20D Soft Focus

doug wrote:
Scott W wrote:


--

you can see a lot of photos taken with this lens here
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_2470_28u
People seem to want to trash those lenses that they don't use, from
what I can see this lens does a pretty good job, but I don't have one
so I can only judge by what other are getting.

Scott


I gather your inference is that I don't use or own the lenses I pass
comment on? This is my camera and my lens :
http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics/P1010002

The picture below and about 25,000 others were taken with a Sigma 28~70,
f2.8 and a Canon 10D. I still sell 24"x36" posters of this and others
trucks at every vintage truck show in my state.
http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/..._truck_show_88

Like Skip intends to do, I use my DSLR and 24~70 f2.8 lenses primarily
for weddings and general portraiture.
http://www.ryadia.com/child-studies.htm was shot with the Canon lens.

I also own a 70~200 f2.8 Sigma and a Canon 70~200 f2.8 "L" series Canon
lens. http://www.ryadia.com/pets.htm was shot hand held at 1/60th, f2.8
with the Canon lens - no image stabliser.

I've had several Sigma and Canon lenses over the past 3 years.
http://www.tecphoto.com.au/pelican.htm is an example of the resolution
of Sigma's better quality lenses.

Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your
livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had
with the 10D, I recently re purchased one and I prefer to use it than
the three times more expensive Canon 24~70 for no other reason than it
is sharper, does not produce as much barrel distortion and it gets up
Randall Ainsworth's nose that I make a living using Sigma gear. (Not
really but he ****es me off with his uninformed bull**** about Sigma
being crap).

It was not my intent to single you out as many others before you were
trashing lenses. I find it rare that a lens is as bad as what some
people are willing to say about it, although I have found a few
exceptions. Not having the Canon 24-70 my next best thing is to see
what people are getting with it, which was were the pbase link comes
in. From what I have seen I think you might have been a bit hard on
the lens, it does not look all that bad to me. I have a hard time
believing that the image was so distorted that it made it hard to make
out drawing on a shirt, I just don't see that level of distortion in
the photos from that lens.

I use both Canon and Sigma lenses and don't have a problem with
either and I believe you get great photos from the Sigma lens, but I
also don't believe that the Canon lens is crap.

When there are so many photographs with just about any given lens to
look at it would seem that, perhaps, people should look at those and in
part judge for themselves what works.

Scott

In article , doug wrote:

Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your
livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had
with the 10D, I recently re purchased one and I prefer to use it than
the three times more expensive Canon 24~70 for no other reason than it
is sharper, does not produce as much barrel distortion and it gets up
Randall Ainsworth's nose that I make a living using Sigma gear. (Not
really but he ****es me off with his uninformed bull**** about Sigma
being crap).

You are free to spend your money on whatever gear you choose. I've seen
enough of Sigma through the years...seen enough of their gear...seen
enough of their digital stuff to know what the company is about.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , doug wrote:


Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your
livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had
with the 10D, I recently re purchased one and I prefer to use it than
the three times more expensive Canon 24~70 for no other reason than it
is sharper, does not produce as much barrel distortion and it gets up
Randall Ainsworth's nose that I make a living using Sigma gear. (Not
really but he ****es me off with his uninformed bull**** about Sigma
being crap).


You are free to spend your money on whatever gear you choose. I've seen
enough of Sigma through the years...seen enough of their gear...seen
enough of their digital stuff to know what the company is about.

Never is not actually forever, Randall.

In message ,
doug wrote:

Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your
livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had
with the 10D, I recently re purchased one and I prefer to use it than
the three times more expensive Canon 24~70 for no other reason than it
is sharper, does not produce as much barrel distortion and it gets up
Randall Ainsworth's nose that I make a living using Sigma gear. (Not
really but he ****es me off with his uninformed bull**** about Sigma
being crap).

Randall doesn't like any complexity in his thought. Good/bad.
Black/white. Great/crap, etc.

