I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise. Another strike against seatbelts!
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.
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission? And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings? The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.
Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tatYeah I never understood why Sigma has their own lens mount. Who's going to invest in an arsenal of Sigma-mount lenses? Not me, even if they put out a decent body at a decent price. Much better to have bodies with Canon and Nikon mounts. That way a Sigma camera can mount more lenses ( = more camera sales) and Sigma can simplify its lens lineup by having fewer lens mounts ( = more profit).
I really don't see a need to question Dustin Abbott's integrity on lens testing. I would argue that large magazines and websites that make their money through advertising by big camera companies, or click-throughs to stores have more to gain by biased reviews.
I think *all* reviews should be questioned, not so much because of intentional bias, but because of testing variations, and as mentioned by previous posters, variation between copies, esp. w/big glasss. when the lens is out, we should have 5 or more reviews to look at, and unless there's some conspiracy, we should get a consensus on qualities based on bench tests.
My only concern is how will this lens work for me. That's not just theoretical, it's practical. For example, I do not use a tripod, I shoot either handheld or with a monopod. So even if I had a sharpest lens ever made, I would introduce some shake which would affect results. I value a fast and effective stabilization system and that's my biggest hope for this lens. I'm sure it will have to be stopped down at least one full stop for optimum optical sharpness, and that it will *not* be sharpest at 600mm. So, the question is...how will this work for me at 400-500mm compared to a more expensive 100-400 L? or the Bigma??? I think we'll all find out soon and that will end the some of the speculation.
Nailed both aperture and ISO on my first guess... f/4 and 12,800.Those settings sound about right to me.
Of course, there's just my word for that fact, but I felt pretty good so I posted this worthless post anyway. Fun challenge!
Here we go again.
Ever since the APSC-sized sensors came out, people have been wondering if it's just a stop gap, something that's gonna go away in a short while. Well guess what, it hasn't.
APSC is popular. Manufacturers keep making more and keep selling more of them. That's because people like the format. APSC is the new 35 mm.
I'm not sure that its correct to say that APS-C is reason these cameras are popular. It's the price point that is popular. So long as the mainstream public will accept spending $x on a camera that produces acceptable exposures, then the camera manufacturers will do all they can to exploit that market - which is what they should be doing. There is always a market for the best. It is usually a smaller, more expensive market and it's what typically separates the Pro's from the Enthusiasts. I don't think that APS-C is going away so long as the mainstream public accepts the price point.
Now, what I do think would be a problem is if we come to a point where APS-C quality can match that of full frame. Not a good strategy for the camera companies. You would level the playing field between the pro's and enthusiasts (not artistically of course), and you could not charge beyond what the mainstream public is willing to offer. Why would a pro buy a more expensive camera if the quality was the same, and why would the mainstream public pay more than they already do.