to re-engineer and fix this problem, so it will take time, not sure of the results, and no other solution in this range if you need a Canon quality image, and the IS.

Canon must give an answer and some explanations to the customers about that, if they don't want to see the selling curves of this zoom coming down very fast, and managing the bad feedbacks of the customers.

for the moment, I keep it, because I need all the other features, and I am satisfied with the image quality. Real a great confort in walkaround ad reportage use, outside and inside.

pics and samples of my first review (completed) are here on Pbase :

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55

I don't shoot the dust, you know what it is.

I know we are the first buyers of this zoom (I waited for a long time) and like we said in french we must "essuyer les plâtres", that's to say, be beta-testers, and discover the problems in daly use.

So we take a risk, and we know that, we have to assume it, but Canon must assume too and give an answer, or at least, offer a free first cleaning for the first buyers.

Last week Customer service Canon answer is : "There is no problem of dust inside 17-55 or any other Canon lens, because our lenses are all tested after manufacturing "

hum...

So there is not any problem on the 70-300 in portrait mode because it was tested after manufacturing, no ?

I'm I right ?

After some months of use and some users experience feedback, it seems that the problem is really dust atifacts coming from inside the lens, because they appears just in the first month of use, and not increase after, so probably not coming from outside in a vacuum mode.

So not so bad...

despite this problem, the lens is a perfect walkaround reportage use, good pictures even in low light, very useful and confortable, no concurrent, i keep it.

I wrote a review very positive some weeks ago on Fred Miranda, but i have to

add a remark, ad you guess what about... About dust inside !

I don't want to rewrite my review, and I agree in all with the FM review

of "perspective", so just add my experience about this dust vacuum cleaner...

I never experienced that on a Canon lens, even the worses... Dust came inside

after about two weeks of use in non-dusty (at all) conditions.

I prefer not imagine what it will happen in dusty conditions.

It is clear now with all the reviews on this problem that it is not because of

a bad copy. It is a problem of conception and sealing.

Some people said imprudently there is no difference with the L lenses, sorry,

but for sure, here, there is.

Don't send it back to the seller for an exchange, you will get exacly the same

problem with the new copy.

There is no only dust, but it seems little withe artifacts too on the internal

lens.

I showed the lens at the Canon agreed repair store in Paris (Vilma) and for

them, "it is not a problem"... because we can't see the dust on the pictures...

Not covered by the guarantee, and 80 USD for clean that with 2 weeks of

immobilisation...

Incredible... an unacceptable for a lens at this price.

It is a real and very serious problem, and my conclusions are for sure

as "perspective" says, Canon has to re-engineer and fix this problem, so it

will take time, not sure of the results, and no other solution in this range if

you need a Canon quality image, and the IS.

Canon must give an answer and some explanations to the customers about that, if

they don't want to see the selling curves of this zoom coming down very fast,

and managing the bad feedbacks of the customers.

for the moment, I keep it, because I need all the other features, and I am

satisfied with the image quality. Real a great confort in walkaround ad

reportage use, outside and inside.

pics and samples of my first review (completed) are here on Pbase :

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55

I don't shoot the dust, you know what it is.

I know we are the first buyers of this zoom (I waited for a long time) and like

we said in french we must "essuyer les plâtres", that's to say, be beta-

testers, and discover the problems in daly use.

So we take a risk, and we know that, we have to assume it, but Canon must

assume too and give an answer, or at least, offer a free first cleaning for the

first buyers.

Alfonso ? You don't know how to take a picture of a player during a golf tournament and you got an accreditation from the PGA tour ?

How do you make such a miracle ? It is difficult to explain you the very complex rules and usages of that kind of shootind, that's need many monts (or years) of study and practice, better be a golfer yourself..

some samples (you know some...)

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/golf_tournaments

http://www.onedayoneshot.com/

Hi Brent

I have the same problem as you, on PGA events.

why shoot on tournament days ? To make the same pictures as the pro photographers ? They are already done... Thoushand hundred of Tigers and Phils, some "cobra" position of Villegas for the 250 000 th time... very well capted, what will you add ?

I prefer the practice days, much more easy for shooting and make good cool portraits, and good relationship with the players.

On those days, there is not many gallery crowded, not many pros shooters (often nobody) and it is an enormous advantage for us ! We can make pictures differents of theirs.