Once I listened to two people sitting near me go on for a half-hour,
each giving a list of movie titles, and the other commenting on the
movie. "Sucked", and "that was a great movie" were the only thing
either person said, except for the occasional, "I haven't seen it, but I
heard that it" "was great" or "sucked".
--


John P Sheehy

In article , Ryadia
wrote:

You are free to spend your money on whatever gear you choose. I've seen
enough of Sigma through the years...seen enough of their gear...seen
enough of their digital stuff to know what the company is about.

Never is not actually forever, Randall.

Sigma has produced mediocre equipment for as long as I've been in
photography...which is since 1966. They appeal to amateurs that are too
cheap to buy OEM lenses and think they're getting just as good.

In message ,
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Sigma has produced mediocre equipment for as long as I've been in
photography...which is since 1966. They appeal to amateurs that are too
cheap to buy OEM lenses and think they're getting just as good.

And the $2K - $5K Sigma lenses?

Your "cheap" explanation doesn't fly. Sigma's better lenses are just as
expensive as similar Canons.
--


John P Sheehy

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Sigma has produced mediocre equipment for as long as I've been in
photography...which is since 1966. They appeal to amateurs that are too
cheap to buy OEM lenses and think they're getting just as good.

And the $2K - $5K Sigma lenses?

Your "cheap" explanation doesn't fly. Sigma's better lenses are just as
expensive as similar Canons.

It's all made together to work together. If you want to give them a few
thousand dollars, be my guest. But don't bitch to me when that lens
doesn't work on your new non-Sigma camera.

wrote:
In message ,
doug wrote:


Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your
livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had
with the 10D, I recently re purchased one and I prefer to use it than
the three times more expensive Canon 24~70 for no other reason than it
is sharper, does not produce as much barrel distortion and it gets up
Randall Ainsworth's nose that I make a living using Sigma gear. (Not
really but he ****es me off with his uninformed bull**** about Sigma
being crap).


Randall doesn't like any complexity in his thought. Good/bad.
Black/white. Great/crap, etc.

Once I listened to two people sitting near me go on for a half-hour,
each giving a list of movie titles, and the other commenting on the
movie. "Sucked", and "that was a great movie" were the only thing
either person said, except for the occasional, "I haven't seen it, but I
heard that it" "was great" or "sucked".

Interesting...
It was people like Randall who convinced me to dump my Sigma 28~70 f2.8
and buy a three times more expensive Canon "L" series. It is no better
and in many way worse than the Sigma lens... I bought another Sigma lens
last month and I prefer it to the Canon. Wouldn't it be nice if jerks
like Randall spoke from experience and not resentment?

Douglas

In article , Ryadia wrote:

It was people like Randall who convinced me to dump my Sigma 28~70 f2.8
and buy a three times more expensive Canon "L" series. It is no better
and in many way worse than the Sigma lens... I bought another Sigma lens
last month and I prefer it to the Canon. Wouldn't it be nice if jerks
like Randall spoke from experience and not resentment?

What would be the chance of you getting it right? I do speak from
experience and have no resentment toward Sigma. I've never wasted my
money on their products. And if you'll pay attention, you'll see a lot
more people than me bashing their products. I'm just one of the more
vocal ones.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , Ryadia wrote:

It was people like Randall who convinced me to dump my Sigma 28~70 f2.8
and buy a three times more expensive Canon "L" series. It is no better
and in many way worse than the Sigma lens... I bought another Sigma lens
last month and I prefer it to the Canon. Wouldn't it be nice if jerks
like Randall spoke from experience and not resentment?

What would be the chance of you getting it right? I do speak from
experience and have no resentment toward Sigma. I've never wasted my
money on their products. And if you'll pay attention, you'll see a lot
more people than me bashing their products. I'm just one of the more
vocal ones.

Ok you have really lost me on this one, if you have never wasted you
money on a Sigma lens how is it that you can tell the world how crappy
they are? But then you say you speak from experience but don't offer
what that is.

If you are just repeating what you have heard others say you are not
really adding much information. It might help if you could say just
what Sigma lens you used and on what camera.

Scott