« on: November 22, 2013, 10:45:40 AM »
The price difference between a 100-400 II and a Sigma 300 2.8 OS could be as little as $500. I know what I would go for. Of course again neither exist so...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I would buy a Canon retro style or mirrorless only if it was smaller, lighter and took EF lenses without an adapter(adapters just add bulk).
Taking EF lenses without an adapter means maintaining a 44mm flange focal distance - so you can kiss one dimension of 'smaller' goodbye, which is why I doub't we'll see such a camera.
OTOH, you've just descirbed the SL1, except it's neither mirrorless nor retro.
As always with a new lens (especially from a third party manufacturer), people state that that they will be happy to consider it as long as it is:
- "Very sharp" -often stated as "sharper than (some optically flawed lens)", "as sharp as (inset name of Canon 'L' class lens)"
- Fast aperture
- Cheap -often stated in similar terms to the "sharp" criterion
What a shame that no manufacturer has yet managed to rise to the challenge of meeting these conflicting objectives.
Whilst I'm at it, I'm looking for a car that's small, economical to run, can do 0-60mph in under seven seconds, can carry six adults with luggage and costs no more than a family hatchback. Come on Ford, surely it can't be that difficult?
Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all
The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).
Sigma couldn't design a better lens than Canon? (*cough* 35/1.4 *cough*) And have you seen the new Sports-series 120-300/2.8 OS? No, it's not a 300 II - but it's a zoom, and still comes close...especially at half the price!
300 is too short and you need TCs. Look at the image quality of the Sigma Sports series with a 2xTC at 600/5.6 vs the Canon 300 at 600/2.6.
The Sigma is unusable. You have to stop down to f/11 to get on a par with the Canon at f/5.6
Why do you have to ruin my dreams? And so quickly?!? Oh, well, that's what I get for not doing the math...
One more point to drive it home - compare a hypothetical 400/4L IS to the existing 400/4 DO IS. What diffractive optics do is, in effect, bend the light more sharply. That means a DO lens can be shorter than an non-DO counterpart (the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2., but it still needs the same diameter, and it won't necessarily be much lighter. It could be less expensive, since Canon's DO lenses do seem overpriced for what they are.