Old 01-08-2009, 03:24 AM   #51
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSRC Railfan
NO SIGMA!!! I wouldn't recommend ANY Sigma lens to ANYBODY. I have the 17-70. I'm extremely unhappy! The TERRIBLE autofocus has ruined many, many shots.
I know a pro who shoots Nikon and he uses all sigma professional lenses. Just because one lens is bad doesnt mean they all are. If you use a bad EFS 18-55 would you degrade the entire Canon line?
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 04:38 AM   #52
Joey Bowman
Senior Member
 
Joey Bowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hudson, NC
Posts: 358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter S
I know a pro who shoots Nikon and he uses all sigma professional lenses. Just because one lens is bad doesnt mean they all are. If you use a bad EFS 18-55 would you degrade the entire Canon line?
I would have to agree with this comment.

I have owned 4 different sigma lenses, two from the "Ex" series.

My 50mm f/2.8 EX is tack sharp, very nice colors and contrast, focus is slow but thats fine, its not an "HSM" lens. Well built too, it is the only lens that I own that has been dropped, (more than once at that) no problems what so ever.

My 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM is very nice, focusing is pretty fast (not as fast as the L series counterpart), I am happy with its sharpness though from time to time it can be soft, other times it can be incredibly sharp, I have a few sharp shots that blow away anything I got from the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L that I used to use.


I had a 28-70 f/2.8-4 I sold it because the AF broke for no apparent reason, ended up getting the Canon 28-135 IS USM. In all honesty, I wish I never sold it, it was much sharper than the canon lens, and faster in terms of aperture.

Also had a 70-300mm f/4-5.6, auto focus was slow and loud, this lens really shined in its "macro mode". It was an okay lens, just as good as its cheap canon counter part, and IMO the Macro mode would make it a better buy. Nothing like shooting 1:2 macro shots at 300mm, those butterflies never see you
Joey Bowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 02:44 PM   #53
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSRC Railfan
NO SIGMA!!! I wouldn't recommend ANY Sigma lens to ANYBODY. I have the 17-70. I'm extremely unhappy! The TERRIBLE autofocus has ruined many, many shots.
The 17-70 has been highly regarded by a number of people in this forum in the past, including myself.

I was very happy with it, very sharp in particular. It became sensible at one point to sell it and my 35 f/2 and get the 17-55 IS, but I certainly did not do that because I was in any way unhappy with the 17-70.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 03:33 PM   #54
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman
Buy a Nikon

-- Kevin
What's a Nikon?
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 02:55 AM   #55
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

So I am gathering that the 17-40 is the way to go for a cheap "L" series that takes a lot better pictures than the rest of the crowd in the same focal range?

I am thinking of selling my 3 lenses and buying this one for the time being until I can get the $$$ for a 70-200 L IS also.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 03:12 AM   #56
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha
So I am gathering that the 17-40 is the way to go for a cheap "L" series that takes a lot better pictures than the rest of the crowd in the same focal range?

I am thinking of selling my 3 lenses and buying this one for the time being until I can get the $$$ for a 70-200 L IS also.
I got on the L bandwagon with 17-40 f4 L. Glad I did. I saw the difference right away.

I got rid of my so-so 18-55. Keeping my 24-105 f3.5-5.6. Since I'm still shooting film, I'll keep it for my A2.

I too am going to get a 70-200 f4 L IS a soon as I can.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 09:56 PM   #57
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

Lenses made by the same manufacturer that made your camera will, almost 100% of the time, trump any "equivalent" third party lenses in terms of image quality, performance, etc., etc. I've owned regular Canon glass, Sigma glass, Tamron glass, and Canon L glass - there's absolutely no competition, the L glass blows the rest of them away. Course, what do you expect? It's professional-grade lenses made by the same people who make the camera body itself, so...

I know it's tempting to get the Sigma or Tamron lenses that have the same specs as the manufacturer's own high-end glass at a fraction of the cost, but in all honesty, the manufacturer's glass will beat it almost every time.

I think the biggest thing is how you want your shots to turn out - if your heart is set on great image quality, great color, and razor sharp shots, then go with the high-end manufacturer glass. If you're one of the ones who says it's just a hobby, don't intend to get a lot of shots published, etc., then Sigma glass is just fine.

That being said, I'm currently shooting with a 17-40 F/4L, 24-70 F/2.8L, and 70-200 F/4L (all Canon, obviously) with a Canon 40D, and the image quality is jaw-dropping. Always razor sharp, great color rendition and good contrast (with cheaper lenses, it always looked like there was a "thin, hazy gray layer" over the shots - combined with dull colors and soft focus, they really weren't very appealing). The performance is another one - autofocus on these L lenses is rarely (virtually never) off, and it's lightning fast...plus they've got tough, metal bodies (they're built to last - many pro photographers are still using their L lenses they purchased 15 years ago, and aside from needing recalibration every so often, they produce just as nice of shots as they day they were new).
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 03:36 PM   #58
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

Does anyone prefer the 24-105L over the 17-40L?
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 04:33 PM   #59
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha
Does anyone prefer the 24-105L over the 17-40L?
I don't think you can get a good answer to that question without considering what other lenses you've got. The various 24-105's are pretty popular walk around lenses, because they're solid and have a really versatile range. On the other hand, 24mm might not be wide enough for you, especially if you've got a crop sensor. I've shot a lot of scenes at 17 mm that just wouldn't have worked if I couldn't get that wide.