Original pictures.

YOUR pictures.

And beleive me, many and many good pictures oppotunities, perhaps much more than on the crowded tournament days !

When I have understand that this originality anx exclusivity will be better for me, I concentrate my work on the practice days, with a very successful result (1400 visitors a day on my web galleries and golf photoblog, sure most for the Ladies PGA...)

I' sure I sell and diffuse much many pictures than some pros golf photographers, I will continue in this way !

On the european tour, it's much more easy to get accreditations, and now they know me, the players know me also, so I get it as freelancer quite for all events, but I still prefer the practice days, I'm not really a competition reporter, just a photographer. an "artist"...

some samples (you know some...)

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/golf_tournaments

http://www.onedayoneshot.com/

is the sutter sound quite egal to the 20D (a problem...) or is it

more silencious ?

thanks

Thanks for this information, I think the best way is to take the 2X, but you can also ask for an accreditation at the press center, for the practice days, to carry your 400 and monopod (with some argumentation...)

often, they accept.

bye

Patrick

http://www.pbase.com/isogood

hello Daniele

I am very satisfied with the combination 70-200L4 and ext 1.4X canon on my 20D

i join an example

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/image/52514205

Patrick

I can see a little withe spot (quite transparent) inside the front

lens of my 400/5.6, i have also that on my 70-200/4.

there is no apparent impact on the pictures, but the question is : Is

it normal (as perfect lens is impossible) or is it a problem well

known ?

I precise : little withe spots are not at the surface of the lens,

but well inside the glass.

Thank you again Lesek for yours advices and interesting links to previous posts, very instructive for me.

As i see your shots and tests with the 80-400, it is clear it is not a bad lens.

effectively, you have noticed, as me, that sometimes the focus seems to be good but out of center, but the focus point was well made at the center. It was also an interrogation for me about the quality of my lens copy.

I read Melissa Eiselein , sep 04, 2004; 01:29 a.m. saying :

"The important thing is to get what works for you" and after all discussions and watching pictures, I think the better choice for me will be keep my 70-200 L4 with 1.4 extender, and buy the Canon prime lens 400 L 5.6.

As i said, I work most of time on monopod, with moving subjects, and often at maximum reaching distance (200 or 400) and maximum speed and aperture, so it seems i do not need OS or IS.

This configuration will cover all my needs, with a little less comfort than a big zoom, but with better quality, my priority.

My seller (very good policy return) has accepted the exchange for the Canon.

Thank you all, i hope show you soon very sharp (and intersting, not only sharp...) pictures

I have posted in the camera equipement forum this question yesterday

and got some answers

SIGMA 80-400 OS and monopod wrong way ?

But perhaps here you could help me better on golf photography.

I need a reach at 400 mm (I have just a very good Canon 70-200 L4 with

a 20D)

I am not satisfied with the sigma 80-400 OS (you can see details in

the camera equipment forum) so I hesitate now for buying at about same

price (1000 or 1500 USD)

here 4 examples about what i mean

All of course without traitment or any sharpening (view at 100 % please)

First, a shot i thing very good at 1/1000 sec aperture 4 with the

70-200 L4

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_1685.JPG

then, 3 shots with the Sigma 80-400 OS activated, on monopod.

first, this portrait, in my opinion very different of the previous in

terms of quality, not sharp, and with a terrific blur around the withe

edges (the tee in the mouth, horrible...)speed 1/500 aperture 5.6

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_2661.JPG

second, a shot at speed 1/400 aperture 7, same problems

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_2119.JPG

finally, a shot at speed 1/600 aperture 5.6, also not sharp, very

inferior quality compared to shots of Gary with the 400 5.6 Canon first.

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_2630.JPG

There is a subjective aspect, of course, in the appreciation, but to

simplify, the problem for me is only that : buy the 400 5.6 Canon or

the 80-400 Sigma for sharpen golf shots, What is the best choice ?

