Comparing two lenses.

[daveh]

Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3 and Canon 70-200 f4 L.

The Sigma lens can look pin sharp, but....

Sigma 18-200, at 28mm, ISO 400, 1/50 f4.5, grandson Daniel just a year old:


Launching the new RNLI lifeboat, Sennen Cove, Cornwall 24/04/2010:
Sigma 18-200, at 200mm, ISO 160, 1/320 f6.3- full frame


Canon 70-200, at 200mm, ISO 125, 1/250 f4

Sigma

Canon


Note: Although both taken at a stated 200mm, the Sigma has a greater angle of view. The Sigma is much less sharp, and exhibits red/green colour fringing. (As it is a RAW file I would be able to remove most of the colour fringing in the software.) This is not exactly a scientific test, but it does illustrate why the Canon lens is twice the price of the Sigma and/or that the zoom range of the Sigma 18/200 is larger than its optical system can properly cope with.

[Deleted]

The "super zooms" like the 18-200 seem to suffer most at the telephoto end--the same with my Nikkor 18-200. That's the price one pays for a lens that is supposed to be all things at once. My 18-200 is OK but my 18-70mm Nikkor is sharper at all settings and cost a lot less. I'm not sure your photos demonstrate why the Canon lens is twice the price as much as they show the tradeoff inherit in a one-zoom-covers-all lens.

W.

[herron]

I have a Sigma super zoom that I use on my Canon dSLR (don't tell my Mamiya film cameras ... they think they're alone here) ... and I know it's not as sharp as the Canon lens.

I'm sorry to say that price forced me to consider how much I valued that extra sharpness.

[daveh]

Yes, the price of the L series lenses is too high for average use.

I did have the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM (still do actually) but it wasn't really coping with photographing rugby that well for several reasons. In the UK this lens costs £400 now, while the 70-200 f4 L is £500. I already had a 1.4 extender, which I had bought reasonably cheap a year before I had a use for it. The 70-200 IS lens is £1,400 in f2.8 form.

I would like a 300mm prime lens. The f4 L is almost affordable at just over £1,000: the f2.8 L is nearly £4,000 - so I certainly won't be buying one of those.

[vintageslrs]

Dave

I see what you mean--the portrait is sharp as all heck...but the others leave a bit to be desired. I think Wayne hit the nail on the head when he said "That's the price one pays for a lens that is supposed to be all things at once."

Bob

[PeterW]

Dave,

Have you thought about the Russian Tair 300 prime lens from the Photosniper? They're not all that expensive on ebay. It's M42 fit but you should be able to get an adapter.

I haven't used mine on a DSLR but I used it with an adapter on my Canon F1 and got some very sharp pictures.

PeterW

[daveh]

Peter, the trouble is I have become lazy and want a lens that comes with auto focus. The benefit of the Canon L lenses is that they focus significantly faster than anything else around.: a definite benefit for rugby photography

I looked the Tair up. Only then did I remember that it was the photosniper outfit that was advertised a few years back.

[herron]

Jun 1, 2010 7:41:01 GMT -5 PeterW said:

Dave,

Have you thought about the Russian Tair 300 prime lens from the Photosniper? They're not all that expensive on ebay. It's M42 fit but you should be able to get an adapter.

I haven't used mine on a DSLR but I used it with an adapter on my Canon F1 and got some very sharp pictures.

PeterW

I've also used some of my Russian lenses on my Canon dSLR ... a lot of my Mamiya lenses, too. Lot's of fun!

[photax]

Peter,

A great idea to use the Tair 4.5/300 on a DSLR ( have two of the snipers ). If i find an adapter...

MIK