ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Gibbous 94%
|
|
12-03-2007, 05:40 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 655
|
|
That's not a lens ... THIS is a lens!
|
12-03-2007, 06:24 PM
|
|
Vagabond
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Yeah, that an impressive looking piece of glass. Back in the day Sigma had a reputation for cheap 'n' nasty lenses, they seem to have come a long way.
Last edited by mickoking; 12-03-2007 at 07:59 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|
<><><><>
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Paralowie, South Australia
Posts: 4,367
|
|
There was a big discussion on this lens on the digital_astro group. as you might expect many are skeptical on its performance under the stars, from what I have read, I don't think it would work too well.
|
12-03-2007, 07:24 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
|
|
i think it's more a technical demonstration rather than anything else to try and show them as a serious player.
|
12-03-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|
Vagabond
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,477
|
|
I owned a Sigma lens back in the late 80's. It was a 28mm fixed lens. Needless to say the images were somewhat 'soft' and the lens after about a year failed to function at all. I replaced it with a Canon lens and I have it to this day.
|
12-03-2007, 08:12 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
|
|
they seem to have some QC concerns.
i.e. they have some lenses that are great - the 120-200/2.8, the 300-800mm, their 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 & 500/4.5 are all very very good - but the problem is you often need to try a couple of samples before you find a good one.
|
13-03-2007, 05:21 AM
|
Naturalist
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astroman
There was a big discussion on this lens on the digital_astro group. as you might expect many are skeptical on its performance under the stars, from what I have read, I don't think it would work too well.
|
I dont see why it wouldnt work to well, being skeptical is one thing, but trying it is totaly different.
|
13-03-2007, 07:23 AM
|
|
Phil H
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cowra NSW
Posts: 1,497
|
|
that not a lens its a telescope !!!!!!!
|
15-03-2007, 08:56 AM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
Tamron had a similar reputation years ago, and for all I know they still might. I guess that if Sigma start to earn a reputation they might start earning enough to invest some quality in their products.
|
15-03-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|
Support your local RFS
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wamboin NSW
Posts: 12,405
|
|
Wow, you cause some serious damage with that. I'll bet it will cost a kidney as well.
Cheers
|
15-03-2007, 11:59 AM
|
|
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,998
|
|
I have one sigma zoom for Practica (28-150, f3.5)
I paid $15 for it on ebay and it was not worth the money.
"Soft" image is a soft word for what it does......
Of course, this may be an exception... but who will risk and try it? :-)
|
17-03-2007, 09:48 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,112
|
|
Yes Canon eats Sigma for quality, I own a Sigma 28-300, at 300 its okay, at 28 its totally unusable, soft all over, and the autofocus cant handle blue on green, as I found out when at a Newcastle Knights game, the blue and red uniforms against green grass threw the AF big time.
Scott
|
17-03-2007, 09:56 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
|
|
scott - that really means nothing. Any 28-300 lens will be a bucket of junk, and it doesn't mean their better glass is not any good.
|
17-03-2007, 09:57 PM
|
|
Vagabond
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,477
|
|
The best zoom lens I ever used was back in the days of film. Nikkor 50-300mm zoom, cant remember its f number but It was bloody fast judging from its diameter. The image's were pin sharp as good as any fixed lens I've used.
|
18-03-2007, 09:14 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
|
|
mick that would be the 50-300mm f/4.5 lens, made in the late 1960's. Impressive for it's day, but modern pro level zooms will outdo it though I don't doubt you got good results from it, it was a technical showpiece for nikon.
|
18-03-2007, 10:32 PM
|
Naturalist
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 321
|
|
The quality of zooms are so much better these days...
Primes still beats zooms by a longshot in my opinion, the primes these days, they blow me away...
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:22 PM.
|
|