Perhaps a better choice/same price for my requirements will be not a

zoom, but a prime like the Canon 400 L 5.6, and not OS or IS, but a

monopod only (300 L4 too short). This conclusion based after watching

the Leszek test (Canon seems clearly better at 5.6) and also after

watching and compare attentively number of pictures on Pbase take with

the Sigma 80-400 and the Canon prime L lenses at about same price or a

little more. When I see for example shoots of Gary Stephenson with the

20D / Canon 400 L 5.6

http://www.pbase.com/gary/nissan05

It seems to be clear that this lens is much more better than Sigma

80-400. Many 80-400 shots are not sharp at all? (quite same for the

100-400 IS?)

thank you for attention and help.

here 4 examples about what i mean

All of course without traitment or any sharpening (view at 100 % please)

First, a shot i thing very good at 1/1000 sec aperture 4 with the 70-200 L4

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_1685.JPG

then, 3 shots with the Sigma 80-400 OS activated, on monopod.

first, this portrait, in my opinion very different of the previous in terms of quality, not sharp, and with a terrific blur around the withe edges (the tee in the mouth, horrible...)speed 1/500 aperture 5.6

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_2661.JPG

second, a shot at speed 1/400 aperture 7, same problems

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_2119.JPG

finally, a shot at speed 1/600 aperture 5.6, also not sharp, very inferior quality compared to shots of Gary with the 400 5.6 Canon first.

http://asafgolf.free.fr/IMG_2630.JPG

There is a subjective aspect, of course, in the appreciation, but to simplify, the problem for me is only that : buy the 400 5.6 Canon or the 80-400 Sigma for sharpen golf shots, What is the best choice ?

( perhaps I have to put this question on a Sports photography forum...)

thank you for attention and help.

Thank you fore yours answers, especially Leszek, your experience same as me and your link to the test was very helpful for me.

At the first time i tried the Sigma 80-400, i made the same conclusion as yours : The pictures are simply not sharp at all.

So why can we see a lot of reviews on the net that applause 10/10 for the excellent sharpening of this lens ? Perhaps their needs or standards are different?

I bought it with confidence about these reviews, and the fact that the Canon 100-400 IS was quite similar in terms of image quality. (examples pictures on Pbase confirm that)

Use of a tripod is impossible for me, I shot often sports, and most of time golf.

I used in the past the Canon 70-200 L4, not IS, on monopod, with always very good results, beautiful colors and sharpening, so I know technichaly how to take that kind of pictures in terms of speed, aperture and stability of hands.

So, I do the same with the SIGMA, and the results are very bad if I compare with the 70-200 4L.

Results so bad, quite not any picture to save, big deception, so I decided to return the Sigma to the seller, and try an exchange with a new copy. Perhaps I buy a bad copy ?

I will see again so, second chance, and try some tests especially on the monopod, without OS.

But if it works well like that, I pay the OS for nothing ?

That is the question ??

But I need the extra reach of 400 mm.

Perhaps a better choice/same price for my requirements will be not a zoom, but a prime like the Canon 400 L 5.6, and not OS or IS, but a monopod only (300 L4 too short).

This conclusion based after watching the Leszek test (Canon seems clearly better at 5.6) and also after watching and compare attentively number of pictures on Pbase take with the Sigma 80-400 and the Canon prime L lenses at about same price or a little more.

When I see for example shoots of Gary Stephenson with the 20D / Canon 400 L 5.6

http://www.pbase.com/gary/nissan05

It seems to be clear that this lens is much more better than Sigma 80-400. Many 80-400 shots are not sharp at all? (quite same for the 100-400 IS?)

But all that is not a definitive jugement, I will try again, and also, if someone can show me sports pictures almost as good as those of Gary and taken with the 80-400, I will revise it and work again tests shots to be sure of my choice.

I will post a link to some of my bad shots with the Sigma in a next post this evening (in France?)

hello

I am not satisfied about quality of my first shoots with a SIGMA 80-

400 EXOS (Canon 20D) when fixed on a monopod. I can see blur, bad

sharpening.

Is it a wrong way to use this zoom with the OS activated pos 1 when

fixed on a monopod ?

others tests without monopod, not very goods also...

Thank you ger for this precision, I will join PBase soon, so it is an intersting information

And thanks also for yours beautiful pictures

Patrick

I often see in the EXIFs of databased pictures like this one

http://www.pbase.com/ianvermeer/image/44264115

the mention "withe balance = (-1)

What is the signification of this mention ? I think it is to warmer a

little, but what are the corrects settings of withe balance on the

20D to obtain this mention in the EXIFs ?

thank you