At the moment I've got the Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 f/4 L; the next lens I'm looking to purchase (in the distant future) is the 17-40 L, because I'd like my wide landscape shots to be a bit sharper. Of course, if I was going to continue my emulation of Ween, I'd be looking at the 70-200 f/4 L IS, but I'm not a master masher like he is
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 05:46 PM   #60
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

I prefer the 24-105 for 2 reasons:
1: Zoom range. Fits perfectly onto my 5D for almost every occcasion.
2: IS! Handholding at 1/3 second, booyeah!
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 06:55 PM   #61
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
I prefer the 24-105 for 2 reasons:
1: Zoom range. Fits perfectly onto my 5D for almost every occcasion.
2: IS! Handholding at 1/3 second, booyeah!

I agree with this and will agree even more when I get the 5D II. 95% of the photos I have uploaded have been taken with the 24-105L.
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2009, 12:22 AM   #62
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
I prefer the 24-105 for 2 reasons:
1: Zoom range. Fits perfectly onto my 5D for almost every occcasion.
2: IS! Handholding at 1/3 second, booyeah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter S
I agree with this and will agree even more when I get the 5D II. 95% of the photos I have uploaded have been taken with the 24-105L.
You guys might be talking me into buying this. I sure could have used that range today.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 02:26 AM   #63
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

I like the 17mm aspect with my 40D but after really thinking about it I do not shoot that wide that often so it is no big deal if I do not have it but I have wanted more distance (zoom) and thought the 105 portion would be a better deal. I currently have the Tamy 17-50 and like it a lot but want to cross over and get and "L".

Just the decision of which one, the 17-40 of the 24-105. I am starting to lean towards the 105 now.

I know that this might start a pissing match, and not intending to, but is one a sharper lens compared to the other. I have heard that the 17-40 has to be one of the sharpest "L" lenses out there. Does anyone know if there is any fact to that from personal experience?
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 04:47 AM   #64
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

24-70 F/2.8L
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 08:09 AM   #65
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz
I guess it is time to move onto the next subject. What about Ford or Chevy? Which one is better?
Chevy doesn't have the Mustang....
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:37 AM   #66
MichaelJ
The Photo Journalist
 
MichaelJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 630
Default

I'm getting the 24/105 tomorrow for AUD $1450 (USD $910/EUR 740/GBP 680). Absolutely fantastic price, shame I couldn't do Duty Free as well.
__________________
My portfolio at RailPictures.Net!
My portfolio at Flickr!

The views expressed in this reply are personal and do not represent the views or policy of my employer.
MichaelJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 12:02 PM   #67
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJ
I'm getting the 24/105 tomorrow for AUD $1450 (USD $910/EUR 740/GBP 680). Absolutely fantastic price, shame I couldn't do Duty Free as well.
You're going to be amazed at the image quality Just make sure you test it thoroughly as soon as you get it home and ensure that its not a dud.
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 12:07 PM   #68
MichaelJ
The Photo Journalist
 
MichaelJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 630
Default

Will do, Steve. I'll test it out on some trains on Wednesday afternoon.
__________________
My portfolio at RailPictures.Net!
My portfolio at Flickr!

The views expressed in this reply are personal and do not represent the views or policy of my employer.
MichaelJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 12:15 PM   #69
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha
Does anyone prefer the 24-105L over the 17-40L?
I have the 24-105 =sharp!! IS helps to. I don't have the 17-40 but a SP 17-35 Tamron F2.8 4 that is Sharp but mostly to wide for me.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 04:08 PM   #70
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watain
Chevy doesn't have the Mustang....
And Ford doesn't have the Corvette . . .

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 09:47 PM   #71
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnohallman
And Ford doesn't have the Corvette . . .

Jon
Or the Camaro...
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:23 PM   #72
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJ
I'm getting the 24/105 tomorrow for AUD $1450 (USD $910/EUR 740/GBP 680). Absolutely fantastic price, shame I couldn't do Duty Free as well.

Let me know what you think. right now I am up in the air between the two. they both have Pros & Cons.

Kevin
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 11:58 PM   #73
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnohallman
And Ford doesn't have the Corvette . . .

Jon
And Nikon does not have L lenses.

Around here only the older generation drives Corvettes, then again I think Im the only young person that drives the 05-09 version of the Mustang around here.
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2009, 01:58 AM   #74
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

The EBT's Saltillo PA depot and my beloved Deep Canyon Red '89 Mustang 5.0 GT back in October '95.

Sadly, both are no more.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	EBTDepotSatillioPA951008.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	324.2 KB
ID:	3680  
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2009, 02:52 AM   #75
Joey Bowman
Senior Member
 
Joey Bowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hudson, NC
Posts: 358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watain
And Nikon does not have L lenses.

Around here only the older generation drives Corvettes, then again I think Im the only young person that drives the 05-09 version of the Mustang around here.
Same thing in my area regarding corvettes, most of the owners are in their 40s or older, with a few younger people having one.

My brother had one for a while back in his early 20's. Pretty nice car, he had a C5 FRC that had some engine work done. Bad thing is that the car must have been cursed, before owning the corvette he had had maybe one or two minor accidents. He had several with the corvette, one time the parking break would not hold at his apartment and it rolled down the hill into other apartments, another time he rear ended some one (his fault). He ended up selling it and the guy that bought it totaled it within a few days.

A few of his friends also had corvettes, and before something about rich parents gets brought up, unlike the few young kids that do have corvettes, they all worked their ass off for years to afford those cars. They all have had other sports cars as well including TT Supras, RX-7s and other slower japanese sports cars.
Joey Bowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.